> in the interest of ending the conflict
Try reading a History book. It might dissolve your rosy picture of what you're assuming are the reasons your country goes to war.
Try reading a History book. It might dissolve your rosy picture of what you're assuming are the reasons your country goes to war.
Rather, we simply don’t know of any viable alternate to the existence of defensive militaries, right now: So long as human aggression exists, those unable or unwilling to defend themselves against forceful attacks will inevitably be stomped out of existence.
This is why to sustain a peace-loving society, that society need to be capable of exerting physical force defensively if need be, even if that capability is never actually used (in fact, to have the capability but never use it is the ideal goal).
Pure pacifism only exists in a bubble of ignorance to the existence of the military and police that are already there defending it, or by pure chance that no aggressor has yet stomped over it. As such, it’s certainly not real pacifism, unless you also make sure to move to a part of the world where there’s no police or military defense forces. These are hard to find, because where and when they exist, they do not exist for very long except for extreme good luck (like geographic isolation).
Maybe some day, humanity’s groups will figure out a better solution to aggressive behavior than everyone holding metaphorical guns to each other’s heads, but it doesn’t look like we’re anywhere near there yet. Remember — all it takes is one aggressor to stomp all over a world of pacifists, so local solutions here do not work, or if they appear to work, it will only be momentary.
The comment you replied to didn't say that anyone claimed that, either.
> that society need to be capable of exerting physical force defensively if need be, even if that capability is never actually used
I agree, but that that is nowhere near the case is the problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...