@TarbuckTransom Right now, there are at least 4 countries all ravenous for violence (America, Russia, China, Isreal), but even if there weren't, our current political situation demonstrates that a certain percentage of the population is inherently violent. As we have seen, cartoonishly evil people objectively exist. This is entirely compatible with believing that most people are good - a few evil people can cause immense damage.

Technology makes this situation worse, not better, because it's an indiscriminate force multiplier, and almost impossible to contain. Even if everyone on earth magically became pacifists for a generation, it only takes a single country sliding back into violent authoritarianism for them to start invading all of their neighbors, who would all be defenseless. Automated drone warfare makes having a numbers advantage worthless unless it's backed by guns.

The game theoretic strategy here must be to maintain a (small) military that can be scaled up if necessary.

I'm not against the ability to defend your society and such, but I do question the model used to do it. A stronger military doesn't tend to make you *less* authoritarian.

Also, the "or you die" makes it sound like being conquered is to go extinct, which isn't usually the case. The ones under direct threat tend to be the government, and I am not the government.

@TarbuckTransom Um, citation needed? Do you think the tens of thousands of children murdered in cold blood in Gaza were part of the government? Are we just ignoring the estimated 200,000+ violent civilian deaths that happened during the Iraq war? Given a population of 26 million in 2003, that was nearly 0.1% of the entire population. That's 1 in 1500 people dead. Almost every war fought in the past 30 years has been catastrophic for the civilian population of the losing country.

We don't have "civilized" wars anymore, because globalization means rational leaders will fight with economic sanctions and trade deals. Any war involving tanks and missiles is going to be an ideological war fought against genocidal maniacs, like Israel, who want to kill everyone, not just "the government".

Even if you don't actually die, your culture, your way of life, and everything you care about will be utterly destroyed, at which point your country has, in fact, "died", because it no longer exists.

Genocide by the fascist ethnostate is your go-to because it's recent and high-profile, not because it's representative. Your other example is a destabilization mission by the evil empire that backs them, but even in your citation 0.1% is a far cry from 100% which is quite an exaggeration.

Anyway, address the main point: do you sincerely believe that strengthening the military as we recognize it aligns with the goal of being less authoritarian?