You think having a government offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?
If anything, it makes wars and invasions more appealing - if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.
If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance. There are no major military targets, no leaders to assassinate, no positions of power to leverage. They would need to keep boots on the ground to maintain power. And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces - there would be very little hope for holding such territory, and as soon as the occupying force left, anarchy, and therefore peace and order, could once again be restored.
If we don’t have a government, Russia or China will give us one.
You think having a government offers any form of protection against aggressive militarism?
If anything, it makes wars and invasions more appealing - if the infrastructure of control and oppression, the police, the military, the courts, etc. are all there, all they need to do is seize those levers of power.
If that infrastructure does not exist and a population is hostile to your attempts to impose it, you would effectively stand no chance against a determined resistance. There are no major military targets, no leaders to assassinate, no positions of power to leverage. They would need to keep boots on the ground to maintain power. And those soldiers, while constantly stationed in hostile territory, can’t do anything else and would constantly find themselves under attack by decentralized militia forces - there would be very little hope for holding such territory, and as soon as the occupying force left, anarchy, and therefore peace and order, could once again be restored.