Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons? In case your question is serious: There are still some of us who believe in peace as an end-goal for us humans, as a race. See Kant's "Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophic... ) for a more detailed view on the subject. "Working with the military or developing weapons" are two activ…
The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To "preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the peace of the home population, and may take action el…
You mean exactly like US Military did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria due to "terrorism" and in various Central/South American countries due to "communism"? Bush specifically supported US "bringing" (his words) peace and democracy to the Middle East.
This is not even the point. You're just reasoning very poorly. You found one "good" aspect of massive armies and then showed it as evidence of their non-evilness. But if you think more, you can see that massive armies can easily do bad to the world. The fact that they haven't done yet (which, they did) does not change this fact. If tomorrow US turns into the Fire Nation, you cannot stop it, I cannot stop it, no one can.