Countries ought to defend themselves from their adversaries
According to this view, one of the curious things is that instead of peace-building nations, most of them depend on defending themselves from their neighbors. Peace is a phenomenon that can be accomplished even among countries that appear to be future attackers. In particular, countries should work on ensuring that there is a certain degree of fraternity with their neighbors in order to avoid some sort of enmity. If people believe in this view, they will notice that the world is controlled by rivalry among nations. Although most decisions taken by world leaders appear to be genuine, in most cases, these persons engage in such practices for the sake of enriching their individual countries.
When this perspective is evaluated from the geopolitics point of view, then it is valid since every nation has the right to be secure from its prospective enemies. Essentially, most countries have self-interests that could lead to enmity; hence, they should attack their neighbors who pose a threat.
Countries have to ensure that the security of its citizens is prioritized
An interesting aspect of this reason is that sometimes the lives of other individuals could be valuable than that of another. Life cannot be graded along the parameter of who is least or most significant. However, everyone’s life is sacred; therefore, it is unreasonable for one nation to kill citizens from another country with the pretext of protecting its own.
From another perspective, this could be true because it is also not appropriate to always possess intentions of causing harm to persons of another country that are yet to display any form of enmity.
Considerably, this argument is insightful as it shows that in some cases lives could be graded. In most cases, it is possible to find that leaders are spared from some issues because of their societal status. For example, the ramifications of an earthquake cannot be the same to both rich and the have-nots.
Nations need to ensure that its borders are secure from prospective adversaries
Reflectively, it is unreasonable for one to assert that they are safeguarding their borders when the planet is a single entity. For one to demarcate an area and classify it, there is the need to demonstrate that country A and B exist on separate planets.
Countries would use this notion to validate their offensiveness because they have resources to protect. In most cases, every nation has some wealth that it needs to ensure that it uses to provide services to its population. Therefore, in the event of an attack, it becomes reasonable for one to safeguard their interests.
From this argument, one realizes that most of the conflicts are concerned with resources rather than ideologies. Commonly, most nations will be hesitant to launch attacks because of the need to entrench respect to human rights.
Elbow, P. (2006). The believing game and how to make conflicting opinions more fruitful. Nurturing the Peacemakers in Our Students: A Guide to Teaching Peace, Empathy, and Understanding, 16-25.