[pmoriarty]

"maybe 99.99% of world population wouldn't harm another person"

I think they would... especially in self-defense, in defense of someone they cared about, and plenty would do so for ideals like "freedom", "country" or "democracy"... and if they wouldn't most would be perfectly happy to let others do it for them.

That's why the military and police exist, and why most people are perfectly happy to fund and support them. It's also why wars have so many participants and supporters.

Politicians can further rile people up to commit violence against scapegoats and even preemptively against distant potential threats. It's not so difficult for them to get a lot of people to commit violence against a historical, cultural, political, religious, or ethnic enemy.

[Loquebantur]

This is a category error.

Even if you subscribe to the idea of violence being justified in specific cases, there is no reason in the idea "kill everybody including yourself".

People arguing in favor of doomsday-weapons fail to recognize, the supposedly addressed problem not having a solution in the domain of violence means you have to look elsewhere.

[tekknik]

Humans are built with a solution to violence, along with every other animal on the planet. Actively seeking violence and defending yourself are very different thinks and since this is instinctual, I find it very implausible you can convince all 7 billion of us to not fight each other. This is why you end up with violence as a deterrent.