[westpfelia]

might as well use it then right? I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe. I mean we would still need to use the military equipment on the people. Anything else but absolute control over everyone would be suicidally naive.

Right?

[selivanovp]

Wrong.

1 country in the world won't make you safe from wars. There's a reason why military was and is separated from police. Just think what's going to happen when your soldiers start to kill citizens.

1 country in the world tend to degrade to dystopian regime, and it was researched by multiple books authors, and actually a modern day USA is a good example of a regime on the path to dystopia.

[usrusr]

You seem to greatly underestimate how much of the fighting Roman legions did was against other Roman legions.

[benterix]

> I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe.

This is the logic behind the old-style Jihad. Also the Chinese emperors used the same argument when conquering smaller kingdoms.

Unfortunately, what happens in practice is that even in one Islamic country Sunni vs Shia terrorists attacks happen. And in the case of China, the price you pay for superficial peace are Uighur concentration camps, Tibetan self-immolations and so on.

[kubbelz]

You then have that option, yes. Usually it's not worth it - even the "winners" of a war suffer massive short-term loss of soldiers and resources, and create long-term enemies - but it's a nice option to have.