Illusion of defense supremacy?

 Across the globe, defense spending has continued to rise, in many cases outpacing investments in essential sectors such as health and education. This trend is often justified by governments under the premise of national security and safeguarding citizens. This increased investment is fueling rapid advancements and diversification in defense technologies.

The nature of modern warfare has fundamentally shifted from traditional combat to high-tech engagement, where possessing advanced military technology provides a decisive advantage. This has created an economic incentive for technologically advanced nations to develop and sell these sophisticated defense products to other countries. This dynamic raises concerns about the potential for market forces and fear-based narratives to influence defense policy.

Historically, warfare has been a persistent feature of human civilization. The modern era, however, is marked by a paradox: advanced lethal technologies, some with the capacity for catastrophic damage to civilization, are developed under the pretense of preserving peace and deterring conflict.

This analysis addresses two critical questions concerning the current human condition: 1) Is human safety assured in the modern environment? and 2) Does lasting peace exist? While the text posits a negative answer to both, the underlying rationale deserves detailed examination.

The predictability of individual survival has become increasingly tenuous due to a convergence of multiple threats. These hazards are not limited to conventional dangers but now include emergent issues such as novel diseases, road accidents, and warfare. A less commonly considered but significant threat stems from the proliferation of satellite debris, which could lead to life-threatening events upon atmospheric re-entry.

Furthermore, the notion of peace appears increasingly transient. Global stability is subject to constant interruption by conflict, with the potential for war ever-present. In this context, the argument that military power can establish lasting peace is a flawed premise. A military-enforced peace is, by its nature, unstable; a weaker party will inevitably seek to achieve parity and overturn the power dynamic when an opportunity arises.

The motivations of global leaders, when examined through this lens, are open to critique. The defense of national security is often framed as a means of protecting national interests. However, a more critical perspective suggests that these actions are not rooted in a commitment to global humanity, but rather in the political interests of specific factions or support bases. This is where the fault line in nationalism lies, as the vision of a nationalist confined to a specific geographical boundary has historically led to wars. Another side effect of such an arrangement is that it encourages hero worship, which is not healthy for a democratic setup. A broader, more inclusive perspective is needed—one that recognizes the collective fate of humanity on a single planet. That's why universal humanism is a better idea than nationalism. 

Ultimately, the control of mankind's fate by leaders with limited, partisan viewpoints is an illusion. As a species, our understanding of the fundamental principles of the universe remains incomplete. The true threat may emerge from interstellar space, a domain of the universe that is not yet fully understood. Consequently, leaders who claim to control humanity's destiny are perpetuating an illusion, as the public lacks a foundational understanding of cosmic existence.

Given these monumental unknowns, a more pragmatic and beneficial approach would be to shift global priorities toward education and health for all life on Earth.