Many governments, especially those in the East, have adopted the viewpoint that periodic wars are necessary for the stability of the society. This viewpoint primarily arises from social instability caused by too many young adult males in the state coupled with the issues that occur when there is insufficient food available to the population. In turn, many wars have been fought specifically for this reason. (I am most familiar with this being a common theme in China, as they have observed over the centuries the one thing that will create rebellions are famines.)
Following World War 2, the Western ruling elite came to a consensus that the war approach was no longer tenable due to the extreme collateral infrastructure and environmental damage modern weaponry (ie. nukes) created. There are only two exceptions to this rule:
Wars in third-world countries lacking modern weaponry, where collateral damage was inconsequential to first-world countries.
Talks that occurred within the Chinese military leadership, but have so far not materialized, over starting a war with India so both countries could mutually alleviate their challenging population burden. For context, China has attempted population control with their “one-child” policy, but it has been met with mixed success and widespread social resistance.
The alternative to war is a multipronged attack that seeks every possible avenue to reduce fertility and accelerate aging, which many argue is the more humane option of the two. One of the curious facts I have observed over the decades is how frequently an odd policy or environmental agent always seems to converge on the common pathway of reducing population. Once or twice, you can write it up as a coincidence, but at a certain point, you have to wonder if it is all intentional. https://amidwesterndoctor.subs....tack.com/p/the-histo
