A very controversial title, but read on to understand. I am giving here both sides of the issues.

Most countries have so called defence departments. But in some of those countries the defence department does alot of attacking. It therefor should be renamed "attack department". Better yet, it would be good for countries to have both an attack department and a separate defence department. The population could then decide which department to fund with how much money and that would likely leave the attack departments with not enough funds to go attacking other countries.

War, throughout the history of mankind, has been a personal disaster for individuals, but strangely enough, it has been one of the two most important factors in improving the long term standard of living for the populations that were subject to the wars. The strange fact is that the vanquished populations often benefited more than the victorious ones. But always individuals on all sides of a conflict suffered great losses while all sides, seen as entire populations, made signifficant longterm economic progress with the victors often making the least progress. So there seems to be economic advantage to having the greatest demand on the economy which usually happens to the vanquished (see www.UniversalDemandLaw.com )

The other very important factor in standard of living improvement is commerce, which in a way, is a type of warfare. Commercial warfare is often the cause of armed conflict. The other causes of armed conflict are religion and ideological beliefs. 

The most economically developed areas on Earth
Free enterprise/capitalism has created the most prosperous economies. A vital ingredient for free enterprise is human greed (see www.GiveGREEDaChance.com). Greed creates economic strife. The areas on Earth that have been subject to the most frequent and severe economic warfare and to armed conflict as a result of economic, religious and ideological disputes, have benefitted most in terms of standard of living improvement. The improvements can only be realized if the periods of peace between the wars are of sufficient length to allow for complete recovery and to allow for the additional gains that result during the recovery periods. 

Is war desirable or is it a necessary evil ?
For most people war is neither desirable nor necessary. Most people will gladly surrender some trade advantages or some form of freedom in order to prevent war. Peace is their ideal and they are eager to pay a high price to prevent war and maintain peace. Little do they realize that by their love for peace they are losing a war that is an ever ongoing process, namely the drive in all living species of the survival of the fittest. The winning of that war of the survival of the fittest seems to be our natural duty to ourselves as individuals and as groups, indeed our duty to the whole human species. War is the ultimate tool of the natural selection process that our genetic makeup has burdened us with. Wars are caused by commercial, religious or ideological strife. It is a cruel system we are naturally tied into. But to ignore that fact and not wishing to be involved in that war of survival, means to succumb to it. The smatest thing in government is to create economic strife without it having to escalate into physical war. An ever ongoing strife between religions is also a form of warfare and the smartest thing is to keep that strife on a local basis and not to combine into large alliances of religions of the same stripe such as all of Christianity banding together and all brands of Muslim religions banding together. Because that way the strife becomes trans national and creates much larger potential for Worldwar III.

War AND Peace, not War OR Peace
The one does not exist without the other. Peace is as much a part of war as war is a part of Peace. Peace is equaly as important as war in the process of improving technology for the progress of economics. The periods of peace need to be long enough to permit the total reconstruction of a war torn and destroyed area. The periods of peace must be longer than the periods of war because it takes a lot more time to rebuild than it takes to destroy. The reality is that we have no choice between war and peace. War is an ever ongoing process that is driven by the struggle of the survival of the fittest. That struggle in turn is governed by my law of nature www.UniversalDemandLaw.com . This apparently unassailable law of mine dictates, that being subjected to a demand is the only way for any living species to strengthen and thereby prevail and become the fittest for survival. Withdrawing from or avoiding the struggle to survive causes deterioration and weakening of the individual or group or the species as a whole.

Agreeing to disagree is a temporary peace
To be at war on a continnuous basis is not desirable for optimum progress. War may produce often signifficant technological progress that can be taken advantage of after wars to put it to peaceful uses, but on balance such technological progress could be made in peacetime as well. The most important function of war is the demand it places on a whole economy and thereby gives it the heavy destructive demand and wounds from which it can repair and emerge stronger after reconstruction. To give peace the longer period it needs to do full reconstruction and the standard of living progress that typically result after wars it can be advantageoud to avoid war for as long as possible, but not at the price of concessions. A very good method is www.AgreeingToDisagree.com .

The best form of warfare is econmic warfare as long as it can be kept from spilling over into violent conflict
Economic warfare is a constant feature within countries that practice free enterprise. Businesses in a constant struggle with their direct competitors and with all other businesses as well to constantly get a larger slice of the total economy inside their home economies. The struggle for raw materials and foreign markets carries these struggles accross borders and toward international conflict. All of these struggles are a form of warfare and they serve the same beneficil purpose of the www.UniversalDemandLaw.com . As long as the wars can be fought in the economic arena the physical destruction can be kept at a minimum. The problem is that at all levels of government there are forces that aim to limit competition by international agreements and laws and agreements that give more power to large monopolies or powerful special interests.

As time permits, I will identify some of the wrong legislation that is decreasing economic competion and thereby is limiting the possibility for economic war making and thereby increases the possibility for physical war or social internal warfare between the different economic divisions of population groups within a country.

One such factors that facilitate physical and desrtuctive warmaking is the existence of a central banking system that can easily provide the needed funds for the costly business of war by inflating the currency with the simple printing of money or the printing of bonds or other forms of currency manipulation that puts the country into an economic tailspin (not a bad thing for thr UniversalDemandLaw.com either, because with the economic suffering by the total economy and the total population the demand that is placed on the economy and the population will eventually result in improvement to a level of economic wellbeing greater than the previous high which of course could have been reached easier with non-violent free enterprise economic warmaking).