This has always been a difficult concept for me given that we have decided to maintain a very large standing army since WWII. Where is the line really drawn between being prepared for imminent war and being at peace?
Si vis pacem, para bellum. This long period of global peace wouldn't be possible without the mutually assured destruction of nuclear conflict and the certainty that no other nation-state could challenge the hegemon and it's allies in conventional warfare.
This has always been a difficult concept for me given that we have decided to maintain a very large standing army since WWII. Where is the line really drawn between being prepared for imminent war and being at peace?