Advocates of a strong military as a deterrent like to cite the fact that Hitler's Germany used its awesome military prowess to seize and browbeat weaker nations and impose its brutal system widely.  Most of us felt that American military response was essential to counter the Nazi threat. 

But many historians argue that the rise of Nazism might never have occurred had Germany not been treated so harshly - - in effect, humiliated and disempowered - - in the Treaty of Versailles.  In an enlightened reversal of that counter-productive policy we launched the Marshall Plan following the German defeat in 1945, and rebuilt Germany and much of Europe.  The result was a strong and democratic Germany, committed to building the European Union and maintaining peace in Europe.

And take the example of Japan after its defeat in WWII, when the US helped it rebuild and develop a democratic system.  Japan has been the economic powerhouse of Asia, has contributed generously to solving world problems, and has not been threatened militarily in any way despite its having virtually no military capability.

A more thorough study of history reveals abundant evidence that the principal reason states resort to war is that they feel threatened by the military of their competitors.  This certainly was a powerful factor in the long cold war between the US and the USSR, each of which saw every increase in military power by the other as a reason to devote greater effort to increasing its own military power.  Fortunately the mutual recognition of the terrible danger of nuclear annihilation introduced a leavening influence which fostered military restraint and periodic talks between the adversaries and nurtured competition through economic and political means instead of miltary confrontation.

When the threat of an adversary's military is absent, there appears to be far greater interest in talking and seeking peaceful solutions to disputes.  

This leads me to conclude that we ought to work for military reduction to the greatest extent possible, simultaneously adding a sustained effort to resolve disputes through negotiation and compromise.  This is psychologically and sociologically sound.  With nuclear weapons, terrorism, biological warfare, and other such drastic threats - - all potentially leading to holocosts for humanity - - so much a part of the modern world, it is high time we begin seriously exploring peaceful, non-violent aproaches to differences between nations.  Much evidence says it can work, and continued reliance on military preparedness poses dangers that are infinitely greater than in simpler times.