Specifically, the resentment of those defeated in one war can be channelled into a permanent hostility, demanding military retaliation. More widely, in view of the spread of 'purposeless' armed violence, some commentators see a continuum from inner-city violence to Rwanda. My view is that mass violence is rarely initiated spontaneously. If it is not a reaction to provocation, it is prepared by hate-speak or by imagery that divorces violence from its consequences. It is structured - people lose their self in a group identity beyond personal control.
Militarisation concedes power and influence to arms traders.
Between states, the arms trade is a shadowy world, often associated with bribery, corruption and espionage. Militarisation spreads the possession of small arms beyond social control - not only increasing risks of crazed mass killings, but the general likelihood of incidents escalating into armed violence. Militarisation subordinates civil rights to military needs. The decision to use force makes paramount the success of a military operation. This may lead to the formal suspension of certain civil rights and for security operations that contradict the declared codes.