War is inevitable in case when government expands too quickly

We all know that government lives at the expense of economy, as every member of the government earns money through taking away money from population.

However, that is a small amount of money compared to government budget and programs.

Here is what we know so far:

1. Every government is rapidly expanding its budget, increasing the budget size rapidly.

2. Budget is a money taken away from the economy, from the population.

Thus, with rapid increase in budget, population will remain equally rich only if economy grows as fast as budget.

But what happens if budget grows faster than the economy?

What happens is that people become more poor.

Of course, some argue that the government's budget adds to economy, but practically, thats not true, since government programs lack "profit driven mode of work", that is, they lack ability to be cost effective.

For example, US spending trillions on healthcare does not add much to US production of items used by general population, but it even adds to the decrease, as it increases healthcare prooduction at the cost of item production, and more people work in healthcare, but less in item production.

Also, due to lack of profit driven mode of work, government healthcare can never be a buisness which earns more than it spends, that produces more than it spends.

To put it simply, government healthcare spends trillions of dollars, but does not create products that have trillions of dollars of value.

It merely creates healthcare services, which by their nature arent worth creating, as basic life items such as housing, clothes, money for raising children and for education, take priority over any kind of healthcare, as much more people are in need of those rather than in need of healthcare.

Thus, we see two facts:

1. Government's budget grows rapidly.

2. Government's budget takes from economy more than it gives to economy.

The only logical conclusion is that, unless economy grows rapidly as well, budget growth will surpass economy's growth and will cause harm to people's wealth.

Thus, that would create more and more unstable situation in the country which could result in war, since the way to quickly reduce government expenses is to go to war.

The alternative is to reduce government's expenses, thus reduce government's budget.

But no government is working to reduce its budget, which is a reason to worry.

Wars are extremely expensive to fight. Unless you mean people will die fighting, so there will be fewer mouths to feed. But everyone who fights is someone who needs to be fed during the war and can't produce food.

Its obvious, but yeah, the result of a war is that people die.

Maybe small wars are insignificant in this sense, but a total war usually results in three things:

1. Lots of population dying

2. Population lowering their needs

3. Destruction of useless programs, such as healthcare, which usually cannot be easily abolished in peace time.

While during peace time, population gets very upset easily with any shortages, during war, population simply stops complaining and adapts to very difficult circumstances.

Also, while its true that every soldier is another mouth to feed, its also true that every soldier is a non-consumer in other ways, as he stops consuming many items he would consume during peace, and so does the rest of the population.

though i do agree that war may be inevitable in the face of power, I believe that it is never deep enough to go to war and sacrifice  innocent peoples life's because some one didn't give you something or they hurt you. though I do understand that acts of great impacts that can negatively effect peoples life's may lead to  anger and the want of greater revenge , if the leader is unable to separate their personal feelings from their decisions for the ultimate outcome, they should not be the leader of a country as they are not only sacrificing themselves but their friends, family, and everyone who ever had any association with the country. though it is easier to shoot from the side than actually make a decision in the moment, if the country leader believes that they have to use murder to gain anything of any possession , they shouldn't be the ones in the decision making chair.

I am not a great fan of wars, I just like some aspects of it, like military strategy which is much more interesting than chess strategies.