But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?

> But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"?

You are an individual and can only do one thing at a time. You can choose what you do with coin flips if you want, but I try to judge things.

> Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?

It is necessary, but not sufficient. Other things are also necessary.

> But why would a country have to be "better" or "worse"? Why consider anything else besides stockpiling weapons, after all it's the key to peace, right?

It doesn't. Realist game theory ignores issues like morality. Unfortunately this forum is primarily liberal, in both the classical sense and the international relations sense, so you are going to be heavily down voted for questioning the status quo.

I don't think they are questioning the status quo tho. They are essentially asking "why be motivated by anything at all". Inevitably, you work in support of an economy, and therefore a nation, so at some point you have to choose which.

Because every action, including ones that are otherwise good, have a larger context in which we have to judge them?