Militarist Humanism does not argue that more weapons automatically create more peace.

It argues something more uncomfortable:

Human rights only survive if someone is capable of defending them.

A constitution can promise freedom.
A society can reject violence.
A culture can value compassion.

But if none of them can resist coercion, those principles ultimately depend on the goodwill of whoever possesses greater power.

That does not mean worshipping military force.

It means building strength across society , defense, science, technology, resilient institutions, critical thinking, economic capacity, cyber security and disciplined citizens — while placing that strength under law and human dignity.

The objective is neither weakness nor domination.

It is a society capable of saying:

We seek peace because we value humanity , not because we are incapable of resisting those who do not.

Where do you think the line lies between necessary strength and the beginning of militarism?