The future of humanity: Imperium vs Coalition (RAR!)

[Purple]

What exactly is the Coalition's response to Neuro-Reprogrammed persons they liberate?

Good question. Ideally, they would use a similar technique to undo what the imperium did. However, without an exact change log, that might be difficult since they would just be approximating the original personality.

And what if the "new" person does not want the process reversed? That is certainly a plausible situation.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd treat the brainwashing victims the same as everyone else; if they can come to terms with the collapse of the violent, racist, brutally conquering government they used to live under, great. If not, well, de-nazification can be an ugly process.

Also, if I were the Imperium I wouldn't reprogram people to fight violently for the imperial cause. Too dangerous; what if at some future time a civil war breaks out between different factions claiming to represent the Imperium 'properly?' All the reprogramming victims would turn into fanatical soldiers of one side or the other... and a lot of them would be against me.

[Borgholio]

What exactly is the Coalition's response to Neuro-Reprogrammed persons they liberate?

Good question. Ideally, they would use a similar technique to undo what the imperium did. However, without an exact change log, that might be difficult since they would just be approximating the original personality.

And what if the "new" person does not want the process reversed? That is certainly a plausible situation.

Then you have to decide which personality has the greater right to that body...the original one or the fake reprogrammed one. I would say the former, but it would still be an ugly choice to make since both cannot inhabit the same body at the same time.

[SilverDragonRed]

What exactly is the Coalition's response to Neuro-Reprogrammed persons they liberate?

Good question. Ideally, they would use a similar technique to undo what the imperium did. However, without an exact change log, that might be difficult since they would just be approximating the original personality.

And what if the "new" person does not want the process reversed? That is certainly a plausible situation.

Would the CFS try to reverse the reprogramming considering their resolution to not delve into the subject?

Zor,
I re-read the OP and had the feeling that I've read a similar situation in a book before. Was this inspired by The Mote in God's Eye written by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle? Or are the similarties just coincidence?

[Simon_Jester]

...What similarities?

[Titan Uranus]

I'd treat the brainwashing victims the same as everyone else; if they can come to terms with the collapse of the violent, racist, brutally conquering government they used to live under, great. If not, well, de-nazification can be an ugly process.

Also, if I were the Imperium I wouldn't reprogram people to fight violently for the imperial cause. Too dangerous; what if at some future time a civil war breaks out between different factions claiming to represent the Imperium 'properly?' All the reprogramming victims would turn into fanatical soldiers of one side or the other... and a lot of them would be against me.

Why would the brainwashed men be loyal to the Empire? Why wouldn't you make them loyal to you, personally and to your designated successors onto the nth generation?


Also, I must admit, I am somewhat confused as to the point of this moral quandary, on the one had you have a group that is the personification of evil, while on the other hand you have a group that uses some arguably mildly immoral means to fight them.

What is the moral quandary here exactly?

[Zor]

I'd treat the brainwashing victims the same as everyone else; if they can come to terms with the collapse of the violent, racist, brutally conquering government they used to live under, great. If not, well, de-nazification can be an ugly process.

Also, if I were the Imperium I wouldn't reprogram people to fight violently for the imperial cause. Too dangerous; what if at some future time a civil war breaks out between different factions claiming to represent the Imperium 'properly?' All the reprogramming victims would turn into fanatical soldiers of one side or the other... and a lot of them would be against me.

Why would the brainwashed men be loyal to the Empire? Why wouldn't you make them loyal to you, personally and to your designated successors onto the nth generation?

Because that's dangerous to the security of the empire and not how the Imperium works. The Imperial Government is led by elected figures, not a monarchy. Those individuals who are convicted of crimes which warrant reprogramming are reprogrammed in a manner which does not associate strong loyalty to any one individual. To do so would only cause problems down the line. All the Imperium's political parties view allowing people to reprogram individuals to be their devout followers rather than loyal to the Imperium in general and measures are put into place to prevent this from happening.

Also, I must admit, I am somewhat confused as to the point of this moral quandary, on the one had you have a group that is the personification of evil, while on the other hand you have a group that uses some arguably mildly immoral means to fight them.

What is the moral quandary here exactly?

The Imperium is concerned with the creation of a unified government for all humanity after human society fractured into a large number of factions, many of which were at each others throats and uses some rather heavy handed means to do so. The coalition is an alliance of said factions united against the Imperium. If the Imperium wins, it will destroy every theocracy, military dictatorship, plutocracy, absolute monarchy and similar it comes across, rebuild said states into parts of it's democratic state and maintain peace and order by the virtue that it has no rivals and has authority over all humanity. If the Coalition wins, it will break apart into small states afterwards. Small states which will begin fighting with each other again.

Zor

[Simon_Jester]

Except that after having fought violent campaigns to force the submission of all humans, it seems very unlikely that the victorious generals and their military establishment will quietly submit to the normal democratic processes of the state.

That's the thing about living in a country where the use of violence and brainwashing by one set of your citizens to secure the loyalty of a second set is normal. Even if you're part of a separate third set... are you really safe?

[madd0ct0r]

You know, all of that (bar the brainwashing*) would apply equally to the coalition too? Why is an expansionist democratic empire so unbelievable?



*and even then you've said 'denazification is an ugly process'

[Darkevilme]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing the imperium contains simultaneously the notions 'democratic state' and 'dissenters will be mind controlled'? It's like that bit where liberty prime declares freedom is non negotiable, except not satire.

[Purple]

Am I the only one who finds it amusing the imperium contains simultaneously the notions 'democratic state' and 'dissenters will be mind controlled'? It's like that bit where liberty prime declares freedom is non negotiable, except not satire.

Amusing but aside from the means perfectly normal. A functioning democracy by definition of being a functional society still has to criminalize acts against the state or system. Think of it this way. You have a democratic society where everyone gets a vote and the system functions. But no one is allowed to try and make the system not function. If you dislike what the leaders are doing vote for the other guys next time. Don't set off car bombs in front of a police station.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, Purple, but the Imperium isn't just punishing people for committing crimes against it.

It's deliberately seeking out foreigners, demanding their submission, and mind-controlling them if they don't offer it up.

In short, the Imperium believes that people can be "free," but only if they swear unconditional loyalty to it. People who do not thus swear have NO rights, not even the right to be recognized as a legitimate nation-state, or the right to control their own thoughts. Refusal to submit to them is a crime.

I don't think it makes sense to talk about a 'free country' where there is no option for citizens to opt out by leaving entirely.

You know, all of that (bar the brainwashing*) would apply equally to the coalition too? Why is an expansionist democratic empire so unbelievable?

Two reasons:

1) The Coalition lacks the centralized apparatus of oppression, or at least lacks one that can exist without the consent of the supermajority of its member states. It is thus far more likely to demobilize its apparatus of oppression after the war.

2) Think about what it implies that the Imperium has democratically proceeded to agree on a policy of endless total conquest, decade after decade. That is not the act of a sociologically healthy electorate. If its population is so ready to demand the submission of foreigners and endorse brutalization of foreign peoples, is it really likely that they will all suddenly turn around and be nice to each other after the war?

The only societies I can think of where massive campaigns of conquest by total warfare enjoyed broad popular support were fascist ones. So it is not encouraging that the "Unified Imperium" has a democratic government. Either the democracy is not performing as advertised, or the population is so uniformly aggressive and warlike and prepared to tyrannize others that they will almost certainly support measures to tyrannize themselves at some later date.

[madd0ct0r]

1) the coalition should really be centralized if they want a hope of winning this war. Why is a supermajority of states a good enough safegaurd when a majority of votes isn't?

2) It implies to me the classic empire problem. You have a border. People are raiding or attacking over the border (coalition attacked first remember). You march over the border, and take that land. You now have a new border. People are raiding or attacking over the border. People in the empire aren't voting for 'total conquest', they're voting for the status quo, and that's much more powerful

[Simon_Jester]

1) the coalition should really be centralized if they want a hope of winning this war. Why is a supermajority of states a good enough safegaurd when a majority of votes isn't?

It's not that the Coalition has no centralized command, as far as I can tell. It's that the member nations have the power/right to withdraw their individual contributions.

As long as the war against the Imperium goes on this doesn't matter, because the war is popular and support is widespread. But if the Coalition turns on itself after the war, it will start rapidly shedding member systems- those actively targeted for oppression, and those who have no particular interest in the oppression.

Now, a nation-state in which policy is set by votes remains the same country no matter what the outcome of the vote is. If 55% of the population supports the idea of attacking the other 45%, then in theory the full resources of the state can be brought to bear on the minority.

But a confederacy like the Coalition is a little different, because its strength increases or decreases proportionate to the number of members. If 55% of the Coalition worlds want to hold on after the war and become a new Imperium, they will have to do so with only 55% of the Coalition's strength, because the other 45% is going to leave. That rapid loss of strength is enough to give a would-be conqueror pause.

Therefore, there is no central organization in the Coalition which can be used for oppression on a large scale- because in the event of such oppression, negative feedback kicks in and the Coalition grows rapidly weaker.

2) It implies to me the classic empire problem. You have a border. People are raiding or attacking over the border (coalition attacked first remember). You march over the border, and take that land. You now have a new border. People are raiding or attacking over the border. People in the empire aren't voting for 'total conquest', they're voting for the status quo, and that's much more powerful

The Imperium had an ideological hard-on for conquest before the Coalition existed, and indeed it was their conquering that inspired the Coalition to come into being:

"However, the rise of the Imperium got people concerned. In 610, after the Unified Imperium had tripled in size, two hundred established non Imperial powers gathered together and formed the Coalition of Free Stars with one goal in mind: defense against this new power which sought to conquer all of mankind. In 615 the Coalition went up against the Unified Imperium in the first Coalition/Imperial War and managed to defeat their latest attempt at expansion by sheer force of numbers and liberated a few newly conquered planets. However in 622, the Imperium launched a counter offensive which retook those lost worlds and managed to take a few coalition planets. Thus began a series of about thirty on and off war."

Now, if the Imperium feels it has a right to conquer and expand at will and thinks of the Coalition as aggressors for getting in the way, so be it... I don't feel this is materially different from saying the Imperium are the aggressors here.

[Purple]

1)

You are making two huge assumptions here. Firstly that in a less centralized system the 45% would go along with being destroyed and that troops raised from these regions would not simply rebel and resist such orders leading to a civil war. And secondly that in the decentralized system a would be conqueror as you put it would allow the 45% to leave without a fight instead of once again leading to a civil war.

Now, if the Imperium feels it has a right to conquer and expand at will and thinks of the Coalition as aggressors for getting in the way, so be it... I don't feel this is materially different from saying the Imperium are the aggressors here.

It makes a huge difference. If the government can manage to paint the other side as the aggressors than it can get ordinary people like you and me to vote for the war and support it and does not need to rely on what you so aptly described as a "sociologically unhealthy electorate".

[madd0ct0r]

Eventually in 489 to 496, the Union of worlds attacked by a loose coalition of it's neighbors who had the benefit of some brilliant admirals and some early victories. Never the less, the Union managed to gear its military to total war, drive out the invaders and invaded its attackers. This war served to strengthen the union government by necessity and eventually led to the rise of the Unificationists as a political force. Instead of letting these successor states go, they were to be integrated into the Union. .

This is what i speak of when I say the coalition attacked first. it wasn't THE coalitilon, but there seems to be a direct political lineage from one to the other.

[Simon_Jester]

1)

You are making two huge assumptions here. Firstly that in a less centralized system the 45% would go along with being destroyed and that troops raised from these regions would not simply rebel and resist such orders leading to a civil war. And secondly that in the decentralized system a would be conqueror as you put it would allow the 45% to leave without a fight instead of once again leading to a civil war.

Er... are you reading my posts?

My point is simply that if there is a 55/45 split in a confederacy, 45% of the strength of that confederacy goes away. It may wind up mobilized to fight and resist the other 55%, or it may wind up declaring itself neutral. Hell, a lot of the Coalition powers will just want to demobilize peacefully after the war, in which case they're not contributing nearly as much military power to the postwar Coalition even if they DO stay on as members.

So no, you're completely wrong. I'm not assuming that "in a less centralized system the 45% would go along with being destroyed." That's the opposite of true; they wouldn't. Even assuming you meant to say the exact opposite of what you actually said ("in a MORE centralized system..."), there's a catch, which is that any units rebelling will have to operate outside their normal chain of command, making it far harder for the would-be rebels to plan and organize. In a confederacy, revolting against the central authority is easier because the provincial governments are well placed to do exactly that.

And I'm not assuming that "in the decentralized system a... conqueror... would allow the 45% to leave without a fight." Indeed, I'm assuming the exact opposite.

The point is, that in a confederacy the small member nations CAN deny their own power to the central government... and if enough of them do so, the central government becomes fatally weakened. In a more centralized, federal system this is more difficult because there is no legal process by which individuals, troops, or provinces can decide to leave and withdraw their support.

Now, if the Imperium feels it has a right to conquer and expand at will and thinks of the Coalition as aggressors for getting in the way, so be it... I don't feel this is materially different from saying the Imperium are the aggressors here.

It makes a huge difference. If the government can manage to paint the other side as the aggressors than it can get ordinary people like you and me to vote for the war and support it and does not need to rely on what you so aptly described as a "sociologically unhealthy electorate".

No, because the Imperium was conquering masses of people and tripled in size over the span of less than seventy years, conquering and brainwashing their way across a large region of space, before the Coalition even showed up on the scene.

Something had to be deeply unhealthy in their political culture for that to happen.

Eventually in 489 to 496, the Union of worlds attacked by a loose coalition of it's neighbors who had the benefit of some brilliant admirals and some early victories. Never the less, the Union managed to gear its military to total war, drive out the invaders and invaded its attackers. This war served to strengthen the union government by necessity and eventually led to the rise of the Unificationists as a political force. Instead of letting these successor states go, they were to be integrated into the Union. .

This is what i speak of when I say the coalition attacked first. it wasn't THE coalitilon, but there seems to be a direct political lineage from one to the other.

There is no evidence in the text for that, the two organizations existed more than a century apart and didn't even consist of any of the same star systems... because the old 'Union' conquered all the states of this late 5th century coalition. None remained independent, none could have participated in the Coalition of the early 7th century that we're dealing with today.

The only thing they have in common is that they are alliances of smaller states, and if you consider that to be sufficient evidence of direct political lineage, you're nuts.

[Purple]

Er... are you reading my posts?

I am. I just have a very different view of the situation than yours based on the same evidence you cite.

So no, you're completely wrong. I'm not assuming that "in a less centralized system the 45% would go along with being destroyed." That's the opposite of true; they wouldn't. Even assuming you meant to say the exact opposite of what you actually said ("in a MORE centralized system..."), there's a catch, which is that any units rebelling will have to operate outside their normal chain of command, making it far harder for the would-be rebels to plan and organize. In a confederacy, revolting against the central authority is easier because the provincial governments are well placed to do exactly that.

Honestly I do not think this is the case. At least not unless the system goes to great effort to mix units and ensure it. I would find it much more likely that you would find ships, squadrons and maybe even whole fleets raised from the same region. It's simply easier to recruit and organize people coming from the same area who already know each other generally. And it would not be too difficult for these units to reorganize into an active resistance given that they already have equipment and experience.

The point is, that in a confederacy the small member nations CAN deny their own power to the central government... and if enough of them do so, the central government becomes fatally weakened. In a more centralized, federal system this is more difficult because there is no legal process by which individuals, troops, or provinces can decide to leave and withdraw their support.

And what I am saying is that legal means go out the window once someone decides to usurp the system. The two situations you describe sound very dissimilar in theory but would end up identical in practice. Forces loyal to the 45% would gather up, rally and form a chain of command to fight whilst forces loyal to the 55% would do the same. And you would end up in a civil war either way. It may not come as quickly and well and thus lead to more losses initially. But it would happen soon enough.

No, because the Imperium was conquering masses of people and tripled in size over the span of less than seventy years, conquering and brainwashing their way across a large region of space, before the Coalition even showed up on the scene.

Something had to be deeply unhealthy in their political culture for that to happen.

If the war is going well and society has the view that brainwashing is acceptable which they seem to do than why is it strange that they would support it at least for some time? We certainly have precedents for healthy societies supporting wars until they turn sour. You would get some dissent of course. But that would go down river pretty quickly once a competent opponent bent on destroying them appears. Because the situation changes from being one of a war that might or might not be just to a war of self preservation which is just by definition.

[Simon_Jester]

So no, you're completely wrong. I'm not assuming that "in a less centralized system the 45% would go along with being destroyed." That's the opposite of true; they wouldn't. Even assuming you meant to say the exact opposite of what you actually said ("in a MORE centralized system..."), there's a catch, which is that any units rebelling will have to operate outside their normal chain of command, making it far harder for the would-be rebels to plan and organize. In a confederacy, revolting against the central authority is easier because the provincial governments are well placed to do exactly that.

Honestly I do not think this is the case. At least not unless the system goes to great effort to mix units and ensure it. I would find it much more likely that you would find ships, squadrons and maybe even whole fleets raised from the same region. It's simply easier to recruit and organize people coming from the same area who already know each other generally.

That is not normally true on modern national militaries. Ethnicities and regional origins are very much mixed within a given unit.

The exceptions are really only found in cases that (in the world today) are archaic: where transportation is difficult so the soldiers have to train and prepare for war within a short distance of where they were recruited, or where a nation contains multiple ethnicities that don't speak the same language in which case they more or less have to train separately.

So no, I think there are important facts about how militaries work in federal states that you don't understand.

That said, YES, a civil war can happen in a society with a federal government. The catch is that in a federal government, anything short of outright civil war will not diminish the striking power of the government very much.

[I'm going to present a new argument here, for the record]

Just because only 60% of the population approves of invading Iraqistan, doesn't mean the other 40% of the population can withdraw its military support and leave the government with only 60% of its army. Once the state arrives at a decision in a federal system, it has 100% of the state's resources at its disposal unless it provokes open rebellion by making the decision in the first place.

In a confederacy, if opinion on the war is split along provincial lines, it's very possible for the central government to say: "Let's invade Iraqistan!" and get 40% of its provinces saying "Yeah, we're not letting you use our troops to do that. In fact, we're seriously reconsidering the merits of this confederation now that the immediate threat is gone."

This is separate from the possibility of outright civil war, the point being that the military power of a confederacy is directly proportionate to the number of its member states that are actually prepared to support it in a fight. As the popularity of the fight declines, so does the confederacy's power, even if no civil war is declared.

Therefore, if the Coalition moves from a (popular) campaign fighting the Imperium to an (unpopular) campaign suppressing individual star systems at a time when the Coalition should have disbanded in the first place, it will experience a drop in its popularity. Member systems will start recalling some or all of the units they dispatched to fight under Coalition command, and the Coalition's formerly preeminent armed forces will start to unravel.

This can occur even if there is no condition of civil war within the Coalition member states.

No, because the Imperium was conquering masses of people and tripled in size over the span of less than seventy years, conquering and brainwashing their way across a large region of space, before the Coalition even showed up on the scene.

Something had to be deeply unhealthy in their political culture for that to happen.

If the , ar is going well and society has the view that brainwashing is acceptable which they seem to do than why is it strange that they would support it at least for some time? We certainly have precedents for healthy societies supporting wars until they turn sour. You would get some dissent of course. But that would go down river pretty quickly once a competent opponent bent on destroying them appears. Because the situation changes from being one of a war that might or might not be just to a war of self preservation which is just by definition.

Even a victorious war costs considerable lives and treasure, so maintaining an continuous ongoing campaign of unprovoked conquest for seventy years still takes a lot of willingness to sacrifice.

If we look at historical models, we see very few examples of societies that somehow managed to expand their territory by a factor of three in seventy years or less, without being very warlike in culture.

About the only examples I can think of that weren't very warlike were industrialized societies expanding at the expense of non-industrialized neighbors: Britain and France and Spain subduing colonial empires, the US expanding into the west into a wilderness lightly populated by natives who had a technological and organizational disadvantage.

Which does NOT seem to describe the situation here; it's not like the Imperium's victims are all stupid or primitive compared to itself, or at least there's no logical reason to assume they would be.

[Purple]

That is not normally true on modern national militaries. Ethnicities and regional origins are very much mixed within a given unit.

The exceptions are really only found in cases that (in the world today) are archaic: where transportation is difficult so the soldiers have to train and prepare for war within a short distance of where they were recruited, or where a nation contains multiple ethnicities that don't speak the same language in which case they more or less have to train separately.

You have to consider that the distances and by relations logistics here are far different than what we find on Earth. Modern armies are mixed because they can afford to centralize their training facilities. Something which in a nation of your size probably just won't work. Even if we assume cheap and instant FTL travel you are still left with having to transport huge amounts of people from all over the empire to your training facilities instead of just planting one on each planet you own. And the question becomes why? Especially when undergoing what is essentially total war.

[I'm going to present a new argument here, for the record]

I understand your argument well enough. I just don't agree that the conditions you describe would end up panning out in the right way to allow it in case of the federal government department.

Therefore, if the Coalition moves from a (popular) campaign fighting the Imperium to an (unpopular) campaign suppressing individual star systems at a time when the Coalition should have disbanded in the first place, it will experience a drop in its popularity. Member systems will start recalling some or all of the units they dispatched to fight under Coalition command, and the Coalition's formerly preeminent armed forces will start to unravel.

This can occur even if there is no condition of civil war within the Coalition member states.

This much I do agree on. It can be bypassed through some clever political maneuvering (see ROTS) but is in principal true.

Even a victorious war costs considerable lives and treasure, so maintaining an continuous ongoing campaign of unprovoked conquest for seventy years still takes a lot of willingness to sacrifice.

If the net gain ends up being larger than the net loss, and the foreign enemy is presented to the populace as a threat it can function. You have to think not in terms of facts but in terms of how those facts can be spun to people.

If we look at historical models, we see very few examples of societies that somehow managed to expand their territory by a factor of three in seventy years or less, without being very warlike in culture.

I find it curious that you would cite being warlike as being something out of the ordinary. If history has shown us anything it's that societies that aren't are the exception rather than the norm.

[Simon_Jester]

You have to consider that the distances and by relations logistics here are far different than what we find on Earth. Modern armies are mixed because they can afford to centralize their training facilities. Something which in a nation of your size probably just won't work. Even if we assume cheap and instant FTL travel you are still left with having to transport huge amounts of people from all over the empire to your training facilities instead of just planting one on each planet you own. And the question becomes why? Especially when undergoing what is essentially total war.

We could equally well argue why infantry units in, say, World War One America were often made up of men from many different parts of the country. Why bother with all those train tickets?

Well, because it's good to be able to decide exactly how many men you will release from a training camp per unit time. That way you avoid problems like "this is how many recruits we got in this particular territory three months ago, they're now fully trained but there aren't enough of them to serve as a functioning, independent division. We'll just have to park them there until we get some more men trained. Sorry."

And because in many cases, it won't be convenient to create new training facilities in isolated places, and will be easier to expand the existing ones.

[I'm going to present a new argument here, for the record]

I understand your argument well enough. I just don't agree that the conditions you describe would end up panning out in the right way to allow it in case of the federal government department.

This statement of yours communicates nothing to me. Are you sure you said what you meant to say?

Even a victorious war costs considerable lives and treasure, so maintaining an continuous ongoing campaign of unprovoked conquest for seventy years still takes a lot of willingness to sacrifice.

If the net gain ends up being larger than the net loss, and the foreign enemy is presented to the populace as a threat it can function. You have to think not in terms of facts but in terms of how those facts can be spun to people.

When has this ever worked?

What I don't think you fully grasp is that there's a big difference between the tactics used to sell a short-term limited war (say, the invasion of Iraq) and the tactics used to sell endless, ongoing war. In an endless war you must not only convince the people to back specific military operations: you must convince them to raise their children to fight in the future wars that will predictably occur, and to resign themselves to the fact that some of their children will always be dying in battle.

In essence, you must convince the general public that there is not really such a thing as peace, that it is unattainable and perhaps undesirable. Otherwise, the desire for peace wins out over multi-generational time spans.

Now, sure, with enough spinning, propaganda, and careful manipulation of cultural values, it CAN be possible to create a people willing to engage in endless wars as long as they aren't losing. The catch is that such a society must be so propagandized, must have internalized so much of the pro-conquest spin created by the state, that it isn't a functioning democracy in any real sense of the word.

You can't have real democracy in a situation where the state has the power to control what the people think and can depend on being able to 'sell' a policy for decade after decade without fear of popular dissent.

If we look at historical models, we see very few examples of societies that somehow managed to expand their territory by a factor of three in seventy years or less, without being very warlike in culture.

I find it curious that you would cite being warlike as being something out of the ordinary. If history has shown us anything it's that societies that aren't are the exception rather than the norm.

Perhaps you do not know what "very warlike in culture" means? I am referring to societies that have a tradition of aggressively raiding their neighbors, that habitually enslave outsiders, that are firmly ruled by military oligarchs, that expect all adult males to be warriors of one sort or another, or things of that nature.

That is unusual.

Perhaps you are under the opinion that 'warlike' simply means 'not pacifist.' In which case your ignorance of the English language is not my responsibility.

Alternatively, you may think that the great majority of historical cultures were as warlike as, say, Sparta. Or the Mongols of Ghengis Khan. Or early 20th century Japan. In which case your ignorance of history is not my responsibility, either.