In war, an army is only as good as it's leader That ceased to be the case when they invented bombing. Bombs require no leadership, because they have no feelings.

@Renan A poor decision of bombardment is a situation to be frightened of

you have just posed the question civilization has been trying to solve since its inception. So far we haven't found a foolproof answer.

@John Perhaps not, but I'm open to theories, ideas and suggestions nonetheless.

Highly militaristic countries can only be rich if they're floating on a sea of resources. And continents stricken by constant warfare are invariably poor.

@RonJohn Europe and Switzerland/England beg to differ

@Jedboo there's a massive difference between having an army and being highly militaristic. And swaths of Europe have been economically wiped out after multiple wars. The 30 Years War, the Great War and WW2 come instantly to mind.

Read "Command in War" by Martin Van Crevald, which can give you an overview of the problem. Also read "On Psychology of Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon.

Even Alexander the Great wouldn't had got far by leading an army of chickens.

Basically, you want a country like Prussia with bad commanders.

@RonJohn Think, for instance, of Prussia and Switzerland. Extremely militaristic, moderately rich.

@DanClarke Depends on were war is fought, as the Venetian armory says: "Happy is that city which in times of peace thinks of war." Not to mention, this country doesn't seek to solely make a living on war, it's simply trying to survive, like Switzerland.

@Vincent No, I actually don't want bad leaders, or at least minimize their damage

"Think, for instance, of Prussia ... moderately" nonexistent, because of it's militarism.

"Think, for instance, of ... Switzerland. Extremely militaristic" Evidence that Switzerland is extremely militaristic?

@Jedboo, that's exactly what I said. As long as the war wasn't in their territory, and didn't go on too long, it could be very profitable for the winning country.

@RonJohn Switzerland owes it's existence to militarism. Back in the medieval and early modern days, they had the best mercenaries, and they simply avoided being invaded by offering enormous amounts of resistance and giving no quarters to their foes on Swiss territory, they created a mentality that if one's to invaded Switzerland, they'll pay a huge toll for it, in the end it simply wouldn't be worth it. Even nowadays they're very defensive, the country's entire road system can be blown to pieces in a matter of few hours, and they have hundreds of fortresses and nuclear shelters scattered...

@RonJohn ...across the mountains. If I'm not mistaken every able male there has to serve in the military and they keep their rifles in their homes till this day. A fun fact about this doctrine is that they've built so many fallout shelters, they can house more than their entire population in those shelters.

@Jedboo you misunderstand the meaning of the word "militaristic", which does not mean "militarily prepared".

@RonJohn Switzerland has a population that is guaranteed to know one thing: Warfare, it has since the 15th century been extremely precautious, it has built a large army for it's population and has effectively made every man a soldier and every spot a fortification. They've been called the fiercest and most savage of warriors in Europe when they're fighting in their own territory. They're not expansionist, warmongering or imperialist, but they are militaristic.