It’s because the topic is how you set norms and ethics. If your ethics are relativistic and entirely dependent on how ethical or unethical your peers are, I’d suggest that your ethics aren’t ethics and more like an opportunistic world view devoid of such.
It’s obvious you are confused between peers and adversaries.
When it comes to national security, the only best ethic is to reciprocate one’s adversaries polities and acts, and prove one is a credible deterrent.
India initiated non-violent political movements, but that does not mean Indians should remain mute spectator while its gigantic neighbour who has made it obvious that it wants to be a world economic-military superpower indulges in arms race.
Calling such deterrence “opportunistic” and “devoid” is a bit too rich.
