I don’t believe war requires hatred, no more than sport. Some people wind up in war through machinations that have nothing to do with even the acknowledgment of the enemy’s existence.
Go here, wait there, if your life is in danger, return the danger back at them.
As someone who witnessed war preparations in two very different countries and with more than a decade in between, I can tell you what they had in common: people at the top had to convince the majority of the population that the war was necessary. In each case, the arguments were sloppy and could have been pushed back on. I would argue that giving people more data points would increase the decisioning threshold for such actions.
Stefan Zweig's book The World of Yesterday is very good on this as regards WWI from the point of view of Austria-Hungary.
Your comment also reminds me of a phrase from one of the last surviving British soliders from WWI, Harry Patch: "If two Governments can't agree give them a rifle each and let them fight it out. Don't lose 20,000 men. It isn't worth it."
Having ones fighting forces being primarily composed of young people is helpful in this regard. Not only are they usually physically fit, they haven’t had a ton of life experience and are more likely to do what they are told without question. The point isn’t for them to think, they don’t need more data, they need to do what they are told.
A few lies and myths can snowball into a narrative that makes war logical and even noble. Conspiracy theories turn every data point into something that confirms the myth. People really believe that they are in the right. And the most appalling acts can seem logically consistent.
I think the world would be better off if people simply refused the initial "Go here" order from someone who cares nothing for their own life, or the lives of those "there".
War cannot be waged without soldiers, and no one is born a soldier.
This requires the cultural de-glorification of soldering-as-profession. Millions of tax dollars are spent on advertising to ensuring it remains, and many companies are complicit in furthering it (priority boarding, discounts, et c). I shop elsewhere whenever possible.
The US has had a volunteer military for decades. People who would refuse to fight simply never volunteer in the first place.
Boycotting companies for extending a few minor courtesies to the troops is ridiculous and ineffective. If you want to make a difference then get active in politics.
> The US has had a volunteer military for decades.
It gets those "volunteers" by putting the lower classes in a position where their only way of getting education and healthcare is to sign up for the military, and then high-pressure sales tactics to get teenagers to sign a contract that'll bind them for decades.
Actually most military recruits now come from the middle classes. Largely because so many lower class youths fail to meet recruiting standards due to having a criminal record, health problems, poor fitness, history of drug use, or lack of high school diploma. Most enlistment contracts only last a few years. In some cases those have been forcibly extended through a stop loss order, but that doesn't last for decades.
Go here, wait there, if your life is in danger, return the danger back at them.