While traditional military used to be the substantial way to overcome power, there are now more components to consider. But still, military force can be to great use, in ways that are not only traditional war de facto.

To help civilians that are victim from the oppressive policies of their own governments, use of military force is useful and often necessary. Though, what also should be considered is humanitarian considerations go hand in hand with considerations of national self-interest.

Disaster relief

Cases where the most powerful country in the world have had difficulty winning wars against countries like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has made a good example of the increasingly difficulty to predict the outcome of war.

A new security threat that has emerged is terrorism. Such menace imply the need for states to develop their military strategies, to ensure domestic security and possibly to to attack foreign terrorist camps. Also, military power remains the only sure guarantee of a state's survival and security. But as countries now obtain nuclear weapons, they can not use them when facing a terrorist or in most political circumstances.

Despite having military use in some cases, the cases in which they are used has differed. States no longer make gains by conquest because globalisation offers a cheaper and easier route to national prosperity in the form of trade. If entering a war, the economics cost would be so substantial, involving trade partnerships destroyed and external investment lost, that the thought usually never goes to act.

3. Does it make sense to think of the world as a single moral community? Why or why not?

Freedom of fear of con (getting killed)
Food
Wated
Shelter

There are two different sides to the story, like a classic realist would say; one's own interests are morally superior to those of others. But if a liberal would have his say, the world is a place of universal and perpetual peace.

Where moral lies the strongest, is in people, and not in the same way in political communities. When people act morally it is most commonly to their family or well known friends, culture or community.
A state, you would think, acts moral when helping developing countries. But beneath the surface, the act isn't helping the country as much as it increases the wealth of the rich state. By letting countries develop themselves it will in the long run lead to a richer and developed country by it self with its own political and moral sense, rather than to be impregnated by another countries beliefs and values.

Ultimately states rely on their own resources. They will be trying to improve their position relative to other states; making relative gains.