Mutual defence is evil

The Polish government wants NATO to help defend it against possible Russian aggression.

NATO was founded in 1949 as a mutual defence organisation.  Mutual defence is fundamentally wrong, although I can't think of anyone other than the fictitious Edmund Blackadder ever saying so.

Is there any evidence that mutual defence discourages wars from happening?  I can't think of any, although comments are welcome.  What I do know is that the past twenty years have witnessed wars in such countries as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria - and neither NATO nor any other mutual defence arrangement prevented a single one of those wars from happening.

Rather than preventing wars, mutual defence treaties tend to make wars - when they occur - much larger and far more destructive than would otherwise be the case.  The two world wars would not have happened had it not been for the insane and immoral belief in mutual defence.  Wars would still have happened, but they would not have been grotesque calamities on a global scale.

I often wonder what right the United Kingdom - or any country for that matter - has to go to war against another country which every other country in the world does not equally enjoy.  For example, Britain took part in the bombing of Libya in 2011, shortly after David Cameron became Prime Minister.  If Libya were ever to bomb Britain, then David Cameron would either have to condone the bombing, or else be guilty of monumental hypocrisy.

Of course we are often expected to believe that certain countries have not merely a right but also a duty to go to war.  Maybe the people who hold to this point of view could explain in what circumstances another country might have a duty to go to war against Britain.  For example, should any country have gone to war against Britain in 2011 in order to punish the British for waging war against Libya, and murdering Libyan civilians?

Related previous posts include:
George and Baldrick
What is a patriot?