In His Reply, Zelcer Discusses the Merits of Liberal Democracies

In his reply, Zelcer discusses the merits of liberal democracies with strong militaries. He says,
It could even be argued that liberal democracies like the US with strong militaries make war less common, not more. A nation can use a powerful military to threaten and coerce, but threats neither kill people nor topple governments. War does.
This reply shows that Zelcer sees threats and coercion as being importantly different from war. In your essay, consider why might someone push back against this assertion. In other words, what might be a reason to worry about Zelcer's suggestion that stronger militaries-who have the powers of threat and coercion-make war less common? How might Zelcer respond to this objection?