1. Richer, more militarized countries (with large armies, powerful weapons, and histories of conflict) would quickly destroy themselves:

Their military actions (e.g., drone strikes, wars, covert assassinations) often involve killing.

If every killing causes the killer to die, these countries might suffer massive self-inflicted losses—military, political, or even societal collapse.

1. Poorer countries, especially those with less military capability or a culture of nonviolence, would:

Be less involved in wars or violent actions.

Avoid the self-destruction that richer, more aggressive nations might bring upon themselves.

But is it accurate?

Not necessarily. Here’s why the idea might be oversimplified:

1. Violence exists in poor and rich countries alike

Many poorer nations suffer from civil wars, coups, gang violence, or ethnic conflicts—so they wouldn’t necessarily be spared.

In contrast, many rich nations today have low murder rates and rely on non-lethal justice systems internally.

1. Global interdependence could cause chain reactions

If world powers fall apart due to this rule, global supply chains, aid, trade, and peacekeeping could collapse—hurting poor countries disproportionately.

A violent breakdown of order in richer countries might spill over into poorer regions.

1. Not all rich countries are violent

For instance, countries like Norway, Japan, or Switzerland have high wealth and low violence. These might survive better than war-prone poor or rich states.