No, taking women as wives in one con text of conquests of enemies of Israel (and which was to be set free, not sold, if the husband no longer had delight in her: Deuteronomy 21:10-14) is not the Biblical model as regards the place of women in regards to men, except as reflecting the male being the head over the women.
If you are going biblical, let’s not kid ourselves about the brutality of war back them.
Yes, though the nature of man has not changed, and war has been brutal in the last century, while by making it more antiseptic, including by the state executing capital criminals rather than by communal stoning, then we both become more efficient at it (able to destroy the whole world), while being unable to deal with the hardness life can bring.
That is the difference...I see “biblical” as a context for the times. You see it as a rulebook you selectively use.
If you look at the context of the day, armies were counted in the hundreds—for the most part. Tribal factions that, on their best day, could field a few thousand warriors.
At the end of the day the field was taken, and the opponents enslaved, raped, or “disappeared” into the slavery (or a pick or two out of three.)
Applying that context today is absurd—the destructive power of the military today would be used to annihilate the enemy, their homes, and would “salt” their grounds for generations.
The bible in this situation is a nice “guide”. The world has changed to the point where looking to a 2,500 year (+) manual is akin to the absurdity of the Islamist using a 1,200 year old book to run their lives.