There is an important factor missing from your analysis. Gambling is also a negative sum activity and yet it is no mystery why the house reliably profits from it. "Negative sum" does not imply "strictly negative for all participants", and until the modern era (perhaps the 19th century?) it was normal for victors to profit from war even i…
There is an important factor missing from your analysis. Gambling is also a negative sum activity and yet it is no mystery why the house reliably profits from it. "Negative sum" does not imply "strictly negative for all participants", and until the modern era (perhaps the 19th century?) it was normal for victors to profit from war even if on average everyone was worse off. That also explains why the "aggressee" doesn't simply "strike the best bargain it could": historically (I mean in terms of human history rather than the written record), the best bargain was annihilation.
It is really only the nature of the modern economic system that makes war an unprofitable activity all around, which is an odd fact for an economist to overlook.
There is an important factor missing from your analysis. Gambling is also a negative sum activity and yet it is no mystery why the house reliably profits from it. "Negative sum" does not imply "strictly negative for all participants", and until the modern era (perhaps the 19th century?) it was normal for victors to profit from war even if on average everyone was worse off. That also explains why the "aggressee" doesn't simply "strike the best bargain it could": historically (I mean in terms of human history rather than the written record), the best bargain was annihilation.
It is really only the nature of the modern economic system that makes war an unprofitable activity all around, which is an odd fact for an economist to overlook.
I would recommend Azar Gat's book on the subject.