> Most wars between nations are fought for something like honour: This is not true. Wars are fought for wealth or to protect wealth ( perceived or not ). "Hono

> Most wars between nations are fought for something like honour: This is not true. Wars are fought for wealth or to protect wealth ( perceived or not ). "Honor" ( like freedom, human rights, etc ) is the lie the elites employ to sell the war to the public and dupe the masses into sending their sons and daughters to the battlefield. We didn't fight the korean war, vietnam war, iraq wars, etc for "honor". We fought it for wealth. Every single war we fought ( from the Revolutionary War to the wars today ) was about wealth. The cost-benefit analysis of war is another thing altogether. It isn't an exact science and it's like playing a game of "what-if". In some wars, you can see clear winners who made out like bandits. I don't think anyone would claim the US didn't come out the big winner of ww2. There are clearly some wars where it was a complete waste of lives ( ww1 ) since no side really won and the only winners were bankers and war profiteers. Most other wars, who knows. The cost-benefit analysis comes down to your own biases and how you perceive a non-military solution would have worked out. If wars were truly fought for honor, then we'd have a lot more wars and a lot more nukings. Honor is the fake thin veneer of war. Scratch it and you'll find the true cause of wealth - greed.