This is the main significant conclusion to me. Simply that losing a major war can mean ultimate removal of the entire political system of the vanquished, even

This is the main significant conclusion to me. Simply that losing a major war can mean ultimate removal of the entire political system of the vanquished, even if it does not result in replacement by that of the victor. This is the steepest threat that politicians ever face. This is when all the stops are pulled out, and incentive given to those who "new ideas" might otherwise be discouraged until a larger external threat is looming. The beneficial element is not the war itself, but the wide & deep threat to the politicians. This encourages them to unleash the forces of innovation which have naturally been throttled historically to preserve the status quo. These are the powers-that-be, if they weren't that powerful it wouldn't be so. War is always a net loss. Any small local or focused gains fall mainly to politicians or those politically connected. This is nothing new, it will always be less than 1% of us who have a "Daddy" Warbucks. For greatest efficiency in creating wealth or innovation, minimize the violence & destruction while doing whatever it takes to make your politicians bend to your will as much as they would to an overwhelming outside force. Even when threat becomes reality, removing evil politicians pays off much better than merely seeking plunder.