Either axiomatic, for the pureblood moralists, or demonstrable, for utilitarians, there are some key assertions – such as “war means defeat even for the victors”, “war is the health of the state”, “peace between nations is inconceivable without limiting the power of states over their own nations”, “a durable order cannot be maintained by the sword”, “in a world of free trade and democracy, there are fewer temptations for war and conquest” – that do not exclude the need for a pragmatic answer to the following question: “if we are to inevitably have war, how can it be waged rationally from an economic standpoint?”. War is the supreme immorality – indisputable when it is a war of aggression, but also when it constitutes a hasty rejoinder –, yet, isn’t it also an immorality, of a lower degree, when it is waged with means that delay or hinder winning it in the most efficient way for society? As well, war challenges the basic common-sense infrastructure of economics, with a cynical variation of F. Bastiat’s “broken window” fallacy: destruction is also a boon towards reconstruction – more investment, trade, employment –, an impulse that stalemate economies may need from time to time. However, for the rational and reasonable economist, this simply adds ideational insult to material injury.
