That formula for expected utility has a huge gaping hole in it. It’s not just benefit from winning and losing, it’s also the cost from fighting. This has usually been significantly bigger than even the benefit from victory in industrial countries for a long time (in other words, even the “winners” of WW1 became worse off than if they didn’t fight in the first place). You mentioned the cost from distance but that doesn’t really cover it.
The fact that your argument has such a big hole in it throws into doubt the rest of your claim for me.
That formula for expected utility has a huge gaping hole in it. It’s not just benefit from winning and losing, it’s also the cost from fighting. This has usually been significantly bigger than even the benefit from victory in industrial countries for a long time (in other words, even the “winners” of WW1 became worse off than if they didn’t fight in the first place). You mentioned the cost from distance but that doesn’t really cover it.
The fact that your argument has such a big hole in it throws into doubt the rest of your claim for me.