Wars don't boost the economy, they just provide a temporary gush of liquidity and reallocate spending decisions.But the net economic effect is negative for sure. Wars destroy capital, that's what they do. I'm not saying people shouldn't fund the Army, because they should, but any war that is offensive is like an act of consumption. Metaphorically and also literally.Otherwise during WWII, the UK and Germany would have had soaringly great economies with huge increases in GDP growth for sure.Logically, if war was good for the economy, then peace would not exist at all and we'd never stop having them, it would be a positive feedback loop.I'm not saying it is simple or that there are no fringe benefits to causing wars (it appears to be the only way to obtain tax dollars for some kinds of civilian projects ironically, most notably basic physics research and space research), but the net affect has to be a reduction in overall economic production. It's hard to see the opportunity cost for the winner without an alternative reality to see how things could have turned out differently.Oh yeah, and you might not win.