An excerpt from a book by Norman Angell, (Nobel Peace Prize winner, lecturer, journalist and MP) in 1910 as to why wide scale war could not happen between major powers.
[War] belongs to a stage of development out of which
we have passed that the commerce and industry of a
people no longer depend upon the expansion of its
political frontiers; that a nation's political and
economic frontiers do not now necessarily coincide;
that military power is socially and economically
futile, and can have no relation to the prosperity
of the people exercising it; that it is impossible
for one nation to seize by force the wealth or trade
of another -- to enrich itself by subjugating, or
imposing its will by force on another; that in short,
war, even when victorious, can no longer achieve those
aims for which people strive.
“The First World War in the History of Globalization”
https://www.etown.edu/offices/president/2014-11-14-WW1-Globa...
The world today looks ominously like it did before World War I
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/29/the-w...
Globalization = No War? Does an increasingly economically interconnected world cut the chance of war? Maybe, but it doesn’t eliminate it.
https://thediplomat.com/2011/08/globalization-no-war/
We mustn’t fall for The Great Illusion again
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570...
The Great Illusion
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html
IMHO, the argument is partially true. But on the other hand, it increases the complexity of the system, and makes many otherwise unlikely "failure modes" possible.