wars create additional financial wealth, but they don't create material wealth. Wars are inflationary. The best definition of wealth has nothing to do with money, but instead asks what the productive potential is. Wars decrease productive potential. They may increase it for one society and decrease it for another, but the sum total is reduced. There are interesting questions here about the destruction of low productivity facilities, say a factory of weavers, versus destruction of high productivity facilities such as a factory of weaving machines.

Also, some wealth is lost in the form of bullets, bombs, and other weapons that are used in the process. It's not the total cost of the bomb, but it is the cost of the physical material that makes the bomb.

That's a very interesting comment tx. I never quite thought about it that way, but that doesn't mean I'm convinced you're right.

Is this like breaking windows creates wealth, or what?

Physical goods are destroyed. Man hours are used up. How is that wealth creation?

I think he means that the need for technological superiority in order to win wars paves the way for future wealth creation. Just look at how many wonderful new technologies started as DARPA projects.

More controversially, war deaths reduce the supply of labor, making it more valuable for those who survive. The Black Plague had a similar effect.

Breaking windows increases the need for new windows, thus paving the wave for new window technology.

But you could have researched that anyway, without breaking the window first. When you are forced to research something b/c of a broken window, or war, you set aside what would have otherwise been a higher priority.

Being forced to do something is not a good way to discover the best priority. Free choice, while imperfect, works better.

I will restrain myself from a long discussion on the subject, but encourage you to google your way around for various pros/cons regarding the concept.

One of the most famous explanations for our need of physical destruction of goods was given in "1984"

I'm pretty sure tx was being sarcastic.

Why do you think that?