water, so will I...

Consider that politics almost certainly evolved to preclude or ameliorate conflict and / or combat. Not a chicken egg, I think, rather an innate human foible controlled by a process developed for the express purpose which had other uses and thus expanded to the point the original purpose dropped in perceived importance.

Wilf's definition of bomb planters, as Marc correctly shows is not a given but is situation dependent. With respect to both the combat and political facets. The point, of course is that communication is always skewed by the situational factors.

Military defeat is rarely required for a cessation of conflict or combat. In all the history of the US, IIRC, only Germany and Japan in WW II qualify as true defeats (and there are some caveats on both those...). The Civil War, our only truly existential war after the Revolution IMO is an iffy case, none of the others even come close. There were operational wins but no true defeats of opponents. The point of all that is that just as conflict generates politics which may fail and lead to combat, war will revert to politics more often than it will achieve a military defeat. (Note to quibblers; that's a quick assessment on my part and based on recent history. I have no interest in researching back to the Napoleanic era or earlier but that statement is generally correct post WW II -- which is where we are).

War is the most stupid and unnecessary of all human endeavors -- but it is not going away because humans are fallible and malleable. It is well known that an adrenalin rush gives a human intense focus, drive, selective hearing and tunnel vision. Might the same thing occur to nations or groups -- thus precluding or, at a minimum, distorting, communication...