[dmitrygr]

My sister wrote & defended her PhD thesis disproving this intuitive but wrong connection. Plenty of states happily trade with their enemies during wars. So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war. States are most likely to cut off trade during war in very long wars - which are no longer possible between nuclear powers.

http://mariya.gr/research.htm

If you have counter-arguments other than "But, but, but that FEELS wrong", i am sure she'd like to hear them, her email is on the site"

[throwaway4594]

The summary of her dissertation is really interesting, thanks for sharing! But I think OP's point was "countries who trade with each other are less likely to go to war", not "countries who trade with each other never go to war". And I think OP is right.

"So war does not necessarily stop trade. And thus trade is no prophylactic to war." Seatbelts do not stop people dying in car accidents. But seatbelts do reduce the chances of dying in a car accident. I know I'm being pedantic, but it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing. Even a prophylactic that works 1% of the time is better than nothing.

[xiphias2]

Yes, war doesn’t stop trading, but it makes it more expensive. My favourite example is the Kula ring that used 2 monetary instruments circling between islands in different directions as a proof that other islands are not in war with eachother:

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/