But what would Bastiat or Ropke or anyone else musing on The Broken Window think of the neutron bomb? It seems to me that this weapon changes substantially the way we think about the economics of war. One of the paradoxes of the economics of war is that as long as the capital stock isn't too severely damaged, war can actually result in a boom in the flow of wealth even as it reduces the stock of wealth. Bastiat took his contemporaries to task for only paying attention to the flow of wealth and ignoring the stock of wealth. But many others after him have noted the impact of war and destruction on output: it can, within limits, be good for output and also employment. The reasons are quite clear - destruction of existing capital leads to an increase in investment demand, and as long as the capital stock isn't so badly brutalized that it can't produce the goods, output will necessarily increase. If the capital is left standing (outside of the immediate blast radius, that is), this investment demand may not materialize. Cohen considered the neutron bomb to be a "moral" weapon because its damage was restricted to the battle field - it would not cause widespread radiological damage in civilian areas.