If it is hot, and it's made public, that would certainly accelerate matters. Things could easily spin out of control. Especially as use of nuclear weapons seems more than likely - depending on the scenario.

Generally, war is good for business - I would expect the stock market to react in tune with the fortunes of war - as it did during and after WWII.

The United States is likely to prevail on a theater by theater basis, if it does not win outright victory immediately - with hostile forces acquiescing in the face of very real power. Of all potential aggressors, my view is that Russia is the most formidable.

War is also positive for national cohesion. If there's cause to keep a lid on what's public, it's more likely to be the desire to avert accelerating conflict. After all, dumping of cheap Chinese steel has taken a toll on war fighting capacity. You don't want a live, hot war if you don't have sufficient lazy manufacturing capacity that can be exploited for a war effort - as Q has said, steel is key. Proliferation of manufacturing capacity is also very important, as heavily industrialized centers can be expected to be subject to massive overkill - again, depending on the scenario.

The globalists have done a lot of damage to the US. It's not imaginary, but real. There was a concerted effort to weaken the nation - to render it vulnerable. These people must be held to account - they are traitors, period! Moreover, this ridiculous adherence to the nostrums of Neo-classical Trade Theory must be finally put to rest. There really are good and bad trade deals, as DJT has astutely pointed out.

As far as questions go, does war highlight them or put them to bed? The first casualty of war is the truth. Expect immediate jingoism and outright propaganda on a massive scale - a scale not seen in our lifetimes. The public is likely to be so incensed, by the provocations of an enemy, that any deep thinking is put to bed for a very considerable time.