I in general am in completely agreement, because fault zones are not energy buckets that get filled and must be emptied by earthquakes. Nor can we stimulate the system to release a specific amount of energy. That is not how this works.

But just if we assume hypothetically that it was an energy bucket that gets filled constantly, and we would be able to trigger events of a specific magnitude, it would be beneficial economically (in repair cost) to trigger Mw 4.0 to 6.4 events regularly instead of waiting for the inevitable 8+ event.

I am just arguing a mathematical hypothetical, nothing more ;)

Everything you say is a great explanation, and I agree that things are more complex in contrast to the "overdue" concept with an imaginery constant energy bucket that must be emptied in some event.

But if it was true that a constant amount of energy must be dispensed regularly, I think that there is some kind of sweetspot with semi regular Mw 4.0 - 6.4 events which have their centers kind of distributed, instead of one big Mw 8.0 event where everything gets damaged. At least to obviously see which structures will crumble with the next event and which most likely won't.

That is exactly not a counterargument. They wrote that there was a war induced gain for the US as a whole. That there was a gain for some people/companys in the US is self evident (Raytheon/Lockheed Martin etc.) But for making it a profit for the US, the increased profit of Haliburton et al. would have to be higher than the increased military spending which clearely is not the case.

Please provide data on how the wars of the last decades provided a financial gain for the US & UK.