There is a lot to disagree with here. First, the article itself provides an example of an army with a superior fighting force that had far fewer casualties than the other side, yet still lost the war. That was due to the civilians back at home lacking the stomach for a long, protracted war abroad. So even if one side has superior strength, and even if the side with the superior strength wins every battle, they might still lose the war.

Another issue is your implicit assumption that the side with the superior fighting force will always win the war, but I don't think you can make that assumption. Just like the better football team can lose to the underdog, there is a stochastic element to warfare. A sudden bit of bad weather can turn the tide of a battle. There are countless other elements that are unobservable and unpredictable that can decide which side wins.

There are also asymmetric payoffs to going to war. A nation might have a slim chance of victory, but the cost of defeat or surrender might be genocide or subjection. How do you assign a payoff to the choice "surrender" when the outcome is the destruction of your nation as it once existed?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_(game_theory)#Pure_an...