"I'm more optimistic."
I am not.
"WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them."
There were many reasons. I was not aware that "wealth" was one of them. For very advanced but small countries with a small population it may have made sense as a last grab to try to stay a super power.
"These days such a strategy is a complete non-starter because no developed nation can withstand an invasion."
I dont understand this statement.
"Think of it like this: Silicon Valley is probably one of the richest bits of America. So imagine that some dictator decides to invade it, and that the US military try to stop him but fail in some improbable way."
Silicon valley is rich because of knowledge, no because they have stored gold in the vaults or oil under the soil.
ALso: "The threshold necessary for small groups to conduct global warfare has finally been breached, and we are only starting to feel its effects. Over time, in as little as perhaps twenty years and as the leverage of technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination -- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win." Brave new War, john robb
"So this dictator now controls a bunch of ruins with no electricity containing broken computers."
This won't be a dictator but a nerd in this parents basement doing DoS or running a CRISPER Lab from his garage.
"How does this make him any richer than he was before?"
I doubt that "money" was the driving force beyond most wars in the last century. Power. Fame. Ideology. But money?
The 3rd world war will make the last two look like Disney land trips.