Is the the Dell Theory of International Conflict sufficient to reduce (or eliminate) global conflict?

In his book, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman concocts the phrase "Dell Theory of International Conflict". No, it has nothing to do with the pop uproar after the "Dell Dude", from several commercials popularizing the PC-building company, was caught with marijuana in 2003. It's more related to supply chains and their ability to impact the world's thought on conflict. But the "Dell Dude" was really cool in his time.
Who would have thought wars could be prevented by just promoting solid trade and agreements between different manufacturers who desperately depend on their foreign counterparts? Friedman essentially outlines this by illustrating how Dell utilizes several international markets to buy their components which in turn make it into their customized machines. Dell doesn't just buy hard drives and mother boards on an individual basis -- they buy in mass quantity. That type of buying is huge for companies that assemble just one piece of this Michael Dell puzzle, because the supply line is like a swift river that has plenty of rain behind it and a large reservoir in front of it. The CEO's of these component companies can depend on Dell to put their kids through school. This very reason is why the "Dell Theory" will work very well -- at least for the near future.
Simply put, these suppliers are intertwined in an international supply line that is relentless. It's always pulling -- and not just with Dell. Wal-Mart, insert Fortune 500 company here, and hundreds of others all have trade relations with more than a handful of foreign nations. China, Japan, Thailand, and India all play a significant impact on American companies and for that fact, Friedman says they will never go to war with one another. Essentially, diplomacy is no longer the answer to conflicts among trading nations, but rather the ability to effectively trade with one another will be enough. The desire for small companies to be trusted by large companies - with a heavy demand - is all we'll ever need.
As I said earlier, I think this logic will prevail in the near future. The wrath of globalization is still in a child-like stage, and the promise of a more inter-connected world is coming -- like it or not. Countries have to depend on one another to be a competitive force in the every growing market, and they are only going to risk that trust and power for extremely dire circumstances.
But what happens when that moment comes? When natural resources in one country begin to run thin, and their lifeblood in the economy will soon follow, what does that mean? I think the Dell Theory will be out the window, as nations will be forced into barbaric means of claiming the right to prosper in the global economy. Wars will be fought over forest and mines. Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of the trust between companies. Anything can happen.
It's tough to say what could be taken to prevent these occurences and promote a long lasting effect of the Dell Theory. Maybe globalization is the key, as countries learn to work with each other instead of for each other. I don't believe there are radical steps we can follow to ensure a safer enviornment economically, except for boosting diplomacy and learning to accept other cultures. But who knows, all of this could change in a year, especially with the rate of globalization today.
Sounds like a safe world, huh?
Maybe we should just laugh about that Dell Dude some more. It seems like the easiest alternative.