This article develops a general equilibrium model of conflict to characterize the implications of endogenous destruction for bargaining and fighting. Specifically, we consider the scenario where two contending parties engage in bargaining to avoid fighting when there are direct costs (e.g., arms buildups) and indirect costs (e.g., destruction to consumable resources) of conflict. Without imposing specific functional form restrictions on conflict, production, and destruction technologies, we show their interactions in determining an optimal decision between fighting and bargaining. We find that, under the shadow of conflict, bargaining is costly as the contending parties always allocate more resources to arming for guarding settlement through bargaining than in the event of fighting. In contrast to conventional thinking that bargaining is Pareto superior over fighting, we show conditions under which fighting dominates bargaining as the Nash equilibrium choice. The positive analysis may help explain the general causes of fighting, without resorting to the assumption of incomplete information or misperceptions. (JEL D74, H56, C7)