The Difference Between Deterring a War and Funding It
In a world fraught with tensions and rivalries, the line between deterring conflict and preparing for it can be razor-thin. But make no mistake—there is a crucial difference between maintaining peace through strength and funding the machinery of war. Deterrence is a strategy rooted in preventing violence through calculated displays of power, resources, and alliances. Funding war, however, signals a willingness, even an eagerness, to bring those resources to bear. In recent years, the United States and other nations have found themselves walking a fine line between these two approaches, at times blurring the boundary between defense and the dangerous escalation toward active conflict.
Deterrence is, at its core, about preventing war by showcasing the potential consequences to any adversary who might consider aggression. It’s a way of saying, “We have the means to protect ourselves, so don’t test us.” Throughout history, many countries have achieved relative peace by positioning themselves as strong and capable defenders. This stance relies on a delicate balance—one that requires a commitment to strength without tipping into provocation. It’s a posture that conveys, “We won’t start a fight, but if you do, we will finish it.”
The principles behind deterrence can be complex but are generally rooted in maintaining a credible threat. It’s a strategy that relies on being prepared to defend against threats without necessarily seeking to deploy those defenses. Nations employ a variety of tools for deterrence, including military alliances, strategic deployments, and, most often, diplomatic pressure. The key to successful deterrence is maintaining a visible, credible, and defensive stance—something that reassures allies while making adversaries think twice.
Funding a war, on the other hand, is a path with a clear and undeniable trajectory. Once resources are devoted specifically to war efforts, it becomes less about defense and more about offense, whether the intention is to win territory, settle disputes, or overthrow a regime. As soon as war is funded, it gathers momentum of its own. National budgets are directed toward sustaining the conflict, and once that shift happens, it is exceedingly difficult to return to a state of deterrence. The allocation of resources to active warfare often spirals into greater and greater commitments, drawing in more funding, more manpower, and more lives. In the end, this shift can lead to what President Eisenhower warned of: a military-industrial complex so entrenched that war becomes an economic imperative, rather than a last resort.
One of the clearest examples of the distinction between deterring war and funding it is in the Cold War era, where the concept of deterrence played a critical role in averting outright nuclear conflict. The United States and the Soviet Union built vast arsenals and engaged in displays of power, with both countries making it clear they would respond if attacked. Nuclear deterrence, however morally complicated, worked to keep both sides in check without descending into open war. Each nation spent heavily on the possibility of conflict but largely avoided crossing the line into funding an active war with each other. The point of deterrence, in this case, was to avoid mutual destruction, and both sides—despite tensions—seemed to understand the consequences of crossing that line.
In contrast, funding wars brings with it a high cost, not just economically but morally. When nations commit resources to wage war, they set into motion a process that is difficult to stop. For the United States, conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate this well. What began as rapid, mission-specific funding for operations became years-long campaigns, with the U.S. government funneling trillions of dollars into these regions. The longer these wars dragged on, the harder it became to disentangle funding, policy, and political commitments. Funding war not only requires significant resources but often results in prolonged suffering and geopolitical fallout that can take generations to heal.
The financial cost of war can be crippling. Economies that fund extended conflicts frequently find themselves cutting back on domestic investments in healthcare, education, and infrastructure—essential services that benefit civilians. As more money is diverted to maintain a war, the nation’s citizens bear the burden of war’s price. This is true both within the country funding the war and in the conflict zone itself, where civilian infrastructure is often destroyed, families are displaced, and communities are shattered.
In addition to financial strain, funding war exacts a human toll. Soldiers, first responders, and civilians are placed in harm’s way, exposed to physical danger, psychological trauma, and the collateral devastation of armed conflict. By contrast, deterrence is a path that minimizes this human toll, serving as a bulwark against the horrors of open warfare. Deterrence does not eliminate the risk of war entirely, but it reduces the number of lives directly impacted, keeping the focus on maintaining security rather than initiating violence.
For policymakers, the choice between deterrence and war funding should not be made lightly. Once a nation begins allocating resources specifically for war, it can become increasingly difficult to justify a return to peace, especially if public opinion or political interests favor continued conflict. Funding war can create a sense of urgency and justification for continued action, even when alternatives like negotiation or diplomatic pressure might offer a more sustainable solution. Deterrence, meanwhile, offers a kind of stalemate—not a perfect peace, but a stable one that prevents active conflict and saves lives.
The difference between these two approaches is a matter of intent, resources, and outcome. Deterrence is about signaling strength to maintain peace; funding war is about preparing for or sustaining conflict. As global tensions continue to evolve, nations must carefully weigh the choice between building a secure defense and risking the irreversible shift into open conflict. In a world where every dollar spent can shape a nation’s future, the path to peace lies in understanding this difference deeply. Let deterrence be our tool of choice, for it allows us to be vigilant without sacrificing the lives, resources, and stability that are so easily lost in the fires of war.
FOR EXCLUSIVE GLOBAL CONTENT AND DIRECT MESSAGING, PLEASE CONSIDER A PAID SUBSCRIPTION TO THIS SUBSTACK TO HELP KEEP INDEPENDENT, AGENDA-FREE WRITING AND JOURNALISM ALIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SUPPORT.
For speaking queries please contact meta@metaspeakers.org
For ghostwriting, personalized mentoring or other writing/work-related queries please contact hollie@holliemckay.com
Follow me on Instagram and Twitter for more updates
Click to Purchase All Books Here
Insightful.