The closing argument compares planned peacetime deterrence spending with the much larger and less controllable expense of war. Wartime costs can be a hundred or a thousand times greater than the defense expenditure criticized during peace. Peacetime investment can be shaped around an economy and may support it, whereas wartime destruction compounds the direct cost of fighting. Capitulation avoids some immediate expenditure but gives coercive actors power precisely because they are prepared to use force. The coerced society then loses the political choice that deterrence was intended to preserve.
Notable Point · 24:01-25:08
Failed deterrence costs money and political choice
Peacetime defense can be planned around an economy, but war multiplies the cost and capitulation leaves coercive powers choosing the outcome.