Deterrence vs. Denial

Have you ever heard the phrase, "deterrence by denial"? Of course you have! I hate this expression. In my opinion, deterrence and denial are distinct, and this phrase is gibberish.

Now, I understand that many definitions of the "d" terms (deterrence, denial, defense, dissuasion, defeat) exist within the international relations community. However, "deterrence" and "denial" are distinct. The former is a kind of dissuasion; specifically, it is dissuasion of another actor by threatening something that he values. For example, I declare that if he attacks me, then I will retaliate against his population centers. By making such a declaration (or even conveying the idea to him privately or by non-verbal means), I hope to dissuade him from attacking me in the first place. The latter term refers to denying another actor the ability to undertake some action. For example, I convince a supplier not to provide him with modern tanks, which denies him the ability to attack me with those tanks.

I know that many people like to use the phrase "deterrence by denial," but I find that in general what they really mean is simply "denial."