A common Bitcoin talking point is that it will prevent wars by removing governments’ ability to print money. The idea is that if states can’t create money out of thin air, they can’t fund large-scale wars, so they’ll be forced to find peaceful solutions.

A recent post even went so far as to say Bitcoin is the only thing standing between us and nuclear extinction.

It’s a dramatic claim. But how does it hold up?

• The Last Time the U.S. Printed Money for War Was WWII

  During World War II, the U.S. used a combination of war bonds and money printing, with help from the Federal Reserve, to fund the fight against fascism.

  That flexibility helped the Allies win.

  If a Bitcoin-style hard money standard had existed back then, the U.S. might have struggled to mobilize at all. Is that really the kind of “peace” we want?

• 🪖 A Nation That Can’t Mobilize Risks Losing

  Restricting how a country funds itself doesn’t just stop wars, it can also make it harder to defend against them.

  In a conflict between two similarly matched powers, the one with more financial flexibility often wins.

  A rigid monetary system like Bitcoin doesn’t neutralize aggression—it just limits the options of countries that follow it.

• 🔒 Bitcoin Undermines Sanctions — A Key Peace Tool

  Sanctions are one of the few tools countries can use to apply pressure without resorting to violence.

  But Bitcoin makes them easier to evade.

  Countries like North Korea, Iran, and Russia have explored using crypto to bypass restrictions. In that light, Bitcoin might not prevent war, it could actually remove one of the last non-violent deterrents we have.

• 💸 The U.S. Has Waged Decades of War Without Printing Money

  After WWII, the U.S. stopped directly printing money to finance wars. But that didn’t stop military action: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and many more.

• 💭 Final Thoughts

When it comes to war, Bitcoin makes it harder to maintain peace, not easier.