Although the theory of deterrence is widely accepted, many of the important propositions derived from the general argument have yet to be tested against the record of interstate conflict. The research reported here tests four propositions that relate to hypothesized differences between deterrence and compellence. Based on the results from an analysis of 135 international conflicts, I conclude that conventional wisdom regarding these assumed differences is faulty in some significant respects. Specifically, I find that deterrence of immediate threats is usually no ‘easier’ than compellence, and that compellence is not ‘reckless’ behavior in the sense that rash decisions are made.