{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}


4040coercionvs.bruteforce - states-of course this leads to...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Coercive Violence -The critical distinction between the power to hurt and the power to seize and hold -Coercive violence revolves around the power to hurt and the threat to use that power -So during the Cold War the Soviet Union could not seize and hold New York City, but they could certainly destroy it -In fact, during WWII, one could argue that the United States did not want to seize the Japanese Mainland, so they demonstrated the ability to destroy it THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF PAIN -Coercive bargaining often occurs at the end of wars, such as the surrender negotiations -In fact, Schelling (pg 12) notes that the “victory is often but a prerequisite to the exploitation of the power the hurt” -Although this is not always the case as Sherman’s March to the Sea was a conscious use of violence to coerce the South -it is clear that the power to hurt has been, is being and will be used by the
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: states---of course this leads to a moral dilemma that Schelling (pg 18) tends to dismiss ”look on page 18” THE ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS-Nuclear weapons are not different in the number of individuals that you can kill, but how quickly they can be killed-Nuclear weapons changed the equation where military victory is no longer a prerequisite for hurting the enemy-As such, deterrence now rests not only on the threat military defeat but also on the threat of pain and extinction THE NEW ERA OF MILITARY STRATEGY-War is no longer a contest of strength-States no longer want their militaries to bring “victory” but they want the bargaining power that comes from the ability to hurt-As such, military science is not the science of military victory-Military Science has become the diplomacy of violence, i.e. the art of coercion, intimidation, and deterrence...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}