Theory notes - Four functions of Force, Art. Defense,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Four functions of Force, Art. Defense, deterrence, compellence, swaggering. Derense- 1 st To ward off attack, To minimize damage if attacked Against opposing military forces not unarmed pop. Can be peaceful or not. Not peaceful: preemption and prevention( differ because preemption is shorter time period before attack, Prevention –way long term) Deterrent – military power to stop opponent from doing something by saying if you do it I will do something bad to you. –threat of retaliation directed at population of infrastructure –successful if not carried out. Whether a state can do defense or deterrence depends on : quantitative balance of forcdes and qualitative balance of forces (whether military technology favors offense or defense) Compellent- deployment of military forces to stop opponent or make opponent do something. –harming action ceases once opponent cooperates. Success measured by how quickly wished are met Compellence and deterrence differ by being active vs. passive- compellence harder to pull off b/c other country will loss face when meeting wishes, also force impassions opponent. Swaggering- not aimed at anything specific besides gaining prestige. Mostly peaceful things, lots of time to gather national pride or on whim of ruler. Sometimes beneficial if makes other states take its action more seriously. Difficulty in distinguishing between these in reality: hard to tell btwn defense and compellence or deterrence and swaggering. – motives unclear and public statements useless b/c deception. Ex. germany attacking france, Russia: If defensive, either did b/c foes planning to attack it and G was right or G thought they attack and she was wrong. Do you judge defense or compellence based on perception or reality? Also, if she attacked on beliefs she would be attacked can it still be seen as defensive after years of aggressively? MUST question legitimacy when specifying motives. –b/c no authority -----SEE PG 148 Diplomacy of Violence- Schelling:
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Diplomacy including bargaining through compromise and at least some common interest. Force does not require bargaining –sheer strength can take things without regard to adversaries wishes but force can also be used against adversaries fears and things of Value to HURT THEM Brute force VS Coersion Brute force succeeds when used where are power to hurt best when threatened not carried out- victim must know what wanted and what not wanted. Also, interests must not be totally opposed or whould just proceed to hurt one another without question- instead when his pain gives us no satisfaction and action their part cost less than pain there is room for coercion. Ex. Indian example if Indians killed to exterminate problem, brute force If to be example for other Indians, coersione. War threatens to be bargaining process.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 53

Theory notes - Four functions of Force, Art. Defense,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online