This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: nged War w it h war or who was t he new sover eign in t he t er r it or y in which t hey lived. k i l l , but the speed wi th whi ch i t can be done r becomes mor e popular : r at her win a dir t y war t han lose a clean one. Capacit y t o inf lict pain (r at her t han just for ce fr om Diplomacy of Violence e enemy b y T homas ect consequence ing power t hat comes fr om capacit y t o hur t , not just t he dirC. Schelling of successful milit ar y act ion. Thir d st age ha yi ng enemy for ces as a pr el ude to i mpose one’s wi l l , thi s pr ocess i s r eversed
t ic and uncont r olled violence, arof coupled t o milit ar y for ce Thesis: The use e Violence and threat of violence as a more effective means of bargaining a nd negotiation amongst states than brute mil itary force. Contrast of Brute Force With Coercion: In both cases you get what you’d like, but with brute force you physically force them into giving i t to you, and with coercion your persuade them (for Schelling this is with threat of violence) to give it to you. Either way not offering much of a choice “Violence is most purposive and most successful when it is threatened and not used. Successful threats are those that do not have to be carried out” Argues that that intimidation and the power to hurt is more effective than military force – t errorist attacks, dropping bombs on civilians, these are examples of ways to hur t a population without military conflict. Punitive attacks on people are efforts to subdue by the use of violence, without a futile a ttempt to draw the enemy’s military forces into decisive battle: I t is no longer contest of s trength or men like we would do at the fronts, but of endurance, nerve, obstinacy and pain. • ...
View Full Document
- Fall '07