Dear kimikazu,
In "The Diplomacy of Violence", Thomas C. Schelling observes that force
can be used to hurt and destroy. To wield the threat of such pain and
destruction is to exercise a vicious diplomacy. The diplomacy of force
is most effective when, rather than practicing actual violence on the
enemy, it uses the mere prospect of such violence to bend the enemy
to its will. Coercion requires the real possibility of violence as
well as a credible reassurance that such violence can be avoided by
capitulation. Furthermore, coercion is distinguished from brute force
by the presence of at least some mutual interest. In its absence, the
opposed parties have no choice but to hurt each other.
Modern military strength resides not in the power to conquer the
enemy and occupy his lands but to slaughter his people and destroy his
infrastructure. Warfare has thus become not a contest of skill but a game
of extortion. We should not make the mistake of assuming that wholesale
brutality is always exercised in consequence of such a game. In ancient
times, total war was practiced as a matter of course, and in our day,
it has been employed as an instrument of vengeance.
Bargaining by the threat of violence is often seen between states of
unequal power, such as Germany and Austria, or at the end of a war,
when the losing side has been weakened. But it is also seen in the midst
of war between parties of similar strength, one of which has gained
a sudden technological advantage. Such was the case in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, where pure violence was inflicted not in order to compromise
the infrastructure of Japan but to compel its people and government into
complete surrender.
The distinguishing feature of nuclear weaponry is not the scale of
slaughter it can achieve, which could just as well be carried out with
bullets or knives, but the great speed with which it can exterminate a
population. This makes it imperative to exercise restraint not at the end
of war, as in the past, but in its midst or at the very beginning. The
present danger is that victory is no longer a prerequisite to inflicting
vast damage on the enemy.
The skillful manipulation of the threat of violence has become the focus
of antagonistic foreign policy when the threat itself is too destructive
to be exercised without putting all warring parties at risk. Today,
civilians and not enemy soldiers are the ultimate target of warfare,
because the prospect of annihilating the enemy's population, rather than
defeating its armed forces, is the greater act of violence and hence
the more effective threat. The decisive element in modern conflict is
not the ability to conquer but the power to hurt.
Regards,
leapinglizard |
