Preemptive war and pre punishment are similar in that they both act first before an attack is made or a crime is committed. Based on my understanding of the readings thus far, I have come to the conclusion that there is a difference between pre punishment and pre emptive war. The main difference between the two is that preemptive war is in response to imminent aggression from another state while pre punishment is the act of punishing a person(s) for a crime they have been perceived of committing and have yet to commit. Michael Walzer describes preemptive war as an always justified war occurring to stop an imminent attack as opposed to sitting back and waiting to be attacked. Walzer gives an example by describing the Six Day War
Due to the semantic field of fear and terror running throughout the discourses of Bush and Blair their choice of lexis is crucial in conveying their political ideologies. The introduction of Bush’s speech was of dire importance. Antithesis is being used within the first sentence; Bush begins his discourse “… Our fellow citizens, our way of life…”, and then ends with “deadly terrorist acts”. Due to the contrasting image portrayed listeners feel their “way of life”, they, as individuals and citizens of America are at threat, of “deadly and deliberate terrorist attacks”. This further promotes the global normalisation of terrorism and the “War on terror”.
Chiefs of Staff and CIA’s stance: to use coercion (launch of pre-emptive airstrikes) and implement a threat strategy against the Russians. Challenging the legitimate power of a suspected-lukewarm President, they tried to influence him, by using negative framing effects and implicit threat: Kennedy would be made accountable for the death of million US citizens if he implemented a naval blockade that would cause annihilation of strategic surprise and first nuclear strikes by cornered Russians. However, having read “the guns of August” book, Kennedy was aware of the escalation risks of a threat strategy with low probabilities that: a. the airstrikes would remain “surgical” b. all USSR missiles could be 100% destroyed making the consequent retaliation risk insufferable. 2. Tusk and McNamara’s position: the implementation of quarantine.
Lorenz refers to ritualised displays of aggression in which two opponents try to make each other believe they would lose if it actually came to a fight. So the potential risk through combat is avoided if the loser backs down. In this context, the threat of violence can be a very successful strategy in the competition for resources. Military marches, it can be argued, are an aggressive display to show off strength and armoury. They are a signal or warning to any other group that may consider hostile action.
does intervene a genocide, it should take a military form. Also international organizations, like NATO, should also intervene to speed up the process of putting troops in the area needed so that peace and order could be achieved rapidly. The United States should take military action because it is the only way to forcefully stop a genocide. In Cambodia’s case, it could be seen that the Khmer Rouge kept on killing the Cambodians even though the Khmer Rouge was sometimes attacked by U.S. planes. When a political party carries out a genocide, an outside force is always needed to stop the genocide in its tracks.
Just as Johnny expected, he had trouble getting in. Their plan did not work very well. The bouncer caught them before they got through the door and turned them away because Johnny did not have the proper identification to get into the bar. Poncho and Vic still wanted to go to the bar. They decided to take Johnny home so they could go back.
It was also used as a defence mechanism in case of future attack. The race can also said to have produced numerous treaties between the superpowers, and these factors seem to suggest that the arms race had a stabilising effect and did not threaten world peace. However, it is also argued that it made the world a more dangerous place, and consequently threatened world peace. The word ‘dangerous’ is defined as an unsafe threat to the world and human population. This is demonstrated through the questionable policies such as Brinkmanship, Massive retaliation, and how the culture of paranoia and secrecy caused both sides to constantly create more nuclear weapons to feel protected against the other side.
The application of this concept to historical and contemporary situations often leads to a deeper understanding of what and why things happen in battle. To evaluate the usefulness of just war theory you’d have to consider warfare without it. If there were no ‘guidelines’ as such to explain concepts that dictated justice in entering warfare (jus add bellum), there would be many more wars. A war is deemed ‘just’ if it fits a criterion of a few key tenets. Firstly, that the waging of war is off the back of every possible alternate method of peaceful resolution being exhausted.
In this cartoon I attempt to send the message that nuclear power will kill everything, even innocent cockroaches. This is a serious matter but humor can help the medium deliver a message that must be heard. A universal sign is necessary to indicate the danger for future generations. Additionally, nuclear waste
In Book Six of On War, Clausewitz asserts, that CoG is physical: ‘…the real key to enemy’s country is usually his army’ (Smith, 2004 p. 136). Thus, he identifies the enemy’s army as the pre-eminent candidate for what one today could describe as operational-level CoG (Lee, 1999 p. 5). Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that, Clausewitz cautions, that the description of the con-cept of CoG in Book Six, is incomplete and the revised idea will be offered in Book Eight (Lee, 1999 p. 6). Hence, it is probably safe to assume, that the CoG concept, explained in Book Eight and described below, is his conclusive