The Diplomacy of Violence

Quick update on Chapter One of Arms and Influence by Thomas C. Schelling:

Important points I'm getting from the first chapter on Schelling's work is that the ability to cause harm is often more powerful in a latent sense than in an actual sense. The threat of force is incredibly persuasive, the perceived ability to cause harm can change intentions, and the value of certain items, whether lives or territories, often change when juxtaposed with pure violence. This is culminated in the idea of the hostage situation: a hostage is of more use alive than dead, and certainly provides more bargaining power when alive. The ability to hold harm above their head only reinforces the necessity to make concessions. Diplomacy, therefore, is simple bargaining--often weighing opposing threats of violence (or in some cases one-sided threats).

When it comes to war, the threat of violence to a nation's people can come into play at different stages. Schelling touches on three primary eras of the citizen-war relationship:

1) The opposition of mercenary armies with limited warfare. Harming disputed people and territories only reduced the value of what the armies were fighting for, which defied the point of fighting. Furthermore, people in disputed territories were relatively unconcerned with whatever monarch might be in charge of them. They were more concerned with their immediate surroundings (e.g. their land and families) and the potential damage these armies might inflict upon it. This period, Schelling notes, was roughly from Westphalia to Napoleon.

2) The second stage involved the mass participation of people in wars. This is best viewed in the national effort brought forth by Napoleon. War became the interest of the people, war was fought by the people, war was fueled by the work of the people. The huge national effort made the outcome of war extremely personal, as one's fate was decided by success or failure.

3) Modern war sees competing military strengths with the looming threat of overwhelming civilian violence. Nuclear warheads can do in a short time what an army could take months or years to do. The ability to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of people has always been present (Schelling notes that the same amount of damage could be done with ice picks), but the ability to do so in such a quick fashion makes the threat of civilian violence immeasurably great. Perhaps more importantly, modern warfare is not limited to the classic bouts of competing armies. A nation does not need to defeat an opposing army in order to launch nuclear weapons. Rather, a bomb can be launched to take out civilian populations in order to avoid confrontation with armies. This has essentially reversed the typical military-civilian relationship in war. However, what we tend to see is a self-imposed limitation on the use of this force. The real power is held in the latent force of this potential to cause immense harm. Particularly, this grants the ability to influence and to bargain. The ramifications of an actual nuclear attack almost render it unusable, but the threat of its use grant untold influence. Nuclear devastation is difficult to forget.

Schelling summarizes poignantly: "Military strategy, whether we like it or not, has become the diplomacy of violence" (34).

Turning a New Page

Today I begin a new quest to actually keep and update a blog on whatever happens to come to my mind. Primarily, this is in hope of getting myself a little more active in my spare time and a little less lethargic in general. I know, big dreams.

Also going to start using this space to keep a running record of things I read, learn, hear, etc. I also have a sort of vague goal of taking a run at law school later this year, so I'll do my best to chronicle that adventure. In all, if I can fit an entire day into a single paragraph, then maybe I'll start to learn to do more interesting things. Either that or I'll learn to make up more interesting things. Either way, I'm pretty much set for life.

This is just a start, so I'm sure it'll start to take on a different face over time. Have some ideas, but will have to see what it looks like in practice.

To start:

I am beginning to reread Arms and Influence by Thomas C. Schelling. And by "reread" I mean actually read for the first time. This book was assigned in a class I took on International Security Policy and in typical fashion I did some skim reading (which I'm relatively good at). So this will be the first full reading without simply looking for the usual buzzwords that my professors liked to hear.

I've only briefly read through the preface and the start of the first chapter on "The Diplomacy of Violence," but the tone is pretty well set. I shall be learning the nature of diplomacy, coercion, and the power (or in some cases, the perception) to hurt. This is a book I've always meant to give full attention to, so we'll see how this goes.

Also, I frequently have to look up words in the dictionary, so I thought it'd be neat to document them. I know, not neat for you, but whatever. I usually look a word up (www.tfd.com and whatever my Kindle uses) if I want to know how it is pronounced or if it has any other contextual meanings. And, of course, the obvious situation of when I don't know what the word means at all. Some words you just don't see very often, so yeah.

Here will be my first for the series:

pro·pin·qui·ty (pr-pngkw-t)

n.

1. Proximity; nearness.

2. Kinship.

3. Similarity in nature.

That shall be all for now.