Riassunto esame Relazioni internazionali, Prof. Hanau Santini Ruth Maria, libro consigliato Manuale in inglese, Letture di Morgenthau, Thomas C. Schelling, Michael Cox

The diplomacy of violence

Introduction to Thomas C. Schelling's perspective

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 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 opposing parties have no choice but to hurt each other.

The evolution of military strength

Modern military strength resides not in power to conquer the enemy and occupy his lands but in slaughtering his people and destroying 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 as a 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 and coercion in warfare

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 impact of nuclear weaponry

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.

Modern conflict and the power to hurt

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.