The use of force is one of the most significant approaches that has been employed by many military troops to subdue their enemies. Often, the warring sides devise superior weapons and tactics that are likely to counter that of their enemies. Although diplomacy has been used in some circumstances to ensure the opposing sides reach an agreeable bargain, it is almost automatic that where diplomacy fails, force is the most likely fallback. A theoretical approach to the use of military force helps in understanding the critical reasons for the tactics used and the future implications.
The main objective as to why force has been the primary approach where diplomacy fails is because, in most cases, especially when circumstances are favorable, coercion and brute force are instrumental in obtaining what a given party in the war wants (Schelling, 1970) .. Although brute force and coercion differ depending on the intention of using any of them, oftentimes, the results are obstinacy and pain, aspects that call for endurance. The strategic role of pain and damage in ensuring the opposing side surrenders is undisputed.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The strategic use of nuclear power as a weapon of mass destruction is an evolvement that proves the preference of force over diplomacy by many superpowers. In the wake of technological advancement, it is almost impossible to comprehend the possible power of nuclear weapons in the future. Although Art (1980) asserts that nuclear power has not had a significant impact on the use of military power by different nations, it is evident that it is an approach that uses unfathomable force, an aspect that has significantly affected international relations among the warring nations as well as those directly and indirectly affected. The root cause of the use of nuclear weapons is its effectiveness in causing intended damages, hence, ensuring the objectives of the given war are achieved. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can exemplify the preference of nuclear weapons by warring countries ( Schelling, 1970) . Japan's refusal to surrender in the pacific war regardless of its limited chances of winning the war was one of the influencing factors that forced the Americans to use the utmost force. The use of force on Hiroshima was imperative because of its military importance. To ensure the Japanese surrender, the US used the nuclear bomb, a weapon that cleared everything on its way in a matter of seconds, forcing Japan to surrender.
Given the effectiveness of the use of force by the military to coerce their enemies to surrender, it is unlikely that diplomacy and peace talks will be pursued in the future to settle differences among warring sides. Current trends in employing force can be used to predict that the future is likely to be worse. Major superpowers such as the US and Korea have continuously expressed their position in the possible involvement of a nuclear war. Even worse, other unfathomable types of force, such as the use of biological weapons remains to be a threat. Also, as technology changes, the innovation that ensures direct and indirect use of military and terrorist violence is realized. Drowns, for example, is a technology that uses high-level precision in attacks. Besides, driverless cars have been used for attacks. With these emergent ways of the utilization of force, it is likely that in the future, even more destructive use of force will be employed in military undertakings.
References
Art, R. J. (1980). To what ends military power?. International Security , 4 (4), 3-35.
Schelling, T. C. (1970). The diplomacy of violence. In Theories of Peace and Security (pp. 64-84). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
