The attached reading outlines the distinction between coercion diplomacy and the use of force in various ways concerning violence. It has given a clear definition of both theories, namely coercion theory and brutal force (pain and damage) theory, that helps in the study of conflict and security. The reading has compared both theories by showing how several countries and war leaders applied them during the war with other countries, and how effective each method worked for their favor. It has also explained the valid circumstances under which both approaches to war can be appropriate so that the countries achieve their desired objectives. The views of famous persons regarding the two theories are also addressed in the reading. The reading, therefore, tries to show the best approach to war a country can apply to realize the various benefits associated with each theory.
Coercion Theory
This theory takes into consideration the interests of others, and it is based on the power to hurt than destroy. It is not concerned with taking what you want but convincing the other party to give it to you willingly. For instance, hunting down people and exterminating them is a brutal force, but raiding their villages to make them behave is coercive diplomacy. It also suggests that taking people as captives is appropriate since live captives are more valuable than an enemy dead. This makes the enemy to surrender and be submissive to the victor of the war due to hostile conditions they undergo.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
This theory has several strengths associated with it. It aims at preserving the lives and property of the enemy as the enemy is not vanquished since it serves at a mere threat to the enemy. The type of violence in this theory is seen as being clean and merciful, as there are minimal cases of brutality. The defeated enemy may continue carrying on their social, political, and economic activities under the supervision of the victor. However, this approach has a few weaknesses that come with it. The process of bargaining is dirty since it is associated with intimidation, blackmailing, demoralizing, and paralyzing. There are some incidences of pain and destruction that is seen to be idle but, in the real sense, it affects the enemy to a greater extent.
This approach is valid under various circumstances. Countries that value the aspect of diplomatic relations with one another prefer coercion approach to violence that brutal force. Another event is when one of the countries has been defeated on the battlefield, and it may consider surrendering to the victorious country.
Brutal Force (pain and destruction) Theory
This theory supports the total destruction of the enemy, and this happens between unequal countries that do not have substantial military challenges. The superior country sees the outcome of the army engagement as obvious and prefers purely military wars than merely hurting people. For instance, Hitler had superior weapons and eradicated his enemies. America had unique bombs that destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima completely.
This approach helps in establishing a country to be a superpower over the others as it delivers victory. There minimal cases of a similar another war since the loser of the war becomes submissive to the winner. This forms the strengths of this approach. The weaknesses associated with this approach is unlimited destruction of valuable property, deliberate loss of life, and rise of hostility among countries.
This approach is valid when the country to be engaged in war is certain of victory in the battleground. It also applies when the county does not value the perception of diplomatic relationships with other countries.
