It remains effective only up to a point. Eventually you will want there to be a peace, even if it is the peace of the dead or the peace of a conquered province.

But it is generally accepted that with a preponderance of military superiority and especially supremacy, that you can dictate whatever terms you wish to.

It is only the threat of losing it all that deters people from engaging in war. There is no reason for diplomacy to exist if warfare is an effective and cost effective road to your goals.

These considerations are the same for ending a war as for starting one.

Moral or immoral – no difference. That’s why North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons. It’s equivalent to giving an 8 yr old gun – assuming he knows how to use it. 8, 18 or 80 – that gun is a great equalizer, as long as the person is able and willing to use it.

Is it worth adding that, for a nation to pursue its interests, diplomacy without military threat is completely meaningless… however, military threat without diplomacy remains effective?

In other words, isn’t a strong military – and the belief on the part of others that you’re willing to use it – the necessary underpinning that allows a moral nation to actually engage in diplomacy?

Ah, the heart of the true negotiator and diplomat.

I believe in diplomacy. I believe that the right hand of death and vengeance goes hand in hand with the left hand of compromise and deal making.

Charles

I would call it emotional novacaine training for the professionals. I had witnessed a terrible terrorist attack in Tel Aviv in the 90′s and spoke with one of the medics the next day, who was struggling with the aftermath. He had, of course, jumped into help the wounded and dying but the trauma on his face the next day looked like the firemen in the days and daze post September 11.

Personal life experiences make us react quite differently. The professor’s response was quick and I add protective of the young students and I bet a throw back to the time when he was 20 and trying to survive without someone to hold a door open for him.

“If the anti-Semitism that Obama is quietly fanning ever did reach the point where government or quasi-government squads were running around seeking out Jews, they’d have to contend with millions of Christians who’d be very willing to defend their Jewish neighbors with firearms.”

Let’s hope it never comes to this, although I know historically there is always the chance. It is a matter of when really. There are plenty of us, Jews and non Jews, who have a living memory of a relative or a friend who served in WWII or who died as a result. We are 65 years past WWII now and in another generation or so, the ‘voices of memories’ will be gone.

Our current history will just become an engine search eventually without any emotion.

“If the anti-Semitism that Obama is quietly fanning ever did reach the point where government or quasi-government squads were running around seeking out Jews, they’d have to contend with millions of Christians who’d be very willing to defend their Jewish neighbors with firearms.”

I can only say, I would hope so; but I fear most of the Christian (and other) neighbors in areas with a sizable Jewish (or other minority) population are like so many in urban areas – mindless sheep who “don’t believe in guns.” Or they would be opportunists who would reap the aftermath – take the relocation of Japanese-Americans during WWII as an example. While it was a very different situation (we were at war, etc.), very few protested that action; and certainly not with armed resistance. Most people were just passive about it.

Sadie:

“I was also bewildered as a child, but came to realize that many of the victims were women, children and the elderly. Since the men were separated from the women and children, I think a good part of the ‘passive’ state was actual shock and disbelief or possibly just feeling numb and helpless from the overwhelming odds. “

I think you may have hit the nail on the head here. That is something that I have wondered about too; But didn’t put “two and two” together until you just stated it. Yes, the families were split up and maybe that was why so many did not resist; they would be afraid of endangering their loved ones whom they hoped would survive elsewhere. However, if the families were going to their death together I’ll bet there would have been more resistance.

There was something else involved, and certainly more powerful, that you also mentioned – “shock and disbelief.” I recently read a book called “the Unthinkable” by Amanda Ripley. I would really recommend reading it. The author interviewed dozens of people who survived disasters and other such life-shattering events. In her book she explains how panic is not the most common reaction; rather a “Bambi in the headlights” (my words, not hers) reaction is more common. The reason being that one’s mind is not believing what one’s senses are telling it. Not having experienced such events most of us do not have the mental experience to recognize it for the disaster that it is; our minds take too long to “digest” what is happening. This is one reason Police, Firemen, EMTs, military, etc. train, and train, and train until something becomes “second nature” to them.

In reading about the shooting at Virginia Tech where a 70+ year-old professor held the door while he ushered his students out the window, I thought “something’s wrong with this picture.” I felt it should be the 20-year old students helping the elderly professor out the window while holding the door.

But after reading “The Unthinkable” and knowing that the professor was a Holocaust survivor himself it made sense that the professor would react as he did and the students would not. With his life experiences, specifically witnessing firsthand the Holocaust, his mind did not need to go through the “unthinkable” phase before realizing what was going on. The students, on the other hand, were all still in that “state of shock or disbelief.”

Book;

So, yes, being armed helps; but being armed and fully trained to expect the unexpected helps even more.

government….(in the singular, you husband may well be right), but I was thinking more about governments in the plural and in this case, we both want him on our side.

On the other hand, I am great at compromise, as long as I can have it my way

Sadie???

My husband constantly reminds me that negotiation and compromise are necessary components of government….

Somehow, I’m not really certain that those are two of Ymar’s strongest assets…

Though I’d certainly want him on my side! (because I’m not so great at compromise either!)