**General Information about Using Force and Threats to Address Core Issues

General Information/Definition of Force Distinct from Overlay

FORCE / POWER TYPES

 

Offensive/Defensive

The introduction to this section explores the differences between the problems associated with the offensive and defensive uses of power. We start by exploring the problems which arise with the offensive use of power and then discuss how these problems change when viewed from a defensive perspective.

*Failure of the Disputants to Recognize Their Own Force-based Options

Unrecognized Force Types/Settings >> Ideal Type Summary; Recognition of Local Variation

Nonviolent options are often overlooked, althought they often can be more successful than violent alternatives. This is especially true for diempowerment or opressed groups which often do not recognize the powerful options they have against the dominant group. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

    OTHER POWERS

*Assuming Force is the Only Possible Response

Force Only Assumption >> Exchange; Integrative; Power Strategy Mix

Faced with a difficult conflict, disputants sometimes overlook the possibility of using negotiation or persuasion to improve the situation, relying instead on force. This is especially likely to occur when force has already been used by the other side. In this case, the most common reaction is to respond with equal to or even greater force. However, this type of response is likely to escalate the situation, while other options might protect your interests just as well, without making matters worse.. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

    DISEMPOWERED

 

The Dismal Theorem of Forcing Power

Conflicts are resolved in ways which tend to favor the most powerful. Here power is determined by what people have to trade, what types of force they are able to use, and the degree to which their goals are viewed as legitimate. There are, unfortunately, cases in which unjustly treated groups may lack the power that they need to correct the situation. They may not have items to trade in exchange relationships and they may not have the ability to force others to address their grievances. They may also lack legitimacy because they belong to minority groups which are discriminated against by the larger society. This is especially likely to occur in cases where the parties have competing and contradictory moral beliefs and the minority group refuses to recognize the wisdom of the majority's moral principles. The result may be that there is no short-term remedy for the injustice is being suffered by these groups.

War crimes - during the war

Powerless to Resist Illusion >> Collective Security, Coalition Building,

As gruesome and destructive as war is, internationally-accepted limits on behavior in war have been established for hundreds of years. When these limits are violated, the entire world community is faced with a dilemma about how to respond. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

Lack of Viable Military Options

Combine with above

{ OLD TITLE No Military Solution}Although military options are often the first thought about in situations of intergroup or interstate violence, often military solutions are not actually possible. Real solutions must come, rather, from social, political, and economic changes, not military campaigns.

***You are Being Threatened?

Combine with above

If you are being threatened, you face a number of choices. These include ignoring the threat, complying with the demand, defying the threat, making a counter-threat or perhaps withdrawing from the situation. All of these choices have risks and costs. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

You are a victim of a violence or nonviolent coercion?

Combine with above

Victims of violence or force are often in a very weak situation, though they may actually have more power than they realize. Fear of continued violence and/or the desire for retaliation can easily inhibit effective responses. INSERT. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information. 

War crimes - after the war

Move to Integrative System

The nations involved in a war face another set of dilemmas after the war is over regarding the treatment of war criminals. Should they be prosecuted or given amnesty? Both approaches have benefits--and costs For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

Tyranny of the Powerful

Force Can't Solve All Problems Dismal Theorem of Force -- Less Dismal Theorem (No Fix/No Quickfix) >>Acceptance / Long Term Struggle

When particular groups have enough power to dominate others, they often use that power to exploit less powerful groups in ways which are widely regarded as unfair. Within democratic systems, this process is sometimes referred to as the tyranny of the majority. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

ACTION/REACTION RESPONSES WITH OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE INTRODUCTION

New Section -- Misunderstood Relationship Between Threat and Force >>

could go to general info

* Failure of the Parties to Recognize the Force-Based Options of Opponents

Action Reaction Rereaction Combine with above

Disputants may also fail to understand their opponent's force-based options. This makes it very difficult to predict how opponents will respond to one's initiatives. 6030. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

 

Counter-Threats and Arms Races

Combine with above

Often disputants respond to force-based threats with counter-threats rather than submission. Such threats and counter threats can result in intense efforts by both parties to increase their ability to use force against each other. In military situations, this is called an "arms race." Similar dynamics can arise with legal, political, or other types of force as well. more detailed description, including information on Legal Force. Political Force.Violent Force. Non-Violent Direct Action. Economic Force. examples strategies for limiting this problem. closely related problems. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

Defiance COMBINE WITH COUNTER THREATS

Combine with above

The cost of using force-based threats increases dramatically when the opponent responds to a threat with defiance rather than submission. This forces the threatening party to carry out the threat or admit that it was all a bluff. Carrying out a threat is likely to result in an expensive, destructive, and rapidly escalating confrontation, while withdrawing the threat is likely to undermine a party's ability to use threat and force-based strategies in the future. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

 

Having one's bluff called and being forced to carry through on a threat

Combine with above

Sometimes, when one makes a threat, the target challenges the threatening party to go ahead and carry out the threat. This is much more difficult, expensive, and risky than simply making the threat in the first place. However, if you do not follow through on the threat, you will have lost a great deal of credibility. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

BACKLASH/LEGITIMACY

Backlash

Backlash / Next Dispute w/ Escalation >> Legitimated Force / Non Selfish/Minimal/IncorrigiblesONLY

People or groups who use forced-based strategies often assume that their opponents will quickly submit to their demands thereby providing a quick route to victory. While force may succeed over the short term, it often generates a powerful backlash or retaliation, as people hate to be forced to do things against their will. This is especially true when victims of force believe that the use of force was illegitimate. In this situations, the losing party is likely to try to build up their own forcing power in hopes of challenging the victor at the earliest possible opportunity. The result is likely to be a long-term intensification of the conflict, rather than resolution.  closely related problems. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

 

Unnecessary and Excessive Use of Force

The legitimacy of force (especially violent force) can be reduced if it is perceived that more force than is necessary is being used. Such illegitimate use of force is likely to be viewed with widespread condemnation. . For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

BITTER END

Pursuing Force to the Bitter End

Bitter-End >> Shortcuts

Disputants often incorrectly assume that there is no alternative to pursuing force-based strategies to the point of ultimate victory or defeat--in spite of the enormous costs involved. . For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

WORST OPPONENT

Force Against One Must be Force Against All >> Targeted Force/Criminal Prosecution

Assuming the Worst Possible Opponent

Assuming all opponets are the worstt >> isolate the worst with extremists/criminal scoping power mix

Disputants often take the worst possible view of their opponents' intentions and strategies. They may assume, for instance, that their opponent will quickly turn to violence or other form of force, and thus they feel they must be prepared to resist, no matter what happens. This often leads disputants to take more forceful actions of their own. Opponents are, however, likely to interpret these actions as unnecessarily aggressive, and use them to justify their own worst-case planning. In addition, disputants sometimes assume that all of their opponents approach the conflict in the same way. If one group of extremists, for example, gets a lot of coverage in the press, it is often assumed that all of one's opponents are equally extreme. Usually, however, there is a great deal of variation in the motivations of a group of advocates. A failure to employ different strategies for individuals with different characteristics is likely to significantly reduce one's effectiveness. For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

BEST OUTOME

 

Best Case Planning

When developing their strategy for dealing with conflict situations, people often make the assumption that their strategy will work as planned. They often fail to consider all of the things that could go wrong in the likelihood of possible unwanted outcomes this steady or to Failure to consider the risks associated with alternative conflict strategies often leads people to repeatedly and unnecessarily expose themselves to undesirable and potentially catastrophic outcomes. For example, parties who launch a military attack may find that they under-estimated their opponents defenses and that the result will be defeat and not victory. The same thing could happen to parties who abandon negotiation in hopes of winnings everything that they want in an election.

Best case planning is especially dangerous in situations where the potential for all-out violence exists.

Neglecting Costs and Risks of Using Force

BEST CASE PLANNING MURPHY'S LAW -- Threat Submission Illusion Yeilds bluff calling, arms race, subversion (from 1st&2nd party)/ Misunderstood Action/Reaction >> Offensive/Defensive Response Force/Threat Responses; costing with what if... analysis

Parties often decide to pursue force-based strategies based on optimistic assumptions about the likely costs and probability of success. Leaders often encourage their supporters to make optimistic assumptions as a way of building support for a particular strategy. However, this process may lead the disputants to greatly underestimate the costs and risks of force, resulting in a poor choice of confrontation strategies. . For more information about this problem click here or on the title.

Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.

REINTEGRATION

 

Re-integrating the Losers

When force based processes are used to resolve the dispute the losers are likely interpret the rejection of their case as evidence that there is no continuing place for them in the larger society. They often withdraw from other social activities is likely to be unwanted and they source of ridicule is their defeat is mentioned begin again. If this problem is not corrected is likely to result loss of the number of potentially beneficial relationships and continuation of the kind of intergroup tensions that is likely to generate future disputes.

New Section GLoating Victor Syndrome