I’m not so sure we have to approach this subject from an either or perspective. While, I prefer non-violence, there may be times when violence is appropriate.

Several years ago, I read Mila 18, a 1961 novel by Leon Uris, about the 1943 Polish resistance to Hitler in the Warsaw Ghetto.

I can only express admiration for the Warsaw resistance fighters.

On the other hand I saw movie The Hiding Place about Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts at hiding Jews in Holland.

I have equal respect for Ten Boom’s non-violent approach.

Click Here for Corrie Ten Boom

Would Ten Boom's strategy have worked if the Nazi's weren't being killed en-masse by the allies?

I don't know lordhelmet. I do know that the Ten Booms hid Jews at much personal sacrifice and danger to themselves. Their actions were probably more heroic than anything any of us here have ever done or ever will do.

I suppose a one-liner like yours has to do when one really doesn't have much useful to add. I think CJ was correct about then myopic view thing.

If you haven't seen the movie, I'd suggest you do so.

I advocate nations arming themselves to a level required for their self defense.  Frankly, I advocate exactly the same thing for individuals too.

With respect to China's opinions about the justified US war in Iraq, who cares?  That regime doesn't value human life or individual liberty.  I couldn't care less what they think about the United States' policies.

Appeasing China wouldn't work.  You'd have to give them Japan next and then all of Asia.

The history of the Jews?  If extreme violence was not used against the people of Germany and Italy, the Jews would simply not exist in Europe.  Hitler was well on his way to systematically killing every last Jewish man, woman, and child.  One has to wonder how far they would have gotten if every Jewish home had gunned down 4 or 5 German soldiers when they came to round them up.  It's good to see that the state of Israel have finally learned a lesson after several thousand years of examples.  They are prepared to fight to the end to protect their people using nuclear weapons if necessary.

You can quote a long-dead guy if you want.  The wisdom of the approach he advocated is extremely debatable, both for himself and for the rest of the world which is why I reject most of what is advocated in his name.  I'll talk about the immorality of pacifism anytime I want.  It's an approach that is unworkable in most cases as I clearly pointed out.

Here is an example to make my point more clearly.  If you are a father, and a predatory sex abuser comes to take away, rape, and then kill your young daughter, what would the "moral" course of action be??  Practice "non-violence"?  Turn the other cheek?  Pray?  Wait for the future to make things better? Or put a round right between that slug's eyes?  Be honest with yourself.  Nations acting that way on a macro scale does not change the morality of the situation.

Also, you keep confusing the violence perpetrated by those who started a war of aggression and the violence used to repel that aggression.  You cannot equate them both morally.  Therefore, your point that "violence always is a losing strategy" is simply invalid.

As one of the founders of my country (Patrick Henry) stated so well, "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!".

Ah, arms races at both the national AND the neighborhood level! Do you perchance own stock on an armaments company? Do you perchance live among the survivalists in Idaho?


When we get into a nuclear showdown with them you might want to start thinking about it. It might be a little late, though.


Actually, they have no intention of anything so gross as an outright invasion of these non-Chinese countries. They want to establish hegemony over East Asia, insuring that everybody obeys their lead. They'll get it, too, because when a showdown comes with the USA, we'll back down or be obliterated.


Yes, but you miss the point I made: that 2,000 years of nonviolence worked, too. I agree that sometimes violence works. You are insisting that nonviolence never works, and here is a case in which nonviolence did work.


Denial of the Lord! Heresy! I'm going to report you to Pat Robertson!


Omigod, the summer re-runs of Hollywood fantasy shows have migrated to this topic! OK, I'll see your Hollywood fantasy and raise you one:
"If an Evil Terrorist came to you and said, 'We have captured a million sweet innocent little young daughters, and we're going to rape, torture, and murder them all unless you publicly declare on national television that nonviolence is the only solution to every problem!', what would you do?"


Can you name a single case, in any war in all of human history, where one side acknowledged that it was the aggressor? If nobody is ever the aggressor, then there's no way to apply your distinction, is there? Of course, I can guess your answer: "We're never the aggressor, and our enemies are always the aggressors." Right.


That's a fine sentiment -- just don't drag me into your death scenario along with you, OK?

I don't doubt their heroism...

I'm not being "myopic".  I'm being realistic.

Not only were the Ten Booms heroic, they possessed the milk of human kindness, which they disapensed liberally. I think you are far too dismissive of their efforts and others like them in Europe.

Again, I would urge you to actually see the movie before gracing us with your boundless wisdom. Although it is out of print, used copies can be obtained through amazon.com. The link also leads to a customer review.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00...product-details



I commend your high opinion of yourself, but the judgment of others is usually a little more accurate than self-appraisal.

I have a feeling that you are unfamiliar with the rules of this forum.  If you want to debate ideas, that's great.  If you want to attack me personally, I will not respond in kind in spite of your provocation.

2000 years of "non violence" did NOT work for the Jews.  They were put into slavery and killed by the millions.

With respect to China, why don't we just unilaterally disarm and then surrender to them (and to everyone else)?  That would certainly avoid a nuclear war would it not?

Also, you are continuing to mis-characterize my remarks.  I did not say that "non violence never works".  I specifically said that it only has a chance is some very limited, rare, and very specific circumstances.  I'm not going to list them again since I've done so twice already.  If you can provide historical evidence that refutes my assertion then by all means post it.

If I have wronged you, by all means please cite my sin and I shall surely apologize. The only remark I can find that in any way refers to you personally is the first remark about stock and Idaho. Surely you do not take those comments seriously -- do you? They were meant as humor; you know: ar, ar.


It worked a lot better than the alternative you are pushing. Had they fought back, they would have been exterminated. And why do you put nonviolence in scare quotes? Are you suggesting that all this talk about Jewish nonviolence over the centuries is just a bunch of pacifist historical revisionism? That manly Jewish patriots waged a guerrilla war against anti-Semitism over the centuries, forcing bullying European anti-Semites to grudgingly grant them respect and an honored place in society?


Well, if that's what you want to do, you could, but I can think of a lot better ways of dealing with the Chinese challenge -- and hitting the beaches with John Wayne, six-shooters blazing, isn't one of them.


Fair enough. How about the Finnish surrender to the USSR in 1940? They could have waved their flags, shouted "Give me liberty or give me death!" and continued fighting against overwhelming odds, but no, those cowardly, unmanly Finns actually chose nonviolent surrender over continuing violent resistance. Worse, they surrendered to Godless Communism! But they chose nonviolence and guess what -- it was better than the alternative!
For that matter, how about those Baltic nations who were annexed by the USSR in 1939? Gutless cowards -- they should have waved the American -- oops, Lithuanian, Estonian, or Latvian flags and gone down with all guns blazing. But no, those effeminate snobs chose the cowardly way and just watched nonviolently while Commie tanks rolled through their streets. Of course, had they chosen violent resistance, they would have simply provided organic lubrication to the tank treads...
By contrast, look at those brave Hungarians who stood up to Commie tyranny and violently resisted them Russki oppressors in 1956. They sure showed them Russians, didn't they! Yep, violence really solved their problem.
But why limit ourselves to Eastern Europe in the twentieth century? How about them Aedui and the gutless way they surrendered to Caesar? That besmirched their honor, of course, but they could have chosen violent resistance and been annihilated along with some of the other Gallic tribes. But no, they chose the gutless route of nonviolence and went on to become a prosperous part of the Roman Empire.
Speaking of the Roman Empire, let's contrast Rome with Byzantium, famous for its policy of buying off barbarians with gold. Bulgars, Avars, Goths all got their gold from those cowardly Byzantines, who had the effrontery to continue surviving while Rome went down fighting. What disgusting people!
Actually, the Romans did try a version of the Byzantine system. It was called the foederati system, in which Germanic tribes were brought wholesale into the Roman Empire. The Roman emperors could have stood up to those nasty German barbarians, but instead they came up with this non-violent solution. It worked -- for a while. Of course, it worked better than straight war would have worked.
Ever heard of the Galatians? They were actually a Celtic group that came down from central Europe, conquering and pillaging. They wrought havoc in the Balkans and then crossed over to Anatolia. They didn't stop until the locals gave them a hunk of land in central Anatolia, called Galatia. All the fighting in the world failed to stop them, but some nonviolent real-estate transactions solved that problem.
Then there were the Greeks. They fought a lot of wars. But when Philip of Macedonia came charging into Greece and devastated Thrace, all those cowardly Greek cities folded up and surrendered. I'm sure your lips curl with disgust at these gutless cowards who should have fought and been exterminated like the Thracians. If they'd fought, why, all those struggling students wouldn't have been forced to read Plutarch over the centuries, would they?

Would you like me to continue?

By your way of thinking, WWII was a huge mistake, right?  We should have just waited until the Nazi army ran out of steam on it's own, right?  Until the Japanese got bored of raping and slaughtering the Chinese by the millions?  Why we should have INVITED them to Hawaii and volunteered to be their personal servants.  Heck, Stalin should have stopped his siege and just invited the Nazi's into Moscow.  Leningrad?  Should have never happened, right?

WWI was a mistake too?  Those pointy helmets the Germans favored could have caught on fashion wise.

Korea?  We should have just let the commies have the south.  Who are we to judge?  After all, the people of N. Korea have it so good don't they?  They are being starved to death but isn't that, per the NY Times, a way of death that brings euphoria??

The US civil war?  Hey, slavery was common throughout history so who were we to judge?  How could we possibly tell the difference between the slaves and the masters, the aggressors and the resisters?.  Those slaves, after all, weren't exterminated if they just behaved and minded the massa, eh??  If they just waited long enough, perhaps they would have been freed eventually right? 

The revolutionary war?  Why did we shed blood to create our own nation?  Wasn't being a part of the UK good enough for us?  We were such insecure, anti-feminist, hyper-masculine John Wayne survivalist gun-nuts, weren't we??

Finally, do I want you to continue?

No, I really don't think that will be necessary.  I see exactly what you're all about.

This has got to set some sort of world record for the most extended non sequitur. Would you mind spelling out how you got from the statements in my most recent post to this set of statements?

Boy, do these questions open up a can of worms! Basically, you are walking down a path called "scholasticism", and if you follow it you will end up asking questions such as "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

"They produce writings of the fathers in which war is apparently mentioned with approval [Augustine]. There are certainly some of these, but they date from a later time, when the fervor of the Gospel was weakening, and they are very few, while there are innumerable writings of authors of unquestionable sanctity which argue against war.  Why should these few come into our minds rather than all the rest? Why do we turn our eyes away from Christ to men, and prefer to follow doubtful examples rather than infallible authority?"

Sorry for all the long quotes, but I want to really drive home the point: Christianity is a pacifist religion. You can argue for violence from practical or political points of view, but most certainly NOT from a Christian point of view. True Christians are pacifists.

On the other side of the coin, we have people in this thread who believe violence is the solution to all problems, and that pacifism is a sign of weakness.

In the United States, however, at least since the 20th century, violent resistence has never worked(except in very limited cases), while non-violent resistence has consistently been an effective method of change from the activists in Women's Suffrage to the Civil Rights movement.

Certainly this is testament to the strength of our country that violence is not accepted by activists, nor by the government itself against it's own citizens (although recent cases in NYC, Seattle, and Philadelphia shows a change towards the worse on the latter).

It should also be noted that the USSR was convereted to a democracy through diplomatic means, wheras I seriously doubt Russia would be a democracy today if we tried the Big-Stick method on them as we did with Iraq.

However, in situations like Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia where an armed and violent majority is wiping out an unarmed minority, violence is clearly warrented.

The same thing applies to resorting to violence, and I can give you the example that will drive this point home: a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. If the world is lucky, the Taiwanese will cave in without violence, but if they don't, the Chinese will eventually invade. And when that day comes, they'll be quoting Iraq at us chapter and verse. We will of course deny their arguments, but that won't change anything. If we can get away with using military force in pursuit of our objectives, so can they.

It's the long-term effect of violence that makes it such a poor option. Our use of violence when we think it justified encourages other people to use it when they think it justified.

They fought Tiger Tanks and dive bombers with horse drawn artillery and troops.

I commend your high opinion of yourself, but the judgment of others is usually a little more accurate than self-appraisal.

Sure. It's called using the logic that you presented in your previous post. You posted example after example to prove your point that non-violence in the form of surrendering in the face of aggression is the best thing to do.

I just projected your stated preference for pacificism to some other well-known world events. I'm just using the logic that you presented.

If you think my post was illogical, then you need to re-examine the logic of your own post since I simply borrowed your version.

Surrender is always preferable, even when victory is likely.

Is this a perversion on your part? Or is this a case of a <horrors!> straw man? Or even a straw giant? A straw army? A clumsy attempt at verbal sleight of keyboard? Whatever the cause, it is certainly not convincing. Perhaps you should try a different approach. 

 


"Using" my logic? I should think "perverting" a more descriptive term. Let's not forget the question we are considering here: does non-violence ever really solve anything? I presented a great many historical cases where a non-violent response (surrender) to military defeat solved the problem of threatened annihilation. By substituting non-violent surrender for continuing violence, people came out ahead. I have demonstrated that:

Surrender in the case of military defeat is an effective and non-violent strategy.

You have imputed to me the statement:

Surrender is always preferable, even when victory is likely.

Is this a perversion on your part? Or is this a case of a <horrors!> straw man? Or even a straw giant? A straw army? A clumsy attempt at verbal sleight of keyboard? Whatever the cause, it is certainly not convincing. Perhaps you should try a different approach.

Can non-violent tactics force unwilling rulers to change their policies?
The answer to this seems to be yes, it can.  Even the opponents of the strategy here seem to indicate that it has at times worked in the past.
If so, what tactics work best to make non-violent action effective?
Given the answer to the above, this is, to me, the real issue to be discussed, and it has been ignored in most posts.  Proponents of non-violence could perhaps best address this.
What can defuse an otherwise successful non-violent movement?
....giving the opponents of the strategy their turn 
Does being non-violent mean refusing to act in self defense if attacked while lawfully protesting (the generally accepted rule)?

In its pure form, yes, it does.  Non-violence is non-violence, there can be no exceptions.  How could you start down the path of justification, and not have it end up justifiy almost anything in one's interest?  However, others might have different definitions, including one in your response would probably help clarify the debate.

Excellent points, Hobbes! Let me address the second question: what tactics work best to make non-violent action effective?

I have already discussed the use of surrender as a non-violent response to impending or obvious military inferiority. I think that the role of nonviolence in military situations is fairly well-understood.

Moving on to domestic political conflict, which I think is the area that the original question was directed toward, the best overall tactics were developed by the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s, and further refined by the peace movement of the Vietnam era. Those tactics include:

1. Make it public. You want to create an event that will attract public attention, especially media attention.

2. As Thoreau wrote, you don't want to run amok against society; you want society to run amok against you, thereby demonstrating its moral depravity. That means that you must not do anything morally questionable. No nastiness, no ugliness, no name-calling. You want to innocently assert the rightness of your position and be immorally assaulted for doing so.

3. You must maintain absolute discipline in your ranks. If one person throws a rock, they destroy the entire moral position of your effort. If this happens, you must instantly remove him from the group and assist the police in apprehending him. (There were documented cases in the 60s of government provocateurs infiltrating the ranks of nonviolent protesters and behaving violently.)

4. The police are seldom disciplined enough to handle nonviolent protest; there will always be some jerk in the police ranks who'll cut loose and start beating your people. Train your people to curl up in a ball and protect their heads when this happens, and never ever fight back.

5. It is usually necessary to break the law, but this can only be done where the law is applied in a patently unfair fashion. You are not attempting to get arrested for a parking violation; the point is to get arrested for doing something that most people will agree is unobjectionable. Don't block the sidewalk or the roadway, don't bother other people. Just hold your sign and smile.

6. If arrested, cooperate with the police.

Actually, to apply the non-violent philosophy, surrender would always be only possible reaction to any threatening violence, at least as far as any armed resistance or aggression would go.  Making the straw army you mention more than just a turn of phrase

Actually, to apply the non-violent philosophy, surrender would always be only possible reaction to any threatening violence, at least as far as any armed resistance or aggression would go.  Making the straw army you mention more than just a turn of phrase

4. The police are seldom disciplined enough to handle nonviolent protest; there will always be some jerk in the police ranks who'll cut loose and start beating your people. Train your people to curl up in a ball and protect their heads when this happens, and never ever fight back.

Which is why we have miles and miles and miles of video footage of non-violent protesters getting the snot beat out of them during the last election season and the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, right?

Here's a heads-up for you: the police have learned a lot more about how to deal with non-violent protestors than you think, and are far more disciplined than your skewed perspective allows.

Not true. One's response to any conflict always boils down to one of two options. Engagement, or avoidance. You can make love, make war, make small talk, make money, make memories, make stuff, etc. Those are all forms of engagement. Or you can flee. Flight does seem as though it fits into the model of pacifism, and non-violence, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as non-violent resistance. Resistance implies engagement.

I don't think this is really accurate Hobbes. That is one way of looking at it but I think that it makes a huge assumption that isn't always true. That assumption is that one would practice non-violent resistance only in the face of an armed conflict. This is the mindset of one that doesn't believe in non-violent solutions.

In the mind of someone that does believe that most of our problems can be solved by non-violent resistance, you'd never get to the point of an armed conflict. The reason for that is because you would subdue the other side before they could ever get around to brining military force to bear. You would do this in a number of ways - everything from winning the hearts and minds of the people to making it politically impossible to use force.

My point is that Ted Boom really didn't follow a "strategy of non violence".  They just hid until those practicing extreme violence against the Nazis (the allied armed forces) prevailed.

Actually, my scenario examines when someone committing to non-violence is confronted by someone intent on perpetrating violence. 

(Artemise)
If we are to consider 'non-violence' as a possibility, we cannot even consider the past wars and conflicts as resource material or use them as a point of reference because non-violence was not even a possiblility nor the thinking of the time, to start. We supported violence when it worked for us and made wars on the same people when they worked against us with the same tactics, so its a non issue in this debate.

Non-violence is only something that can be considered in present tense. Non-violence requires a new thinking process.

We continue lie to ourselves about war. We allow our politicians to lie to us about war. All these wars are NOT neccesary, have beeen extremely detrimental to our internal well-being, infrastructure and truly, its never-ending because we like it that way.

People only continue to do what they LIKE to do. When they dislike something it ends.

In order for non-violence to win out over violent tactics, a majority of the planet would need to come together and agree on other forms of discipline and control that would be dealt upon those (leaders) that still desire to act with agression and all the others must act in unison. It IS Possible. Its the same as war, just without the bombs. It takes a totally brand new paradigm, a new way of thinking, but it can be done.

The situation is that war makes money. Those who think its about freedom or religion are frankly laughable. 

I would like to answer the questions except I find them set within the context of an already pro-war scenario.

People first would have to say, I am against wars, of agression initially. Then their democratically elected leaders would have to say, we are against wars, how many of us are there in this world? They would form a coalition and decide how to deal with agressors.
The same as we deal with war scenarios.
Now, why is this so difficult? Because the US and all the G-7 deal in arms to all our prospective enemies and make a fortune doing such. Our economy in the US is driven by war.

Until the people themselves understand that war is a manipulation of them, their families, killing their spirit, wasting their money and undermining their lives, they will support it under all and every circumstance, because they know no better.

One cannot see otherwise when they have not known or have the capability to envision anything different. The US American is especially manipulated to believe everyone IS OUT TO GET YOU year after year!-- Because youre so wonderful and free? ha!
What a crappy way to live. Having a US passport, but you cant go anywhere because 2/3 of the world would like to bludgeon you to death or just outright kill you for your country's policies, now thats freedom!

I love the current ideology of a WAR of agression to export democracy! Lets slaughter and bomb people into freedom!  US citizens are the most lied to about war, which they live from the day they are born, like an Orwellian novel. They never can keep up with who the hell theyre friends with and who theyre suddenly enemies with and now bombing through their lifetimes. They switch hit and rationalize all the time.

I think non-violence needs its day in the sun. I think its our only hope.
The US is too much eye for an eye, and many get great joy from it, a huge seething satisfaction from violence.  Too many who can never come to envision an idea of peace, ever. Kill and be killed is pretty much what the US will be about for decades at least, and they love it!

How about the Finnish surrender to the USSR in 1940? They could have waved their flags, shouted "Give me liberty or give me death!" and continued fighting against overwhelming odds, but no, those cowardly, unmanly Finns actually chose nonviolent surrender over continuing violent resistance. Worse, they surrendered to Godless Communism! But they chose nonviolence and guess what -- it was better than the alternative!

Rubbish. If the Finns had chosen non-violence from the start and surrendered, they would have lost 100% of their territory to Soviet rule. Because they fought back, and fought back hard, they lost "only" 10% of their territory (along with 20% of their industrial capacity).

We can argue particulars of history, but I think that the general principle is unquestionable: when faced with superior military force, it's usually better to avoid military confrontation, and when faced with overwhelming military force, it's always better to take the nonviolent route.

That general principle sort of argues in favor of "violence", doesn't it? If superior military force wins whatever it wants, and the weaker must capitulate, better have the largest, best military around (or some good friends with the largest military who will defend you) or you will be forced to acquiesce to whatever the stronger demands of you. I rather think a better policy is to be strong enough (and willing to fight enough) to make it sufficiently costly to the stronger and thus be more likely to avoid the whole thing.

Stalin demanded some Finnish islands, a lease on a base at Hanko to be garrisoned with 5,000 men, and some Finnish land near Leningrad.

We can argue particulars of history, but I think that the general principle is unquestionable: when faced with superior military force, it's usually better to avoid military confrontation, and when faced with overwhelming military force, it's always better to take the nonviolent route.

Not only do I think your general principle is not "unquestionable," I think it's plain nonsense. It has been my experience, both in the schoolyards of my youth and in studying interventions in the Balkans, that if you give in to a bully even once, he'll keep coming back and taking your lunch money. That is, until you punch him in the nose; you might come off badly in that one fight, but next time, he'll probably pick on someone whom he considers an easier target.

Stalin's initial demands may have been less than Finland ended up losing, but it's no stretch of the imagination to surmise that, had Finland given in to those demands, it would only have been a matter of time before the next bunch of demands arrived, followed by more, etc. It's what's known as "salami tactics"; one slice at a time, none of them worth going to war over in and of itself, but before you know it, the other guy's scarfed your whole sausage.

First, let's keep in mind that we are here considering the particular case in which the bully has superior military force, and that the victim will surely lose the confrontation. You argue that the bully will be dissuaded from further aggression by a stout defense that inflicts some injury upon him. You argue that giving in to the bully only encourages further aggression.

Let's analyze that argument from the point of view of the bully. He makes a cost-free threat that might earn him a benefit X or might earn him nothing. If the victim folds, then he earns X and, as you observe, will benefit from further aggression. However, if the victim resists, then he attacks the victim, and the victim is militarily defeated. At this point, why should the aggressor confine his demand to X? Where there was uncertainty before the war, there is now the certainty of the victim's defeat. The aggressor has every reason to demand more than the original X, in proportion to the margin of victory. Indeed, if the aggressor achieves total victory and occupies the victim's entire homeland, then there is no need to even treat with the victim; the aggressor simply takes everything that he wants.

We have a perfect example of this in the recent military action in Iraq. The US issued an ultimatum requiring Saddam Hussein to leave the country. Saddam refused, the US invaded, and took the whole country. Indeed, Saddam followed your recommendations and look where it got him. He fought back hard at every opportunity. He resisted the UNMOVIC inspection regime. If he had rolled over and given in to the UN and later the US, he'd still be in power today. Fortunately for the world, Saddam did not follow his best strategy -- he followed your recommendation.

According to your example, the aggressor won't confine his demand to X either way. Obviously, the aggressor will be able to demand more of the victim in proportion to the amount that victim is able to resist. Doesn't make much of an argument for non-armed resistance. It makes a very good argument for maintaining a capable military.

I'm not sure your example is perfect, or even applicable. Up until this time we have been discussing violent resistance versus non-violent resistance, and the subsequent capitulation process for the loser. In the case of Saddam, he capitulated and agreed to certain terms (after losing), signing a contract to honor that commitment. Subsequently, he refused to honor it. I think most of us would agree it’s best to honor written commitments.  Not sure how this fits into the violent resistence versus non-violent. It’s more in the  refuse to honor agreements/ honor agreements category.

In a perfect world, everybody would be militarily equal and there'd be no reason to believe that anybody could win a war. But in the real world, there are big bullies and little guys. What's a poor little guy to do? Fighting the big bully isn't the best option.

When facing military superiority, the goal would be to try position yourself to demonstrate that the cost of attacking wouldn't be worth the gain. This could be through blustering of force, intimiating heavy casualties, or through manipulation of world opinion, creating other costs. In all such cases, though, the inferior side is probably always persuing a strategy of non-violence, since violence will surely result in capitulation. It is really more a matter of creating that delicate balance between bluster and action, which will vary in each and every situation.

Let's analyze that argument from the point of view of the bully. He makes a cost-free threat that might earn him a benefit X or might earn him nothing. If the victim folds, then he earns X and, as you observe, will benefit from further aggression. However, if the victim resists, then he attacks the victim, and the victim is militarily defeated. At this point, why should the aggressor confine his demand to X? Where there was uncertainty before the war, there is now the certainty of the victim's defeat.