Research Question If a state uses deterrence by means of threat they will have an increased success in their counter terrorism strategies. This may be seen more affective as well in smaller organizations that do not have a lot of resources. Argument I believe that if a state threatens a terrorist organization, the terrorist organization will be less inclined to complete their desired attack on the state if they are a smaller organization that does not have many resources and also it the state uses the correct cost benefit analysis when creating the threat so make sure that the threat is affective. Theory or Mechanism Smaller organizations with less resources do not have the man power or the financial backing to properly combat an attack …show more content…
Deterrence by punishment relies on threatening to harm something an adversary values. For example,“During the Cold War, Washington threatened to attack Moscow, and Moscow, Washington. Both were deterred because of the costs associated with initiating an attack.” ( Wilner) While the means of creating an affecting deterrence strategy may be a complicated matter as it involves the calculus of punishment of the potential costs of inaction on the part of the challenger. “While pursuing an unwanted action may result in punishment, acquiescing to a deterrent might also carry a cost. In order to be effective, then, a punishment must carry more weight than the cost of inaction in the challenger’s calculus” …show more content…
As there have been researchers that express their disbelief that any forms of deterrence are affective towards any size or capability of a terrorist organization. “Generally skeptics think that terrorist organizations are not rational decision makers. There is a fundamentalist religiosity that negates rational decision making so therefore deterrence strategies wouldn’t work. There is also a thought that there is no way to truly deter terrorist organizations as they lack a returning address and they are willing to die for their cause. There is the idea that “fanaticism creates diverging contextualization’s and a penchant for risk-accepting, maximalist, and resolute behavior; an individual who actualizes a splendid life after death fears neither retaliation nor punishment”
...eory. Though further testing needs to establish if this theory is correct, it will provide a single theory for deterrence, eliminating the possibility of accidentally excluding essential issues, and provide more resources to those trying to distinguish between deterrence and defiance.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
9/11 was one of the darkest days in America, but some say the government could have been part of these attacks. For many years people have debated about the 9/11 cover up. This theory cannot explain why the government would do this. Once people understand why the 9/11 cover up is fake, they will begin to see the answer to their problem, could the government have done this? This conspiracy theory is wrong because, terrorists admitted to the attacks, so many people died, and there's no evidence against the government.
The general idea with deterrence is that the possibility of punishment, or being made an “example of” through harsher sentencing; will sway people to not commit crime. The principal was thought to be that if you increase the harshness or severity of consequence for ones actions, you can in turn reduce the crime rate, but that may in fact not be the case. “There is now considerable research that disputes this idea especially with regards to jail sentences. The sentencing commission found that there is no evidence of a deterrent effect from increasing the severity of the sentence. But instead accepted that any deterrence effect comes from the entire process rather than a particular sentenced
One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the “traditional” nuclear powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a state, one cannot formally declare war on a terrorist group, thus causing difficulties in regards to concerns of specific conflicts or targets. It is not as if one could penalize a terrorist group with economic sanctions or any other means states employ to deter threats from and intimidate one another. The globalized world has created a form of terrorism that knows no borders, and it would be very difficult to exert one’s will on a terrorist group, at least on a large scale. The coinciding fact that terrorists do not conduct warfare in the same manner as states do makes them increasingly unpredictable. A terrorist employment of a nuclear arm would not occur during an organized conflict; rather it would be used in a terrorist attack without warning. And due to the growing fervor of fundamental religious terrorism, there is a greater willingness among terrorists to sacrifice their own lives in pursuit of their goals. These combined elements create a frightening world in which today’s most astounding new threat possesses weapons of the most awesome power.
Deterrence: This philosophy is made to discourage criminals from committing future crimes. Deterrence include prisons, or execution. If you send a criminal to prison, or executing them, this will discourage the other criminals from committing the same crime.
Specific Deterrence vs. General Deterrence: The purpose of punishing and threatening to punish civilians is to diminish or at least limit the frequency of societies’ criminal activity, in terms of deterrence. The wholly aim of deterrence is to obstruct an individual’s potential offense by means of insertion of fear. Specific deterrence solely applies to individuals who have been administered with some type of punishment, that ultimately render him/her with fear of being penalized again when he contemplates on offending in the future. On the other hand, general deterrence applies to the public at large. It refers to a general understanding and fear that certain unlawful behaviors will be followed upon by a punishment.
The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as
Deterrence – is connected to punishment where it is a way to let a person who has committed a crime know and to let the rest of society or those looking to commit a crime know it will not be tolerated or accepted and there is the possibility of some form of punishment. (Stojkovic and Lovell 2013) If a person or society sees what can happen if they commit a crime by seeing what happens to others then they are more likely to obey the laws and live an honest lifestyle.
first, that the same threat is diverted from a larger to a smaller group of people, and
Deterrence theory of crime is a method in which punishment is used to dissuade people from committing crimes. There are two types of deterrence: general and specific. General deterrence is punishment to an individual to stop the society as a whole from committing crimes. In other word, it is using the punishment as an example to “scare” society from precipitating in criminal acts. Under general deterrence, publicity is a major part of deterrence. Crime and their punishments being showing in the media or being told person to person can be used to deter crime. Specific deterrence is punishment to the individual to stop that individual from committing other crimes in the future. This type of deterrence is used to teach the individual a lesson whatever action that participated in. Specific deterrence is founded on a principle called hedonistic calculus meaning, “an assumption that human nature leads people to pursue pleasure and avoid pain” (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2010, p 155).
...e their motivation. Only then can we determine of how to further execute an already structured plan of action that pertains to a case by case scenario as each and every one of different organizations that may possess a threat can have different ways of carrying it out. Response should be immediate and appropriate (timely/proper measure of force displayed) in order to deal with the perpetrators humanely while disseminating the threat. As it has been determined that terrorism is impossible to predict. However, once again, with all of the knowledge provided by the articles on the topics of terrorism in relation to religion and religious cults my best supporting statement would be – to investigate each and every one of these organizations that surface and allocate a task force to comprehensively analyze their each and every move while being ready to cease their actions.
Deterrence suggests that people are “deterred” from a crime by the threat of punishment. In other words, people won’t commit a crime if the ramifications that were to follow are so severe. Deterrence comes in two flavors, specific and general. Specific deterrence refers to the “threat of punishment” being directly aimed towards a particular individual who has already committed the crime through actually experiencing the punishment first hand. An example of this may be, being convicted of a crime and as a result being sentenced to so many years in jail or prison. However, in order for it to be successful, the “previously ...
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...
In this world there are many different topics of controversy. With every controversial topic comes different views and arguments explaining why people believe what they do. There are problems that can be just within one country or throughout the entire world. Terrorism affects everyone in the world, specifically us as Americans, which is why it is one of the biggest controversial topics. Of course with a topic as big as terrorism, there are emic and etic perspectives involved. With past history, there are specific countries and religions that we think of when we hear the word terrorism, specifically Afghanistan, located in the Middle East and the Muslim religion in that general area. Being part of the American