Assignment 9: Elana Ehl

I wish that I could say violence is never need, or that all can be accomplished diplomatically, but people are constantly breaking rules around the world and if there was no punishment severe enough to make them stop, would they? I personally do not believe that North Korea would stop testing nuclear weapons, that Iran would stop producing nuclear weapons, or that Sudan would stop its genocide without the prompt of military conflict. An argument against this may be that there are laws put in place by the United Nations and diplomatic consequence such as embargoes to punish the wrong doings. But what good does stopping contact with a country do if they are self sustainable and don't care of the consequences?
There is a point in all major conflicts that debating and diplomatic solutions can only do so much. Now I know that to some I may sound like a sadist, but hear me out. When you were little and constantly broke some house hold rule, what worked better to make you stop: someone taking away dessert or being sent to your room for a long time? In my opinion imposing a diplomatic consequence on a country that doesn't care is about as effective as taking dessert away from a child that did not want it anyway. Putting the child into a seemingly endless timeout, strategically, militarily combatting the situation, is much more effective.