Advantages Of Selective Pacifism
Pacifism is the broad belief that war and violence are unethical and that disputes should be settled with nonviolence. It is divided into three main sections: absolute pacifism, conditional pacifism, and selective pacifism. The fact that pacifism has different branches supports its effectiveness as a foreign policy because it provides different options for nations to incorporate pacifism into their foreign policy. It gives the nation the freedom to choose how they want to include peace without being restricted to one branch. For example, absolute pacifism is probably not an effective principle to add to a foreign policy, but the fact that there are other forms, such as selective and conditional, makes pacifism more effective as a foreign policy.
…show more content…
Consequently, selective pacifists believe that weapons of mass destruction (like nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) should not be used in warfare. Selective pacifism, just like the other forms, has issues when applied to foreign policy. Even though a selective pacifist nation can still have a strong military, their decision to refrain from the use of weapons of mass destruction puts them at a disadvantage in warfare. For example, if a selective pacifist nation is involved in a war against a nation that uses a powerful nuclear weapons, the selective pacifist nation would most likely lose the war. However, if a selective pacifist nation can keep positive relations with other nations or form a pact with other nations to not use destructive weapons, then selective pacifism might be effective as a foreign policy. Selective pacifism could have positive consequences as a foreign policy as well. The choice to not use destructive weapons can save many human lives in a war. Furthermore, other nations might follow in the footsteps of a selective pacifist nation after seeing that not using weapons of mass destruction prevents the unnecessary loss of human lives. Selective pacifism makes a nation less of a target than a conditional or absolute pacifist because they can still have a strong military. Additionally, selective pacifists argue that refraining from the use of extremely devastating weapons in warfare helps to make a war winnable. Selective pacifism can be an effective foreign policy under certain
Consequently, selective pacifists believe that weapons of mass destruction (like nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons) should not be used in warfare. Selective pacifism, just like the other forms, has issues when applied to foreign policy. Even though a selective pacifist nation can still have a strong military, their decision to refrain from the use of weapons of mass destruction puts them at a disadvantage in warfare. For example, if a selective pacifist nation is involved in a war against a nation that uses a powerful nuclear weapons, the selective pacifist nation would most likely lose the war. However, if a selective pacifist nation can keep positive relations with other nations or form a pact with other nations to not use destructive weapons, then selective pacifism might be effective as a foreign policy. Selective pacifism could have positive consequences as a foreign policy as well. The choice to not use destructive weapons can save many human lives in a war. Furthermore, other nations might follow in the footsteps of a selective pacifist nation after seeing that not using weapons of mass destruction prevents the unnecessary loss of human lives. Selective pacifism makes a nation less of a target than a conditional or absolute pacifist because they can still have a strong military. Additionally, selective pacifists argue that refraining from the use of extremely devastating weapons in warfare helps to make a war winnable. Selective pacifism can be an effective foreign policy under certain