
Originally Posted by
oldrider
Shaking hands with one hand while pointing a 45 at his temple with the other? - Yeah that should be worth a "peace prize".
Interesting analogy.
At the end of a conflict, almost all peace is initially brought about at the barrel of a Gun.
If the outcome is that both parties can sit down and talk, is it wrong that to implied force was used to get them to that point?
The key part of any negotiation is to know the things that you want, to know what things you can and cannot compromise on and to know the same about your opposition and further to know what they cannot afford to loose.
If we remove the firearm analogy and go for something a little more mundane: Asking for a pay rise - you know what you want (more money) you know that you can negotiate on a figure, but there is a figure below which you won't accept it. You also need to know what your company can afford to pay out and you need to know what the impact of your departure will be to the company should you leave.
There is still a degree of implied force - namely "If you don't meet this minimum figure, I will look elsewhere for a job" and hopefully if you are a good employee, with marketable skills - the outcome of you leaving is less desirable than the outcome of paying you more money.
Point to all this is:
If it gets people to Talk, a little implied violence is a good thing. The trick is - to remain talking and not to move from an implicit violence, to an explicit one.
As a side note, I wonder if North Korea's recent nuclear tests have given them some degree of confidence that they can now negotiate with the US as some form of Equal?
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Bookmarks