The Pros And Cons Of Nonviolent Resistance

1050 Words3 Pages

Final Examination It has been said that war is a continuation of policy by other means, as we have seen over the past semester there exists a vast variety of ways for these other means to be carried out. With every form of warfare examined there has been one striking similarity amongst the group, all types of warfare aim to bring about some form of change. Whether that be a societal, political, or economic change all designs of warfare aim to bring about a number of these changes. Nonviolent resistance may not be the first to mind when the term warfare is discussed, though given some inspection it can be reasonable to think of it in this way. Just like the other forms of warfare, nonviolent resistance too shares the common goal to produce a change by some other means. In fact, over the course of history this form of warfare has achieved far greater success when pitted against dictatorships than violent warfare ever would have. The workings of a nonviolent struggle are in many ways more complex that those of violent warfare. A nonviolent struggle requires a great deal more planning, commitment, and discipline to be I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Sharp and am convinced that nonviolent resistance is a form of warfare. The past has shown us that a nonviolent struggle is a justifiable form of attack when faced with an overbearing dictatorship as an enemy. The resistance has the same intentions a violent campaign would have, just a different way to complete the objective. Both as discussed wish to create some economic, political, or social change in their society. A nonviolent resistance most often thought of for toppling a dictatorship is the only choice an oppressed people have to fight back. This being said there is no way to think of nonviolent resistance as anything other than

Open Document