Kubbrick's Theory Of Brinksmanship

In a way, brinkmanship can be seen as hostile bargaining because it can take place in a genuine crisis. Brinkmanship essentially relied on threatening the opponent and expecting them to back down. But it is also suicidal because there is a chance neither party will back down, then the result will be destruction for one or both parties involved.

In general, conflict theory is to explain the conflict between authority groups and powerless groups through the uneven distribution of power and resources in society (Lai, 2013). It is based entirely in power and how those in power do all they can to hold the majority of the population down and to keep them from gaining power, so as to secure their own position. Conflict theorists all assume that the existing social order is not a product of consensus and mutual benefit but rather a function of power differentials in society. These perspectives recognize that societal resources are limited and contend that opposing groups are in a constant struggle for a greater share of the resources and power that comes with them. As groups struggle to gain

If you constantly split the difference or “straddle the fence,” game playing can result and the outcome could be less than ideal.

Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy ... the fearto attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It 's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

John Knowles’ novel A Separate Peace recounts the turbulent life led by a young American teenager during the chaos and uncertainty of World War II. While attending Devon School, Gene Forrester, a brainy yet insecure teen, finds adventure and companionship with his well-rounded friend and roommate Finny. Despite Gene’s own strength as an academic, his envy for the ever-charming and athletic Finny creates a competitive rift and one-sided rivalry that proves unhealthy and dangerous to their relationship.

Though people questioned why acts of war were committed, they found justification in rationalizing that it served the greater good. As time evolved, the world began to evolve in its thinking and view of the atomic bomb and war. In Hiroshima, John Hersey has a conversation with a survivor of the atomic bomb about the general nature of war. “She had firsthand knowledge of the cruelty of the atomic bomb, but she felt that more notice should be given to the causes than to the instruments of total war.” (Hersey, 122). In John Hersey’s book, many concepts are discussed. The most important concept for the reader to identify was how society viewed the use of the bomb. Many people, including survivors, have chosen to look past the bomb itself, into the deeper issues the bomb represents. The same should apply to us. Since WWII, we have set up many restrictions, protocols and preventions in the hope that we could spare our society from total nuclear war. The world has benefited in our perspective of the bomb because we learned, understand, and fear the use of atomic weapons.

To show satire in Dr Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, director Stanley Kubrick uses parody, exaggeration, and incongruity. One effective method Kubrick uses is parody. In the movie, Kubrick plays on actors and typical stereotypes. Major Kong, as played by Louis Burton Lindley, Jr. or Slim Pickens, is a play on the American Cowboy. When Major Kong goes down to the bombs to open the doors he gets dropped with the bomb.

Leo Szilard states his thesis in his introduction paragraph with “It places in your hands, as Commander-in-Chief, the fateful decision whether or not to sanction the use of such bombs in the present phase of the war against Japan” (par. 1). This is an example of a pathos that the author uses to initially grab the attention of the President and readers. Szilard hooks the attention of the President by

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) is a dark comedy film by Stanley Kubrick. The film deals with nuclear war which was a hot topic during the 50 's and 60 's. Americans were very paranoid about communists and nuclear war at this time. This film shows how ridiculous the paranoia about nuclear war through a sexual relationship allegory. The allegory deals with the masculine and the feminine. The masculine is an important part of the nuclear war efforts while the feminine takes a backseat. The feminine is displayed in men as a negative. The sexual allegory becomes funny through

Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb challenges the beliefs of war and equates war to a mockery created by sexually crippled men. The most symbolic scene in the film, one that truly exemplifies what Kubrick was trying to show his audience, is the famous "riding of the bomb" scene in which actor Slim Pickens howls with satisfaction and lust as he plummets toward earth with an atomic bomb firmly between his legs. Kubrick’s effect is to make the audience want to see that bomb dropped which is the climax with Kong riding it. His mind far from fear or doubt, he is exhilarated. The imagery of straddling the bomb, the intensity and satisfaction with which he dislodges the bomb and ensures not only his own destruction but also those around him.

“Dr.Strangelove” is an 1964 film based on the argument of rational; deterrence theory by Kenneth Waltz. Many of the events that occurred during the film also complimented many of the critiques of rational deterrence theory later made by Scott Sagan. Nuclear weapons have been an important issue for debate for years. The spotlight of nuclear weapons was an important factor during the cold war nevertheless the question of nuclear weapons remains afterwards. The question of both the spread and contraction of nuclear weapons remains a strong issue because of the opposing theories that argue against the question of the spread, contraction furthermore the total dissolution of nuclear weapons.

Nor can effective use of power be reduced to wise control of our personal powers, though that may be a good start.  Social power, including our own, is concentrated, channelled, and distributed by the culture and structure of our families, communities, organizations, countries, etc.  Personal power is limited or extended by such cultures and structures.

Conflict or disagreement over the range of issues has become inherent aspect of modern organisational life. People from different cultural and education background work in an organisation. People working in an organisation may possess different goal and interest. People working in organisation may tend to different over a range of issues including organisational politics, organisational procedure, personal preference or political preference. It is also argued that conflict is essential characteristics of organisational life. Role of manager is paramount with regard to negotiating the conflict that arises in organisational life (http://www.sagepub.com/). Often lack of

In many aspects of our life, it is pervasive to work in a team. No matter in company, school, or another type of team it is necessary to be a part of a team and to achieve a team goal by corporations. People join a team with different personalities, goals, values, beliefs and needs. On the one hand, these differences can be a valuable quality of teams. On the other hand, these same differences inevitably lead to different levels of conflicts as well.

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)