The paragraph above disputes about decision/action/consequences/law, while; gives a simple and ragged ethical manner, has nothing to tell us about cases, doesn't care if that action is selling drugs and killing innocent people. It is obvious if you put that two bad things like killing or selling drugs into strategic reasoning in international relations, Situation of strategic decision making clearly says, these two don’t matter, and no sorrow needed while the death is only for the others. The one who couldn’t peruse his right, even if that right is about his existence, or his whole life, would simply be ignored by this kind of ethics or in other words the ‘ethic’ that include other's right, simply is not a strategic factor to be considered.
This goes back to the essence of strategy making. The strategist deals with specific factors such as resources, duration, capabilities, results, and consequences. The morals and rights of others have never been one of the factors involved in strategy. As strategists deciding and acting on their papers, all of their perceptions are about opportunity, profit, winning, or in terms of war, words like the totality of goal achievement at the lowest cost estimation. So dying, being injured or becoming an orphan
Is the problem of others and even could be necessary if they are rivals.
In this creed of strategism, historical cases are uncountable. One of the most infamous cases is Russo-Persian wars (1804-1813) which Russian was technologically superior to the Qajar Empire, and had the firepower to start a full-scale war against the weakest Persian empire of all time. The outcome was ceding a large part of Persian land known as Caucasus territories (Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, part of south Russia, etc) to the new Russian tsar empire. This war was like many other wars but the view of the concept of conflict that I am talking about is not just land occupying and old imperialistic wars. This concept still matters today and better weapons and trading issues as the igniter are the main features of it.
The 19th-century opium war is one of the greatest in history and also in shame and notoriety. As Wikipedia says; "the Anglo-Chinese War, was a series of military engagements fought between Britain and the Qing dynasty of China. The British Navy defeated the Chinese using technologically superior ships and weapons, and the British then imposed a treaty that granted territory to Britain and opened trade with China".
What do we see in the portrait of this war? The grasp of mine is that only a military advantage on the British side ruled the plan of war’s decision/action/consequences/law. The last is a one-sided treaty for the British at the end of the war in Nanking (known as Treaty of Nanjing). Nevertheless, what is the outcome for both sides and imposing inhuman one-sided people devastating opium trade, is not my point either. The issue I want to focus on is how technological superiority on the British side which lead them to war without any hesitation, made the morality out of sight for strategicians of that time.
When the British navy saw themselves superior in military tools but confined without necessity and foods in Kowloon port, after getting a negative answer for a bullish ultimatum of procuring provisions with half an hour deadline, the war started by conducting a gunfire attack on Chinese junk boats. Several junks destroyed and the battle of Kowloon ended with a claim of victory by both sides. This farce and funny battle in the eye of American captain Robert Bennet Forbes soon leads to many other battles against Chinese people, ports, and cities.
At that aforementioned time, the Chinese forcibly bought an annual 1400tons of opium. "In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor appointed scholar-official Lin Zexu to the post of Special Imperial Commissioner with the task of eradicating the opium trade. Lin's famous open letter to Queen Victoria appealed to Queen Victoria's moral reasoning. Lin questioned how Britain could declare itself moral while its merchants profited from the legal sale in China of a drug that was banned in Britain". This letter received no conducive attention, even after reprinted in The Times a London newspaper. Victoria addressing House of Lords in 1840 with deeply concerned about her dignity and crown only talked about the interruption of the commercial relations, futile for Chinese and they simply were being ignored as war protracted till 1842.
It’s a commonsense perception, everybody knows the free trade which came from the superior military tools and surprising action needs the ego of people who have an inner voice to tell them: "I am superior and I shall act, why not?!". Eventually, this differentiated western-eastern top-down vision of ‘I’ realized it’s meaning by sense of the power and showing it to others in the media region.
To change the direction of western public opinion and judgment, the media done many efforts at that time.
The war extended with ‘free trade’ Motto ran by the logic of gunboat policy for the British and began a century of humiliation for Chinese. When gunboat policy showed its costs and casualties and not much support gathered in main British land, politicians of Whig party started propagandizing against Chinese and advocating for war. Among British public opinion, the Chinese faced too many peculiar stories about their "despotism and cruelty". The rout of this propagandizing endeavors about Chinese by Whig party could be traced to the metaphor of ‘Yellow Peril’ (Yellow Terror) In the next decade, then xenophobia storytelling remains in the 20th century and continued as a job for many western writers with the series of popular novels about evil Chinese mad scientist. Today is so easy to find new propaganda materials like these, at the beginning of the new us-china trade war in western media.
Thus, the creation of new political technologies like gunboat policy to serve the motto of free trade as an ideology, technical military advantage, and the media, made the triangle of power projection complete. There are too many small wars like this to be noticed: Watermelon war, banana war, cacao war, even don’t let em have Pancho without our consent!. This time against poor Central American countries by whom were laughing at the British in opium war, the United States of America. Therefore, the history fo this concept of war continued by Americans who deeply lost in the lust of military technology and heavily interested in Gunboat policy in international relations as a daily meal, in code name Power Projection. Because of the loudness of their ego this time anyone could hear"
"I am technologically superior and I shall act, why not?!. I am the one who got all the rights because I am the creator of too many beautiful fighter jets and too many supercarriers…!"
There is a great deal of theoretical debate among scholars about the foundations of international relations. Different views based on realism, constructivism, neoliberalism, or functionalism, But this article intends to provide an analysis from the perspective of military strategy. If we accept this concept in then in conceptual development, any attempt to negotiate and persuade a superior power to uphold your rights is futile. not because of its evil nature or its bloody historical enmity with you but just For a simple reason that your rights have no place in his sources of strategy making.
thus, if they were not able to start a war or consider themselves as looser on paper, wars would never happen. Even if their enemy is poor Cuba but with an atomic bomb! So all the rights the world superpowers considering for themselves today would be blown by a nuclear smelly wind. Of course, negotiation, nations talk, humanity, morals, and international law would back at the tables and the military options temporarily get off. While on the technological side, literature will change from power projection to deterrence, and every side of the power game still perusing their rights by advancing in military technology. So we can't wait for ‘F-68 block 235 (Carlthunder)’ to see how this new creature would save the US rights or make new ones.
Every nation saw this kind of war against them and many of them have done such. Iran isn’t excluded and the pressure to extend the idea of seeking rights via military technology never ends. It's not about power projection, not law, not cooperation, it is about technological righteousness.