Nuclear Warfare A Conflict of Deterrence - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 7 Words: 2243 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Politics Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Nuclear warfare is often posited as essentially different from conventional warfare.   Certainly they are conceived of as so, since dominating the cultural imagination in the Second World War (Gamson, 1989, 2).   Dozens of films have been made depicting disasters caused by nuclear war in the past few decades, especially when the threat was most imminent during the cold war, and these films generally depict nuclear weapons as distinct from other violent weapons of war (Perrine viii, 1998). This differentiation is further mirrored in fiction which heavily suggests that psychologically, nuclear weapons are perceived as different and unique.   But does this psychological classification reflect real differences, or are nuclear weapons simply the most dangerous weapon of war on a continuum of deadly weapons?   Examining the history and the policy trends since the first use of the weapons, I argue that nuclear warfare is different not beca use the weapons themselves are deadlier, but because their damage is inflicted on all participants in the war; as a result, nuclear states pursue a policy of deterrence through mutually assured destruction (MAD). To evaluate nuclear war and weapons in comparison with conventional war and weapons and determine their difference, if any does exist, I will use two main criteria.   First, I will examine the violent capabilities of nuclear weapons compared to war fought with conventional weapons and second, I will examine how these weapons are interpreted and used in international relations.   I conclude that the difference between conventional warfare and nuclear warfare is not the weapons themselves, as the damage in terms of destruction of lives, infrastructure, and landscape can be matched by other forms of violence; however, the way in which nuclear weapons perform this violence causes them to be interrupted differently, and this different interpretation means t hat the way political entities view and use them is also different. Nuclear weapons are understood to be distinct from conventional weapons precisely because of their increased destructive capacity, a capacity which negates the goal of warfare.   Here, war is seen as a tactic used for the purpose of gaining power in a struggle between organised political groups. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Nuclear Warfare: A Conflict of Deterrence" essay for you Create order As such, it is a political instrument, the resort to force to advance political purposes and to settle political conflicts between sovereign communities (Cohen and Lee, 1986, 9).   In a rational political system, in order to go to war, the party waging it must believe that the end result will be conditions so preferable to the pre-war ones that they justify both the risk and the cost of war.   In short, the object of war is to attain a better peace.   Victory in the true sense implies that the state of peace, for ones people, is better after the war than before (Hart 1974, 353).   If nothing can be gained by war, then it is illogical to wage. Because nuclear warfare has the distinct possibility of destroying whole continents, it can be said it is distinct from conventional war. Moreover, the threat of its use can be utilised as an effective diplomatic tool in a way that conventional war cannot really match. This notion provides the foundations behind th e theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which assumes that the threat of global devastation is sufficient to deter states from conflict (Sokolski 2004, v). MAD also supports the notion that the possession or development of these weapons gives a state power, however it would be illogical for such a state to utilise them. For example, India views its official defence policy as a doctrine which expressly calls for deterrence by threat of putative retaliation via their nuclear force (Sokolski 2004, 293).   If India were to be attacked by nuclear weapons, so long as India still retained the possibility of striking back with its own weapons à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" a distinct possibility as the technology stands today à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" then its counter-attack would be destructive enough to the aggressor as to nullify the original aims.   In short, to a rational actor, nuclear warfare would never be worth the risk, and therefore, it can be suggested that possessing destruct ive weapons is the key to peace. Unfortunately, the counter to this theory argues that nuclear weapons are not a special kind of weapon, and simply function as a deterrent today because they are the latest weapon.   Indeed, there is a history of other weapons which have also been seen as destructive enough to destroy the aims of war.   In the escalation of violence during World War II for example, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only marginally more horrific in terms of destruction of life and property than the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden which were conducted through the use of so-called conventional weapons (Leviton 1991, 252). Moreover, the holocaust of Nanking by Japan early in the war certainly wrought similar levels devastation though it took the matter of days rather than seconds (Chang 2012, 15). Looking further back into history, civilisation-ending destruction has always been a consequence of war.   When the Golden Horde of the Mongol s attacked the northern Chinese Jin, the most advanced and populated cities in the world at the time, the death toll was in the millions as the Mongols ground the cities into dust.   Moreover, at the time, it also appeared that death on that scale was both unprecedented and unlikely to occur again. The scale of this attack is demonstrated by this account from Arab historian Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) a tremendous disaster such as [this] had never happened beforeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦It may well be that the world from now until its endà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦will not experience the like of it again (Burgan 2009, 27).   Looking back even earlier to the Punic Wars, Carthage was destroyed with the Roman equivalent of weapons of mass destruction: salt sewn into the ground to prevent life from ever emerging again (Cornell, 2012, 443).   Biological and chemical pathogens are newer, but equally deadly and fast-acting: mustard gas, for example, became taboo after its effective use for mas s-slaughter by the Germans in World War I (Price 1997, 61). This historical overview shows that the deadliness of nuclear weapons in terms of capacities to destroy civilisations and their civilian populations is not unique. While the decades of research and development since Hiroshima and Nagasaki have certainly amplified the deadliness of the weapons, their capability to kill is not unique. What has changed from the days of Carthage, though, is the speed at which this destruction is done.   This is because a state, once the victim of a nuclear attack, can possibility still retain the ability to launch a nuclear retaliation, and in so doing, create enough to do mass destruction to the victor.   Complete destruction has always been a possible outcome in warfare, but the ability to win a war and still be destroyed to the point that life is no longer sustainable is unique to modernity. As nuclear scholar Cohen writes, a state in a post-nuclear war would not be whi ch political system would survive, but whether any would (Cohen 1986, 9). This categorical difference of MAD makes nuclear warfare an irrational act, waged only by a nihilist system unconcerned with its own existence.   However, these weapons obviously play a role in the international system.   There are two reasons for this.   First, the weapons are not ubiquitous; only a few developed countries have the weapons, giving them a clear military advantage over non-nuclear states.   So long as this advantage remains, deterrence via mutually assured destruction is not possible.   This is one of the reasons which nuclear countries refuse to completely destroy their arsenals; moreover, it becomes a reason for non-nuclear states to pursue such weapons. States will seek to develop nuclear weapons when they face a significant military threat that cannot be met through alternative means (Sagan 2007, 54). Put simply, if two states are in conflict, and neith er possess a weapon which will cause mutually assured destruction, the weaker state will seek such a weapon as an insurance policy.   At the same time, third party states both with and without such weapons will oppose the acquisition, as expanding the nuclear club is only an advantage to the state seeking admittance. Because having nuclear weapons is so important for deterrence, states in possession cannot abandon them nor publically claim that they will not use these weapons.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   This how the paradox of nuclear deterrence is reached.   States seeking to avoid nuclear warfare must therefore make a credible commitment to use them; if such a commitment cannot be made, then other states will not be afraid of attacking.   As Cohen summarizes: threatening to do what would serve no political purpose [launch a war of mutually assured destruction] is the only way to avoid nuclear war (Cohen 1986, 10). This principle of nuclear deterrence leads to bri nksmanship behaviour, where nuclear powers continually assert their readiness to use the weapons.  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚   Such behaviour can be observed especially during the Cold War, where the USSR and the USA both threatened nuclear war precisely because they did not wish it to occur.   In the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, both states demonstrated their willingness to use weapons; it was because their wiliness was so well demonstrated that neither side felt free to use them (Trachtenberg 1985, 142). Had either power capitulated early, the other would have felt free to attack. Since the end of the Cold War, brinkmanship behaviour exists only between actively hostile states.   The USA, not having a serious rival in the unipolar international system, no longer needs to demonstrate its wiliness to use its arsenal.   Where brinksmanship is seen is between states such as India and Pakistan, where both states have reason to engage in conflict and both possess nuclear weapons (Kroenig 2013, 147).  Ãƒâ€š Adding to MAD, there are two other factors which determine nuclear behaviour: psychological categorisation of nuclear weapons as worse and more inhumane than other weapons, and the existence of non-rational actors with the possibility of becoming nuclear powers.   The psychologically distinct category of nuclear weapons arose in part due to the significant pushback against the weapons after the Second World War.   While the violence and destruction caused by the bombs was not significantly worse, as I earlier argued, the newness and manner of destruction caused them to be singled out for condemnation (Tannenwald 2007, 74). As a result, political leaders have come to see them as taboo à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" that using them or even advocating using them is a breach of ethnics, and that discussing using them in a democratic setting will prohibit election (Wittner 2009, 49). Unfortunately, the existence of a nuclea r taboo creates a problem for democratic politicians who must, by the principles of MAD, continue to pursue brinkmanship behaviour. As a result, a type of doublespeak emerges from nuclear powers.   In order to maintain the image that they are humanitarian and with the added purposes of maintaining relative military power by preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, they must condemn nuclear force.   At the same time, however, these leaders must continually suggest that they are willing to use the weapons if necessary (Bundy 1988, 536). Finally, in the post-September 11th world, nuclear powers have become increasingly concerned with the actions of non-rational or non-state actors who might use not operate by the principles of MAD.   Because non-rational or non-state actors have nothing to lose, they therefore have no reason to prevent them from using such a weapon.   As a result, nuclear policy of the twenty-first century has focused on containing weapo ns of mass destruction (Cirincion 2014, 293).   This focus on containing non-state actors is because, should MAD be properly used against other rational states with comparative military power, these actors represent the greatest threat to the nuclear state. In sum, nuclear warfare compared to conventional warfare is not different in terms of the scale of possible destruction inflicted on the losing state.   However, because the destruction occurs much faster and the losing state is capable of inflicting such a serious blow to the victorious state that negates the entire purpose of war, nuclear warfare is unique.   As a result, the weapons have taken on a psychological taboo as well as a commitment by rational actors not to use them, precisely by threatening to use them.   These powers are also eager to see that nuclear weapons do not spread to new states or non-state actors. It is this paradox that has defined military strategy since the Second World W ar. Bibliography Bundy, M. (1988) Danger and Survival. Random House.   New York. Burgan, M. (2009) Empire of the Mongols. Infobase Publishing. New York. Chang, I.(2012) The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. Basic Books. 2012. Cohen, A and Lee, S. (1986) Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Humanity: The Fundamental Questions. Rowman and Littlefield. Totowa, New Jersey. Cornell, T. (2012)The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å"264 BC). Routledge. London and New York. Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989) Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach. American Journal of Sociology. 95(1): 1-37. Hart, B.H. (1974) Strategy. The New American Library.   New York. Kroenig, M. (2013) Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes. International Organization67(1): 141-171. Perrine, T. (1998) Film and the Nuclear Age: Re presenting Cultural Anxiety. Taylor and Francis. New York London. Price, R. (1997)The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Cornell University Press. New York. Sagan, S. (2007) Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons: Three Models in Search of a Bomb. International Security. 21(3): 54-86. Sokolski, H. (2004) Getting Mad: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Causes and Practices. Strategic Studies Institute. Trachtenberg, M. (1985) The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis. International Security. 137-163. Wittner, L (2009). Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Stanford University Press. New York.

The Yellow Wall Paper By F. Scott Fitzgerald - 999 Words

In the â€Å"Yellow Wall Paper† the main character the narrator tells of her life as she sees it beginning to spiral away from her. She starts to lose her sense of reality and realizes that the life she has been living may not have been one she really was happy with. One of the influences that puts her in the predicament that she is in is her husband John and his sister Jane. Through the narrators eyes we will try see what possible diagnoses could be the cause of her mental illness. What possible treatments could have been used. I believe the narrator definitely suffered from a combination of mental illnesses. One for certain was depressive disorders. There are several forms of depression and many people who suffer from a depressive illness do not seek treatment. But the majority, even those with severe cases of depression, can get better with treatment. Either through medications, psychotherapies, herbalist care, and many other treatments. One form of depression is major depression that can have severe symptoms that interfere with a person’s ability to sleep, work, eat, and enjoy life. Persistent depressive disorder is depressed moods that last for a least two years. Some forms of depression are slightly different, or they may develop under unique circumstances. Psychotic depression can occur when a person has severe depression plus some form of psychosis, such as having disturbing false beliefs or delusions and hallucinations. Which the narrator starts to displayShow MoreRelatedThe Absence of Love10 30 Words   |  4 Pagesand it also paralleled the new way of thinking that still exists today. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is a great representation of how love has become more of a game, in that it is easier to just marry someone who is just as rich as you or in the same social class as yours. Society’s weakness to long for that true affection has left them with this false sense of comfort and love within their own peer group. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby is a clear indication of how love has becomeRead MoreA New Phenomenon And Donald Trump1121 Words   |  5 Pagesthe most powerful man on earth. Long before the days of television and the internet, most Americans got their news through daily papers and in time, Hearst came to have an iron-grip on the media. Owning more than forty papers at his peak, Hearst claimed that he was so influential that he could start a war just the same as a president could. Arguably, Hearst and his ‘yellow journalism’ were an early pioneer of the now infamous ‘fake news’ articles we now hear about daily. (Possible section on enteringRead MoreWhen It Comes To New York Accommodation There’S Something1323 Words   |  6 Pagesguest floor colour schemes with the red, yellow, green, orange and blue rooms linked to the colours of the city’s subway lines and nearby neighbourhoods like Soho and The Village are honoured in the hallways. 1 HOTEL CENTRAL PARK Occupying a room at 1 Hotel Central Park is as close travellers can get to glamping in New York’s green heart. This luxe eco-friendly address – just one block from The Pond on East 58th Street – boasts everything from a living green wall on the faà §ade to intelligent motion sensorsRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesPamela Buckle, Adelphi University Patricia Buhler, Goldey-Beacom College Allen Bures, Radford University Edith Busija, University of Richmond Holly Buttner, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Michael Cafferky, Southern Adventist University Scott Campbell, Francis Marion University Elena Capella, University of San Francisco ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xxxi Don Capener, Monmouth University Dan Caprar, University of Iowa David Carmichael, Oklahoma City University Carol Carnevale, SUNY Empire StateRead MoreManagement Course: Mba−10 General Management215330 Words   |  862 PagesEdition Jones−George Driving Shareholder Value Morin−Jarrell Leadership, Fifth Edition Hughes−Ginnett−Curphy The Art of M A: Merger/Acquisitions/Buyout Guide, Third Edition Reed−Lajoux and others . . . This book was printed on recycled paper. Management http://www.mhhe.com/primis/online/ Copyright  ©2005 by The McGraw−Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publicationRead MoreCommon Knowledge : How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They Know56617 Words   |  227 Pagesp. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0875849040 (alk. paper) 1. Organizational learning. 2. Business enterprisesCommunication systems. 3. Intellectual cooperation. 4. Information networks-Economic aspects. 5. Success in business. I. Title. HD58.82 .D585 2000 658.4 5-dc21 99048879 The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Publications and Documents in Libraries and Archives Z39.481992. PageRead MoreManaging Information Technology (7th Edition)239873 Words   |  960 Pagesor all caps. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Managing information technology / Carol V. Brown . . . [et al.]. — 7th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-13-214632-6 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-13-214632-0 (alk. paper) 1. Management information systems. I. Brown, Carol V. (Carol Vanderbilt), 1945T58.6.M3568 2012 658.4038011—dc22 2010048598 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN 10: 0-13-214632-0 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-214632-6 BRIEF CONTENTS Chapter

Peregrine Falcon Free Essays

Introduction: Found among all continents except Antarctica, the Peregrine falcon is a common falcon throughout the globe. When they hunt, they dive from high altitudes and stoop their prey at speeds over 200 miles per hour, making it the fastest animal on the planet. The name â€Å"peregrine† falcon means wanderer and refers to the bird’s long migration path, which has been known to be as far away as 15,500 miles from their original nesting spots. We will write a custom essay sample on Peregrine Falcon or any similar topic only for you Order Now After having a severe drop in Peregrine population during the 1960s and 1970s, this majestic falcon has made a comeback and can be seen throughout many suburban and urban areas of North America. Interesting Facts: * The Peregrine Falcon is on the featured on the Idaho quarter issued in 2007 * Suzuki named the company’s fastest production model, Hayabusa, after the Peregrine Falcon. Hayabusa means Peregrine Falcon in Japanese * Peregrine falcons don’t build nests. They scrape a depression into the soil on the ground or on a ledge, or an abandoned nest that was left behind Map of Region Peregrine Falcon Duck Hawk, Great-Footed Hawk, Wandering Falcon Falco Peregrinus Fact Sheet: * Size: * Body- 14-19 in. * Wingspan- 3. 3-3. 6 ft. * Weight- 18. 8 to 56. 5 oz. * Diet- Starlings, pigeons, blackbirds, jays, shorebirds, waterfowl, bats, and other small mammals * Reproduction: * Number of eggs- 3-4 * Mate once a year * Same partner for life * Nest location- Cliffs or tall buildings * Return to the same spot annually * Name for chicks- eyases * Chicks fledge 42 to 46 days * Time dependent on their parents- Up to 2 months Habitat-All continents except Antarctica * Life span- Up to 17 years Bibliography: * http://www. discoverycove. org/animal-info/animal-bytes/animalia/eumetazoa/coelomates/deuterostomes/chordata/craniata/aves/falconiformes/peregrine-falcon. htm * http://ohiodnr. com/wildlife/dow/falcons/facts. aspx * http://www. raptorresource. org/facts. htm * http://animals. nationalgeographic. com/animals/birds/peregrine-falcon. html * http://www. peregrinef und. org/explore_raptors/falcons/peregrin. html * http://www. allaboutbirds. org/guide/Peregrine_Falcon/lifehistory#at_food How to cite Peregrine Falcon, Papers

Have We Outgrown Our Government free essay sample

Our government Is NOT ruled by a majority, but Instead is ruled by an already enforced set ot laws that are interpreted and enforced on to actions that the government and its people want to participate in: and can only be changed by amending the current list of unalienable laws that are given to us by this Constitution. Even with this understanding, our country still came to this governmental standstill that has threatened to throw us into another. more devastating economic depression. So then we ask, what exactly is wrong with our government? After reviewing articles and isten to Professor Arbours lecture on the advantages to a parliamentary government, [Ve been able to come toa sound conclusion. The Constitutional Republic that we currently have is no longer functional. and that we must adapt and change to a more unicameral, majoritarianistic, parliamentarian system of government, if we wish to see our country thrive as it once did. We will write a custom essay sample on Have We Outgrown Our Government? or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page To understand the root of the problem. we first have to understand the major difference between a unicameral. arliamentarian type of government am arguing for, and the bicameral, constitutional republic that we are currently ruled by. In a parliamentarian system, there iS only one unicameral chamber, Of only ONE political party. The party that is elected has a strong stance, its ideology is well known and can be expected to be followed thoroughly, and it is elected to enact laws and pass legislation. Preferably, the elected party is representative of what the majority of the people actually want. With only one political party, usually housing strong ideologies on what should be done with the country that t is gwermng, It Is much easier for the population to themselves Identify what is working and what Is not orking as law. Addtlonally it is easier tor voters to see where parts ot the system has gone wrong, who implemented these changes, and makes voting out the detrimental unit, either physical representative or piece of legislation, much more effective. Professor Arbours lecture made It a point to drive this particular Idea home, Advantages: Easy for voters to assign blame or credit. Given that elections are able to be held whenever there is a deadlock between representatives as well. this form of government would allow us to quickly handle the dispute by putting it up to a vote. y wanted to force a showdown over the budget a year after the election, wed have another election winning party would get to implement its agenda. In contrast, with the constitutional republic we are in now, assigning blame to parties responsible for malfunctioning pieces of legislation and ousting them from our governing system is one of the most difficult things to do. The fact that our government is run by two different majorities, who seemingly have enough power to be each be respectively called a majority, makes the creation, review, and enactment f laws painstakingly difficult. Taking the current economy, and governmental standoff, of the United States as an example we can see the glaring downfalls of our bicameral chambers unfolding in front of our eyes. With each party blaming the other for economic difficulties, and each claiming to represent their respective groups, no one really knows what exactly these groups really stand for, and consequently, dont know who is to blame for the government breakdown. First of all, as we see that now the parties are becoming more and more united to one central thinking or ideology hey are representing (something that we havent really seen in previous years), this presents a devastating problem towards effective governing of the US. Although we say that the majority rules in our government the fact is that with the amount of power we give the minority group, they do have the ability to act as a majority group would. The group that is considered to be representing the minority group in our population, in efforts to have everyone equally represented, essentially has almost the same amount of power that the majority group has already, in essence, won hrough elections. The article Blame the Constitution for This Mess by Alex Pareene brings this exact point to the forefront: Shouldnt we actually be upset about a system of government that gives 80 people representing 18 percent of the population the ability to drag the United States to the edge of national default? To clarify this even further, the way our governmental system is set up is so disproportionate, that it gives 18% of the population the ability to bring the entire government, including the majority (82% of the US population) to its knees. Through his shocking scenario, one thing remains glaringly clear: our republican system is crippled by the laws that were made to support it. This constant game of strategy to see who can get their bill passed into law, or who can get their specific groups wants expressed to have better chances at re-election takes the focus away from actual effective national governing. This makes our government essentially useless, to the point where it is comparable to two separate groups playing a game of Chicken to see who backs down first. Many people perceive this parliamentary form of government bad, because the ajority would constantly be able to win control over how the government is run. To my understanding, isnt that exactly what we, as a country made up mainly of middle class, working American citizens, so desperately need? This seemingly utopian form of government will undoubtedly have flaws. One said flaw that is quite apparent would be the need to have constant elections, even more frequent that we already legislation that many have viewed as detrimental to the country, there will have to be a vote conducted to decide on it. This would make policy making especially hard, eeing as whenever a policy is made, if it seems detrimental in the eyes of the people, it can be voted out, effectively stalling or making policy making itself, a hassle. Though bothersome, it is a price that I personally would willingly pay if it meant actual representation of our current majority, not representation of ideological minority groups, as stated by Pareene. In my opinion, it has been far too long since policies have sufficiently represented the will of the people, and not the will of the lobbyists at the Capital. This discombobulated Republic that were erroneously call a Democracy has been imply outgrown. We are being run by a government created hundreds of years ago, by men who could have never fathomed what we would become. It is known that a country is not static. Its people, societies, thinking, needs, issues, norms, and ideas are constantly changing and morphing into new, more advance things. Why is it then, that we confine ourselves to a static form of government? If our ideas, needs, norms, and issues are constantly changing, why are we, as a united people, unable to replicate this change in our government? A government that is in charge of running ne of the most prosperous, dynamic, and leading countries in the world, needs to be one that is able to adapt to the changes that, as a country and as citizens, we will inevitably have to face. Over the years, we have become too lax, too fearful to take the reins of our country back. We put the government in power to make sure that order is kept, and to make surer that it will fit our needs, not the other way around. We do not work for our government our government works for us, and with a parliamentarian government, it will have the flexibility to do exactly that. word count: 1,400