Conflict over resources is a powerful concept. Although we as humans can get used to the proverbial elephant in the room, many of us have been able to live our entire lives without thinking about it much. As the human race approaches the seven billion population mark, it becomes increasingly difficult not to see that there actually is a need to compete for resources. How does a society successfully meet the needs of its members? An oversimplified explanation of the history of the negotiations is necessary in order to highlight how we got to where we are at this point, as well as to build a platform for us to think through the implications of the negotiations in relation to this which I believe to be a serious obstacle for the human race to overcome and an opportunity to change our perspectives. This obstacle is also deterrence, like nuclear deterrence. Since time immemorial, humanity has generally used force to get what it wants, when it wants it. As our species evolved from cave, to village, to farm, to city, so did our scale and ingenuity in the practice of killing them, which really just meant all society in competition with the society in which we found ourselves. On rare occasions in early humanity we can find examples of some groups thinking beyond the scope of obtaining resources by force. Foresighted leaders might, for example, realize that by sneaking into their enemies' camp at night and robbing the rival group's leader, they might then offer the next morning to spare the enemy leader's life in exchange for a total surrender, which would result in a net gain of the spoils of war, with the added benefit of not losing any warriors or assets during combat....... middle of paper ...... easy to follow, and allows for a By breaking the information into categories that are easier to study, Dr. Lupovici does not appear to offer a concise explanation of the functionality. Should we assume that this is a basis that others can use to attempt to extend and extrapolate the use of different parts of deterrence theory in new situations? Or is this simply an attempt at compare and contrast in the hope that the separation between old and new will keep both branches of deterrence strong, so that if the world changes again ideology, academics, politicians and negotiators will have a better idea of ​​how to deter. to think about which one to refer to?Works CitedLupovici, A. (2010). The emerging fourth wave of deterrence theory. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 705-732. Ghosn, F. (2010). Sit down at the table and arrive at yes. International Studies Quarterly, 54, 1055-1072.