How US adversaries responded to contemporary American military dominance

 

 

Opinion | The Only Way to End 'Endless War' - The New York Times

1. Allenby argues that while conflict is inevitable, violent conflict may not be. What is the source of his optimism?

2. How have US adversaries responded to contemporary American military dominance?

3. Allenby argues that a deep reframing of conflict is underway. The general theme of this reframing centers on what idea?

4. Why, according to Allenby, do emerging technologies have an out-sized role in the conflict sphere?

5. What does Allenby argue are the most important aspects of emerging technology to understand?

6. Bousquet quotes Kaldor when discussing the apparent end of interstate war. What is the reason he provides?

7. In the Techno-Human Condition, Allenby and Sarewitz hope to make suggestions for dealing with the problems created by technology that “combine the pragmatic with the radical.” According to the authors, we cannot think our way out of the complexity of the technology-driven dilemmas facing humans, but we rather should what?

8. What do Allenby and Sarewitz list as existential challenges to human society as a result of our lack of understanding the essence of the techno-human condition?

9. Why do Allenby and Sarewitz blame our “Enlightenment instincts” for our

 

 

Sample Solution

Increasing focus on How US adversaries responded to contemporary American military dominance has cast a long shadow on American military supremacy in recent years (Lynch, 2019). As a result, the term “grand strategy” has gained currency in popular discourse. Incidentally, many media outlets, think tank panels and papers have frequently addressed it. Loren DeJonge Schulman (2015) contends that conversations about America’s strategic choices should be anchored on the right assumptions about the tools at America’s disposal. One commonly made assumption is that the United States has for decades enjoyed conventional military dominance, the ability to defeat any other actor in a conventional warfare.

Barthes (1964) defines the Syntagm as an elongated mixture of signs. Within semantic analyses, this would be something like a sentence, where each is interwined to the other terms within the phrase. The Syntagm is likened to the system, which means other words within the mind, as in the case of the relations between “learning” and “internship” (Barthes, 1964, p. 58). Barthes goes further upon these minds by connecting them Semiologically to different systems, e.g. food. In food system, the systematic level becomes the various bags within a particular level (i.e. types of desserts), whereas the syntagmatic level becomes the menu choices selected for a full meal (Barthes, 1964).

Denotation and Connotation
The words denotation and connotation were used by Barthes for investigating the correlation between systems. Semiological system can be thought of as consisting of an expression, a plane of content and a relation between the two (Barthes, 1964). A connotation then unravels how one system can act as a signifier of this first relation, most especially how it represents the expression within the first system (Barthes, 1964). These elements were importantly useful for unravelling relations among systems of symbols, instead of just relations between elements.
SEMIOLOGY AND ADVERTISEMENT
The major common concepts in a highly distinctive market always comprise of marketing, advertising and communication. Especially, advertisements mainly bring the language, photo graphics, colours and other symbols for its own usage to make a product known and its grandeur on the customers and outside. In the current world, advertising is a large scale business and is a cogent part of the national economy in several sovereign countries.
By definition, advertising refers to a form of communication, whose author or sponsor sends information to a recipient with the denotative intention to sell an idea to the prospective customer. This process has its specialness and it is connected to both propagandistic model of communication defined by McQuail and persuasive concept of communication put forward by the Semiotician Jarmila Doubravová (Doubbravova, 2002). A popular linguist Guy Cook, (2001) examines advertising as a “parasite discourse”, because it takes over the contents, forms, authors as well as recipients of other discourses (similarly as the literary criticism depends on literature and the Sport News – on sport) (Cook, 2001). In fact, Judith Williamson indirectly builds on the idea of “parasite discourse” by Dyer’s characterization of advertising importance as something that uses the elements of real life and aims to create “new world and new language”. “The main purpose of advertising is not to create a new meaning, but to transform signs of the system that is have alread

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.