Compare and contrast scenario analysis and sensitivity analysis. Provide an example to help explain your response.
Sensitivity Analysis is a method of studying how variations in inputs will affect an outcome (Fisher et al., 2018). This technique can be used to determine what factors most influence the results which can then inform decisions about how much resources should be devoted towards those specific components (Fisher et al., 2018). For instance, if a company wants to know why profits are not meeting expectations they may utilize sensitivity analysis by running simulations with different variables such as production costs, overhead expenses or marketing effectiveness in order to see where improvements need to be made.
In conclusion, both Scenario Analysis and Sensitivity Analysis are valuable tools for evaluating situations but have key differences. While scenario analysis focuses on predicting outcomes based on various conditions, sensitivity analysis looks more closely at individual components and their effects on performance.
Firstly, Vittola argues after a war, it is the responsibility of the leader to judge what to do with the enemy (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Again, proportionality is emphasised. For example, the Versailles treaty imposed after the First World War is questionably too harsh, as it was not all Germany’s fault for the war. This is supported by Frowe, who expresses two views in jus post bellum: Minimalism and Maximalism, which are very differing views. Minimalists suggest a more lenient approach while maximalist, supporting the above example, provides a harsher approach, punishing the enemy both economically and politically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last instance, however, the aim of war is to establish peace security, so whatever needs to be done can be morally justified, if it follows the rules of jus ad bellum.
In conclusion, just war theory is very contestable and can argue in different ways. However, the establishment of a just peace is crucial, making all war type situation to have different ways of approaching (Frowe (2010), Page 227). Nevertheless, the just war theory comprises of jus ad bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it can be either morally controversial or justifiable depending on the proportionality of the circumstance. Therefore, there cannot be one definitive theory of the just war but only a theoretical guide to show how wars should be fought, showing normativity in its account, which answers the question to what a just war theory is.