Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fatty
If this is being prepared for a think tank then I need to add a cautionary word to Lance's suggestions and say that the editor of the journal/newsletter WILL follow up on your sources. They will ask you to fix them and if too many appear to be incorrect or fraudulent your paper will be thrown out. Better to play it safe and cite your facts with reputable sources, preferably from peer-reviewed journals. I can't overstate how important citations are. The easiest way to critique a piece is to attack its sources. Academics will do this, and if you base your arguments on non-existant or dubious material then your work will not be taken seriously.
Your preface is lacking a strong thesis statement and an overview of your argument. Don't pull punches on the academic reader, map it out for them and tell them where you're headed. It's not until the very last sentence that you state where your argument is headed, and you need to define the terms you are working with. What is a "world war?" Does it mean the kinds of grand alliances that we saw in the previous world wars? Your discussion of state protection of economies and scarcity of resources suggests that the world war will be like a Hobbesian state of nature, with every state against every other state. This kind of sidesteps some of the most prominent thoughts in international relations, like democratic peace theory (democratic states have never and will never go to war with each other), the closest thing to a 'law' in political science. You should think about some of these competing theories and address them directly as you go on.
Also, avoid vague and sweeping statements. They might seem self-evident to you and the circle you are writing for but to convince people beyond your comfort zone you must be precise and provide examples. The line...
Quote:
|
Rhetoric between nations are more clearly defining moral differences, creating an air of anger, hostility, and sometimes pure hatred.
|
...is a bit of a red flag in particular. Whoa, what rhetoric has been creating 'pure hatred' between nations? Provide examples and explain how they are relevant to the idea of an imminent third world war. These may seem like insignificant details but a good argument is built upon empirical observations; they had better be solid.
I'll provide additional critiques as you post more. |
Yeah, what fatty said.
You need to list specific examples with concrete details to back up your ideas. You're doing a good job of having other people proof read.
I didn't catch it, but is your world war conventional or nuclear?