Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Only II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Persistent military threats invite calibrated responses prioritizing de-escalation, deterrence, and diplomacy. Courses of action should be proportionate, feasible, and aligned with national interest and international law.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
An all-out war (I) is catastrophic, unpredictable, and rarely a first-line response to “threats.” Serious dialogue (II)—backed by credible deterrence, confidence-building measures, border mechanisms, and third-party hotlines—directly aims to reduce tensions and prevent miscalculation.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Reject I as disproportionate; it escalates beyond the problem as stated.2) Accept II: diplomatic channels, flag meetings, and deconfliction protocols are standard.
Verification / Alternative check:
Global practice favors diplomacy and limited, precise responses before war.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I is excessive; Either/Both wrongly suggest parity; Neither ignores useful de-escalation.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating threat rhetoric with justification for total war.
Final Answer:
Only II follows.
Discussion & Comments