Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have gained in predominance and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has posed significant ethical and political problems for Western ideology. Coker discusses issues regarding non-state actors in "Ethics and War in the 21st Century" with particular attention given to conflicting cultural ideas regarding war regarding the United States. The ability to label a target not only as an enemy combatant, but as a fundamentally opposing force, willing to ignore common practices and ethics, is an ability that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity in established ethics between the two groups is only complicated by emerging weapons technologies, particularly non-lethal weapons systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffuse enemy has proven ethically more problematic with respect to identification of and actions against a fighting force, given emerging technologies. For most conflicts in the world, until the presence of violent non-state actors, clashes have taken place. between large state entities. Wars and skirmishes pitted the two states against each other with a contingency of distinct armed forces clashing on a determined terrain with defined ethical and political motives. This black and white model of violent conflict resolution became the norm for a long time and was accepted by all state actors. One of the reasons Coker cites for the advantage of the battlefield and soldiers includes preserving humanity for the civilian population and soldiers. Mutual agreement on ethical boundaries, even in war, protects those who do not take up arms and helps maintain decency toward prisoners of...... middle of paper ..... .ker further explores the impact of missing these promises by discussing how a faction should approach winning a war. He proposes that the winning side use only the minimum force necessary to win and do so in a cordial and respectful manner so as not to incite further vengeance and destabilize the region. Without these promises, the possibility of “absolute” enemies appearing is also considered from the point of view of anti-terrorists. Identifying such an extreme fighter allows for ethical abuses and degradation of integrity. Coupled with the increasing reliance on non-lethal weapons exploration, the moral battlefield takes an even more precarious position. For these reasons, and in agreement with Coker, the importance of maintaining ethical and moral boundaries in the face of a fighter willing to sacrifice all decency cannot be more strongly emphasized...