so0perspam wrote:1) A definition of terrorism.
Probably too generalized, but I think of it as any action by any person/group with the sole purpose of causing as much havoc as possible.
2) Evidence of your grasp of militarism, pacifism, and just-war theory.
I'm not really sure I follow what you're asking, but I think that you must have a little of both to maintain order. You can't solve everything with war, but at the same time you can't solve everything by trying to "talk it out" so to speak.
3) A discussion of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each of the approaches listed in 2.
Militarism: There doesn't have to be "consent" between the two parties involved. You are trying to eliminate the "enemy" before he eliminates you and will use any means necessary to do it. Therefore loss of life on a larger scale is inevitable, but it is also a greater deterent than a pacifist approach can provide because of the threat of losing the most important thing to all people, life.
Pacifism: Not nearly the same loss of life that would theoretically be encountered in war, but it also takes more time and is also more limited in it's effectiveness if both sides are not willing participants in the dialogue.
Hope I'm not too late and that helps a little.