The popular protest, the Take a Knee Movement, occurring during the National Anthem of sporting events originated with Colin Kaepernick as a statement against police brutality supporting the Black Lives Matter movement. This movement has spread to many televised sports as a way for people to use their power for what they believe is right. Unlike nuclear weapons, their protest isn’t harming anyone, except human feelings. Nuclear weapons have been used as a threat in order to defend the country they belong to since the 1940s. Similar to the taking a knee campaign, nuclear weapons push the limits on how far they can anger people before retaliation. In the same way that people are allowed to exercise their free speech in protests, countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves as a part of self-defense.
Nuclear weapons are a part of worldwide war history and a technological accomplishment that many countries are proud of. Regardless of the fact that they were invented for mass destruction, their creation was a major technological feat. Their creation is a testament and statement to how much money a country has and the intelligence of their citizens. As humans with morals, national leaders should be able to make peaceful negotiations without having to worry about the threat of their entire country being destroyed. In the Declaration of Independence, which was established on good moral principles, it states that if the government becomes destructive, the people have the right to abolish it. The nation's people should be able to have a say in the use of nuclear weapons. For example, if the United States drops a nuclear weapon on Iran without the consent of the American people, the American people could retaliate against the government because they could have a nuclear weapon dropped on them to kill them. Just because we have nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean we have to use them.
Much like Americans have the right of free speech, they should have the right to decide if they want to risk being killed by a nuclear weapon. Even though the take a knee movement is perceived as offensive to certain public officials, members of the military, veterans, and police officers, the Constitution allows citizens to speak out when they feel injustice. Some football players that are participating in this movement feel that the police should not be using their power for hate crimes against black people. The use of nuclear weapons by government officials without the consent of the citizens can be viewed as a hate crime because they are throwing away millions of lives in order to win an argument with another country.
But, in both cases, not everyone is happy with the end result. There has to be a balance found in order to protest quietly and respectfully and have another way for countries to peacefully settle negotiations. Mutually Assured Destruction is not the answer because then there will be no world left to negotiate and protect.
First off all great title. I feel that the idea that the use of nuclear weapons should be up to the American public sounds nice but in practice could be very problematic. First of all it is ridiculous to believe that you could get the American people together to stop a presidential administration from launching a nuclear missile. First the President and his administration would announce the launch of a nuclear weapon either directly before the launch or the launch had already happened. Also the use of nuclear weapons should not be left up to the public consensus. What if incorrectly the citizens of the United States had been given the ability to nuke Iraq or Afghanistan they might have done it. People can be caught up in a nationalist and jingoist fever that could lead to the deaths of millions of foreigners. Keep the weapons that have kept the world at peace for 70 years in the hands of those capable and objective.
ReplyDeleteI think in theory, your argument makes sense. In a perfect society, citizens would have a say in every single decision the government makes. Unfortunately, that would be extremely time consuming and would create a high amount of stalemates in policy making. Yes, maybe Americans should have a say in whether nuclear weapons are used, however, I do not think this is a practical idea. If the U.S. was threatened enough to use a nuclear weapon, which in this day and age with mutually assured destruction seems less plausible than ever, then I think it would be justified. In lieu of losing popular opinion of the people and damaging our reputation as a country, I do not think that the United States would use nuclear weapons today unless completely necessary. Therefore, I do not think that the American people need to vote as a whole on whether we use nuclear weapons in a war situation.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. It would be a very hard theory to execute but in a perfect world, Americans should have some say in it, especially since we are a democracy. Although, I don't know that a vote would necessarily be the way to go about it. I am against the use of nuclear weapons but countries should be allowed to have them. I just think that the threat of dropping nuclear weapons shouldn't have to be an actual concern for countries. The theory is good in context but unrealistic in the world we live in.
Delete