I think it’s important to note that all wars are full of injustice on a person-to-person scale. Some people who shouldn’t have been killed are. Some people who (arguably) should be killed aren’t. That is unjust. That is a terrible argument against war; it is only an inevitable and tragic consequence of something as awful as war, no matter how JUSTIFIED the war may be. Anyway, God will make it right.

Firstly:
North Korea has the history of a repeat offender, lead by a man commonly understood to be both dangerous and mentally estranged. Considering the history of N. Korea, and the nature of human rights and persecution within its boundaries, this is hardly a nation worthy of developing weapons you rightfully point out as dangerous to innocents and civilians.

Secondly:
The response of the United States is irrelevant. Not only would a single nuclear weapon remain realistically non-threatening to the American populace (due to fully operational anti-missile defense systems along the Western border), but the likely American response would not utilize nuclear weapons. Such a “holocaust” is tirelessly unlikely, and only the product of the most radical of scenarios.

In today’s international diplomacy, nuclear weapons exist, and remain the primary bargaining chip in any hostile situation. Might makes right in this real world, whether one wishes to admit it or not, and simply laying down one’s most powerful defense will not and historically has not brought about any sort of international, eschatological utopia.

Thirdly:
A key aspect of the argument presented hinges on the aspect of international combat via nuclear weapons. The question is left asking: at what point does any national military action, nuclear or otherwise, remain appropriate?

Fourthly:
To glaringly generalize the previous two major wars (Kuwait, Iraq) as characterized by injustice and collateral damage is shameful. American soldiers are currently in training to prevent the lost lives of innocents, learning urban warfare techniques that save the most lives. US Soldiers are pitted against the worst possible circumstances, where the enemy has even pitted young children as decoys or human weapons in this terrible conflict.

This is not a black and white issue, and certainly not one lacking justice. What about the tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees that have been imported stateside? What of the 80%+ sectors that have been successfully turned over to the national security forces? These few, limited examples drawn from the many cannot be responsibly ignored.

Fifthly: A solution is never formally proposed. Were you to place yourself in the seat of the Presidency, how would you initiate to process of dehabilitating nuclear proliferation? In light of national security risks involved, what would your response be?

This is tricky issue, and certainly one that can’t be resolved in a blog post, something I’m sure you’re more than aware of.

For one, I don’t know that I like the idea of “this dichotomy when we give some freedoms up for the greater, more desire ‘inalienable rights.’” If they are truly inalienable, should they not be, by default, and without the limitation of other freedoms, already in our possession?

And if we seek freedom for others, as in your example with the holocaust, should it not be the prerogative of the owners of the right to life, be willing to lay it down if they are seeking that right for those who do not have it? Emphasis being on those who already have those rights. I believe that there should be no power but the people themselves to take up or lay down these “inalienable” rights. Especially not the government. But in this case, this also means you are responsible not to take that right from others, even those who are taking it from others.

That’s idealism though. That’s not really how it works. But I continue to go back and forth about whether or not, we as Christ-followers, we should be idealists or pragmatists.

Also, for my own clarity, could you restate “i would argue that violent rebellion towards a divinely establish government in authority over my own citizenship.” I’m not sure I understand.

Thank you all the same. Very thought provoking questions/statement.

I agree that capitalism works because it is built on how things are. If anything, its one of the greatest cases for the existence of human tendency to default to sin. “The Fall” if you will. However, I wonder as Christ’s followers, should we work for or be proponents of a system that is based on sinful tendencies, or should we champion something better, more ideal, seek to make it practical? Is that possible? I am unsure. Hence this conversation

Thanks for your insight.