..we must say that whether in warfare or in pacifism the Christian is bound to act according to his Christian conscience. There are very strict limits set upon his exercise of the right to defend himself and his nation by force, and there are also strict limits upon his willing submission to evil and to violence...
Our first obligation is to interpret the situation accurately, and this means resisting the temptation to oversimplify and generalize. The struggle against totalitarianism is directed not only against an external enemy - Communism - but also against our own hidden tendencies towards fascist or collectivist aberrations. The struggle against war is not only directed against the bellicosity of the Communist powers, but against our own violence, fanaticism and greed. Of course, this kind of thinking will not be popular in the tensions of a Cold War. No one is encouraged to be too clear-sighted, because conscience can make cowards, by diluting the strong conviction that our side is fully right and the other side is fully wrong. Yet the Christian responsibility is not to one side or the other in the power struggle: it is to God and truth, and to the whole of mankind...
i remember in the days following September 11th i was one of those people who said that, very tragic, but not entirely surprising that a terrorist act happened on our soil & directed towards us. i am not the biggest scholar of foreign policies, but i don't know if we ever do this well as we are always seeing through the perspective of our own social contexts. it's not just a politics thing. talking with some missionaries in africa, there is a real need to not build brick houses as none of the other homes are made of brick (granted it's a different brick than what we are used to). it creates a separation, but the action is done with good will. i don't know if you can, and i'm not sure we need to, separate oneself from their context in order to see clearly. however, if one can embrace a Christian sight, then one is as capable as possible to see with clarity and vision.
The question arises then whether man is really capable of choosing peace rather than nuclear war, whether the choices are ineluctably made for him by the interplay of social forces.
speaking of the current viewpoints (remember, written in the 60's) in the United States & their moral and immoral implications in decision making.
At one extreme we have the "hard" and "realistic" view. It excludes all other considerations and concentrates on one inescapable fact: the Communist threat to western society. It considers that negotiation with Communism is for all practical purposes futile. It is thoroughly convinced that only the strongest pressure will be of any use in stopping Communism and that the victory over Communism by any available means takes precedence over everything else. Hence this "hard" position is in face favorable to nulcear war and makes no distinction between preemption and retaliation, except perhaps to favor preemption as more likely to succeed...
The simplicity and ruthlessness of this view makes an immediate appeal to a very large proportion of the American middle class. It is simple. It is clear. It promises results. It has the advantage above all of permitting disturbed and frustrated people to discharge their anxieties upon a hated enemy and thereby achieve a sense of meaning and satisfaction in their own lives...
A moderate and halfway position, which can be said to be that of the Kennedy administration and of the theologians, politicians and publicists who rightly enjoy respect for their sanity and depth takes the view that we must accept the tensions, the risks and the pressures of the Cold War as facts from which there is no escape. The struggle with Communism must continue over a long period, but it must be prevented from exploding into a nuclear war. And yet "softness" and "defeatism" must also be avoided. Hence the thing to do is to build up one's military strength, not excluding the capacity for a nuclear strike, but also with emphasis on conventional forces. At the same time, peaceful and economic measures are to be taken and aid is to be given to underdeveloped countries in the hope that they will appreciate the opportunities and freedoms we enjoy and which we wish to share with them, thus making them our friends and persuading them to join us in resisting the blandishments of Communism...
Finally there is a left wing idealistic viewpoint that favors more extreme measures for peace and appeals to some who remember the spiritual intransigence of past Christian ages or of oriental religions. This wing is more or less pacifist, ranging from the "nuclear pacifism" of those who reject the use of all nuclear weapons as directly immoral or proximately leading to unjust destruction, to the total pacifism of those who uncompromisingly reject all war whatever. For practical purposes this whole group may be considered as favoring unilateral disarmament, a policy that is not likely to be adopted by either the United States, or still less by Russian and China. In effect, then, this left wing is simply a minority movement of protest and witness...
i find it amazing the similarities of behavior from 40 years ago. certainly looking over the three groups, history shows that pieces of all groups were able to see some 'victories.' much of those 'victories' has to do with a weaving of historic people and events over time. the question i have to ask, why did we not learn which viewpoints had clear vision to achieve a 'success?' it seems to me a hybrid of creative thought & views could help to navigate better than just floating down the same river route.
