Why is violence our first and most acceptable response?
I’ve been reading an article about North Korea. Apparently they threatened to bomb Australia if they didn’t stop following America. The point of the article was that we now have a good reason for following America into war against North Korea. The writing was irate, inflammatory and vehemently supported a strongly national approach to the situation.
It promoted war and death, not the death of the North Korean soldiers, but the death of soldiers that went over there to ‘protect’ us. Violence was the first, best response. Our technology has come so far, but unfortunately our moral system seems to be lagging behind. I don’t know why this is the case, though I suspect more than one cause, but I don’t think the same way.
To me, violence is the last, worst choice.
I do understand the need to protect. But I don’t understand the desire to deal violence because of one man’s rhetoric. The trouble is, the people who cause the trouble, the politicians who grab for power with guns and those who do it by more subtle means, they are never the ones who suffer. The ones who suffer are the innocent, the brainwashed and the manipulated, and I’m not just talking about the North Korean side. It’s the soldiers who are brought up to think that their country is always right and other countries are wrong and it’s children who don’t understand any of it who pay the greatest price. And those who cause the war are safe in their bunkers, plotting how to make a grab for the bomb craters that are left behind.
I honestly think that, in a war, the men in the front should be those who couldn’t maintain the peace. It should be the leaders of those countries. I have a feeling that a lot of the wars in the world would end very abruptly if that was the rule. But what would happen if we took war off the table? What would happen if we all, as a people, refused to react violently?
What if there was one rule for everyone? One of the issues with North Korea is the development of nuclear weapons and other long range weapons. I don’t understand how we can threaten to destroy them for that when America has the largest arsenal in the world. And you can say all you like that the leader of North Korea is too unstable to allow them to have dangerous things, but I wouldn’t exactly call Donald Trump a stable leader. The idea that he has his finger on the red nuclear button is one of the worst ideas that country has ever had.
We might not agree with North Korea, we might hear the stories that come out of there and pity the people, but it isn’t our country. By what right do we interfere in their business? Any change, lasting change, has to come from within that country to last or work, history has proven that without a doubt. So that means that any interference from us in an attempt to change the social structure will just make everything worse. And I don’t think anyone believes that we are threatening to invade the country to help the people anyway.
We’re threatening to invade because they have the same power that we have. They have nuclear power. If they’re not allowed to have it, then why are we? The double standards are baffling to me. If everyone can have it, then everyone should have it. If no one is allowed than no one is allowed. You can’t have some people who are allowed and some who aren’t based on the arbitrary rules of those who want to retain the power and supremacy of certain countries. One rule for everyone, either way.
So, returning to the original point, what if violence was off the table? What if we were forced to find a non-violent way? Are we advanced enough to do that? We take violence for granted, we accept it as the only solution for a lot of issues while at the same time reviling it. But we never truly take it off the table, and force ourselves to find another way to solve our problems. We say we do, but the potential is always there. We always have it, in our back pocket. What would it look like if that option weren’t an option?
I’d like to find out.