Back in the good old Cold War days, we had a simplistic “choice” between Dead and Red. Anti-war folks preferred to stay alive. Presumably the hawks preferred death. So we didn’t pursue unilateral disarmament. Public opinion supported “Peace through Strength” — which translates to Kill or be Killed.
Pacifism crawled under a rock, only to peak its head out to demonstrate for incremental changes. Did peace activists end the Vietnam War? No, it was the mothers of draftees in Iowa who realized the sacrifice of their sons was not worth it anymore.
So we ended the Draft. Then what?
We could bomb Serbia without risking a single soldier. We could invade Afghanistan and Iraq with an all-volunteer army. We could send suppplies to Ukraine, starting with non-lethal helmets and vests, and escalate gradually to tanks and cluster bombs and jet fighters.
Public opinion agreed that the best defense required the best offense. Up to but not including putting our own lives on the line. Why won’t we threaten nuclear war? Why won’t we bomb Moscow?
It turns out, staying alive is important to us. But limiting deaths in general, even Ukrainian deaths, is secondary. A Russian cruise missle hits a residential building in Kharkiv — collateral damage — but no change in policy is considered.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/06/russia-ukraine-war-village-strike-hroza-village
We send anti-missle and anti-drone weapons to Ukraine. Obviously, this is not enough. What did London do during the Blitz? Low tech defensive solutions are minimized now. High tech defenses are not advertised as 100% perfect. Are we not partly to blame for giving Ukraine false hope?
Being dominated is not fun. Freedom is better. But when the choice is between alive but dominated, or “free” but dead — let’s talk about this.