Mckenzee Blog Post 4

1. The question for this topic is hard to answer, I see peace not exactly the same as the book described. In today’s society even in the past, we try to create a peaceful world. History in books and movies describe peaceful as a world such as Utopia, the beautiful, the impossible. This world has not and will not ever exist. With today’s technology and new creations I don’t think the world will ever get rid of the nuclear demons they have created. I think America as well as the other nations are too busy competing with one another about the future that they forget to focus on the present. Well, news flash the present determines the future. Instead of focusing on disarming the nuclear weapons we should focus on other things, a tactic that America has been using is the threat of nuclear retaliation in the event of conflict, instead of actually enforcing it. This defense has helped keep governments throughout the world in check. Although there are many smaller conflicts around the world, we have not seen anything approaching a “World War” in over fifty years. i believe that the U.S. strategy on nuclear weapons has helped to promote this limited warfare into smaller regional scrimmages that are going on today. It is only the threat of these weapons that we can maintain a strong defense to keep as peaceful of a world as possible. The sinful nature of man is in direct contradiction to peaceful existence. For over two thousand years man has been at war with itself, and to think the elimination of nuclear weapons will create an Utopia of peace is fool -hardy.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/missile-defense/history/reagan_on-strategic-defense-iniative.htm

2. We are making advances in science to the point that we have to ask ourselves, “Is this morally correct, even though we have the power to do something should we do it?” In Martin Luther King’s essay he explains that there is two ways in which everyone lives, internally and externally. The internal deals with morality and separating what right and what’s wrong. External deals with the materialistic and scientific progress. He explains that we are living too much of an external life that we are losing our internal life. We are losing our morality. This is hard to create a balance and has always been an issue. Stem cell research is just one example of many topics that relate to internal and external decisions. I think the only way we can create a balance of each is to have meetings of debates. Let the debates point of the pro and cons to each and if it passes, set certain rules and regulations for each advance taken. I think we should have a “watch dog” group specially assigned to each scientific or technological advance to make sure each is not exceeding to interfere with morality.