Thomas Rea submitted a letter to the editor, “Stand up for Peace, not more War.” 

His sentiment is noble, but that’s just it: it’s only a sentiment, not a national strategy. I wish hoping for peace could be a national strategy.

Mr. Rea stated that our founders did not encourage a standing army in times of peace.

For more than half of our history, England was the only country capable of attacking us. Britain, except for British forces in Canada, was weeks away by sea from our shores. 

After our second war with Britain in 30 years, Britain determined it was in its interests to leave us alone. The British Navy protected us rather than threatened us. 

Today, we are minutes away from a nuclear attack on our country from Russia or the Peoples’ Republic of China. We don’t have time to rearm. Ironically, the best hope for peace in this world is for the military might of the United States to be so great as to be unassailable.

Nobody but a raving lunatic or a monster would advocate for war.  However, there are leaders in the world who do advocate for war. 

Iranian leaders repeatedly call for the destruction of Israel and the United States. North Korea is hurrying as fast as it can to develop intercontinental missiles upon which it hopes to mount thermonuclear weapons. 

The purpose of those weapons is to attack the United States. Does anyone trust Kim Jung Un as a rational person? 

Besides those two countries, there are scores of countries led by megalomaniacs who would attack their neighbors if they believed they could get away with such an attack. If the United States didn’t dissuade them from aggression, what country would?

I don’t claim that this present strategic situation is the best way to maintain world peace. Until the second coming of Christ, it’s the only way to maintain world peace.

Michael Waldron

Niles