To maintain peace through our strength, policies that deter dissidencese are needed in place. Going soft on those who may hate you is a sign of weakness. Relaxing restrictions on avowed enemies – hoping to entice them into behaving responsibly – is the biggest myth of all times. But in the real world, the opposite happens. One has to get back to the principles that allow for one to flourish regardless of where circumstances lead you. “Deterrence” means simply this: making sure any adversary who thinks about attacking our idealogy, or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks to them outweigh any potential gains. But what must be recognized is that any foolproof security equation is based on being fully prepared to meet any type of threats, physical or otherwise. Of course, there will be unforeseen failures and countless setbacks. Likewise, there will be quantifiable successes and measureble breakthroughs. A comprehensive and intensive effort, probably decades of effort on many fronts, to achieve our ultimate goal in a long-term requires eliminating the threat posed by strategic players. Consistent with our obligations of preserving one’s sanity, there is a need for the hour for closer consultation with our fellow counterparts. Free people can live secure in their knowledge that their security does not rest upon the instant threat of retaliation from the foes, but it is imperative that we recognize a bigger threat exist from within. I believe a conflict of ideas may be inevitable – not quite the contrary. Although, we must remain constant in preserving a solid capability for flexible response in any eventuality. Our only purpose – one all people share – is to search for ways to reduce the danger of an all-out war of thoughts. This could pave the way for conflict control measures to eliminate the weaponizing of a twisted thinking of sorts on a global scale. That’s as strong an example as any of why rivals perceive us as weak, feckless, and unwilling to respond to grave and increasing threats facing us. It is likely that the one’s diminished capacity, combined with the pattern of tepid responses to egregious acts of aggression, will lead to more aggression and greater danger to one’s security. A flawed person may be— mercurial, inconsistent, and easily distracted, which could prove susceptible to manipulation. With disruptive and unwise initiatives —especially in the realm of policy, it is hard to imagine success in normalization of relationships. That’s just naked reality.

Color of our thoughts can either strengthen support for defending peace or increase the sense of urgency to tone down pro-tyranny rhetoric