I am just a humble writer, and there is a lot I do not know. But when a person subscribes to a certain set of values, it does not require massive amounts of knowledge, even in the face of the unknown, to know what actions should be taken and what should be avoided. We turn to the source of our values — constitutions or religious or philosophical writings — for answers.
Earlier this month, a video was shown in Congress supposedly showing a U.S. military Hellfire missile bouncing off a UFO.
This, of course, generated a lot of questions. The Hellfire is used for precision, decisive strikes against tanks, bunkers, and aircraft. We are told that nothing can withstand it. So the civilian government and presumably the military are asking: Who or what can take a direct hit from a Hellfire missile and continue on? Who or what was piloting the UFO?
But the question that hasn’t been asked that I would like to pose here is, why is the U.S. military firing missiles at UFOs? Who gave this order and why? Are we at war with alien beings (assuming that’s what we have here) or their craft? Was the craft threatening the U.S. or its allies in some kind of way, and if so, how?
Most importantly: Is this our official response to the unknown? To shoot it out of the sky?
I am not aware of the U.S. government — or any government for that matter — having an official position that declares alien or unknown flying objects as threats. Certainly, there has not been a vote on this.
Similarly, and also recently, the U.S. government blasted (we are told) at least two and maybe three Venezuelan boats out of the ocean, as they were suspected of running drugs from South America to the United States. The U.S. is apparently also considering even more military action within the country of Venezuela itself.
Backers of military force will argue that the UFO was spotted in an active military zone, off the Yemini coast where the U.S. military was engaging Houthi militants. In a combat zone (or wherever sensitive military equipment is operating) it is standard practice to treat anything foreign or unknown as a flight safety hazard or a potential intelligence or weapons platform, requiring its destruction.
Similarly, supporters of military action against Venezuelan drug runners (if that is what they were) will argue that the United States should use all the tools at its disposal to keep the shores safe from illicit products. They’ll defend the necessity of military intervention as part of the ongoing War on Drugs.
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the sole power to declare war. This check on power was intended to make entering a conflict a deliberate, difficult, and nationally unified decision.
Despite this foundational principle, the U.S. has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II, and yet we’ve found ourselves engaged in undeclared wars and smaller military actions around the world. Presidents have relied on mechanisms like the Authorization for Use of Military Force and governmental appropriations to launch military actions, large and small.
These authorizations bypass the formal declaration process, effectively eroding the constitutional check and allowing the executive branch to commit the nation — really its people — to hostilities with less political friction. The result is a system where the “war” is perpetual, undefined, and normalized. Anyone and anything anywhere can be subjected to lethal force.
So, in the case of the UFO, because without congressional authorization the entire world can be a combat zone, rather than a pause for diplomatic, scientific, or observational inquiry, the first response in a contested space is to neutralize a perceived threat using maximum force. Shouldn’t this decision be the subject of conversation — the central question for us and for humanity — right now?
And in the case of Venezuelan drug runners, if military force is argued favorably, should it not be obvious that our own code of conduct (as written in the Constitution) requires a vote?
Whether UFOs or boats on the ocean, we might not know what they are, but our response teaches a lot about who we are. Our Constitution doesn’t dictate an action, but it does require us to put a lot more thought into what that action is.
We should remember that every time a trigger is pulled, the instruments of death are deployed on our behalf. Such an occasion demands national reflection, consensus, and some measure of grief. This is why having a moral and philosophical framework for the use of force is an absolute necessity, and following it, even (and especially) in the face of the unknown, is a requirement.
Weapons are ominous tools.
They are abhorred by all creatures.
Anyone who follows the Way shuns them.
In peaceful times, the noble ruler honors the left side.
At war, he honors the right side.Weapons are ominous tools.
They are not the noble ruler's tools.
He only uses them when he can't avoid it.Peace and quiet are preferred.
Victory should not be praised.
Those who praise victory relish manslaughter.
Those who relish manslaughter
Cannot reach their goals in the world.At times of joy, the left side is honored.
At times of grief, the right side is honored.
At battle, the second in command stands to the left,
And the commander in chief to the right.
This means they stand as in funerals.
When many people are killed
They should be mourned and lamented.
Those who are victorious in war
Should follow the rites of funerals.Chapter 31, Tao Te Ching, translation by Stefan Stenudd