Don't be dumb, that's just asking for a different flavor of authoritarian.
Look at the performance of Western Democracies VS Eastern Autocracy.
Their funneling of resources to Russia VS our feckless "don't anger them" strategy. Losing ground every day. Handing key resources, vital to the future, to our opponent.
Until the day we win, I will adamantly demand we do more. And I am not so sure we are going to win.
Sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire. A Democracy is derived from the consent of the governed. If any one party withdraws their consent to be governed, there can no longer be a Democracy. We don't have to lift a finger for Republicans to end America. They just have to declare that our civil Union is over and act accordingly. Surely it is a misunderstanding of this fact that drives a fear that, in our response we would be the ones to end it. Ours would be a response to them already ending it. Thus we cannot be the ones who did so.
At this point it is sort of like an arms race. Are we guilty if we skip ahead and take the lead. Take command of the situation and try to exert a measure of control?
- Ask yourself why we feel the need to do this. Is it justified?
- Ask yourself what our goal is. What do we hope to achieve by such acts?
The particulars would determine the morality of our fight. However, like any good plan, it does fall apart once it meets the opponent. Before long it becomes fighting for the sake of fighting. To avenge what came before. At that point it would be hard to tell the difference. You would have a point then and there. However, at that point, what difference does it make? Any real conflict will remove our limits out of sheer necessity. Any conflict will stain the hands of the innocent red.
Do not be so quick to judge those pressed to fight. Go back to the two question. Why, and for what end?
The answers will not be black and white, but they can make sense. They can be justifiable in the face of conflict.