||22 EDWIN B. FIRMAGE clear weapons capable of continental destruction borne by missiles minutes from our shores make it essential that we be able to decide for war instantaneously, by one person, without debate or restraint. It is a misstatement to equate collegiality with lack of effective, immediate response. Congress in the past has proven that it can quickly deliberate when required. One day after President Eisenhower asked Congress for authority to use American armed forces to protect Taiwan from attack by mainland China, the Chairman of the House Rules Committee called up the resolution under a closed rule permitting only two hours of debate and no amendment. The House passed the resolution that same day.43 But what is the hurry? If we are obliterated by a massive salvo, we presumably can still respond by whatever remains of land-based missiles of our own, plus submarine and air-launched missiles. Unless we plan to strike first, under what situation beyond self-defense, which exists in any event in the president if we are under sudden attack, must we respond with such alacrity? Contrarily, with the evidence we now have of genocidal pandemic following nuclear war, with human society destroyed and human life in the balance, modern technology demands all the more our adherence to every institution we possess that ensures debate and reflection, negotiation, conciliation, and peaceful resolution of disputes. The Founders' prescription that Congress possess the sole war power to chain the dog of war remains essential still. G. Preserving the Constitutional Balance: A Resurgent Congress Congress possesses the power under the Constitution, as evidenced by constitutional text and statutes passed thereunder, to remedy an abuse of its prerogatives under the war power and the constitutional provisions empowering Congress regarding the conduct of foreign relations. The courts can and should do more to define the jurisdictional lines between the political branches. Whether we should go to war is not a justiciable issue. But the way we go to war may be. The courts therefore need not but nevertheless are likely to consider this issue to be a political question and thereby avoid resolution.44 In any 43 See Friedman, Waging War Against Checks and Balances-The Claim of an Unlimited Presidential War Power, 57 St. Johns Law Review 213, 269 (1983); see also F. Wormuth & E. Firmage, supra note 16, at 204-05. 44 See supra note 15.