diff --git a/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md b/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
index bc88f3a..c231d4f 100644
--- a/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
+++ b/01-principles/01-01-principles-apologia.md
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ To be even more cautious, we have decided to explicitly address each of the repu
            - Ayn Rand and Peikoff themselves use this very same reasoning when pointing out that humankind's morality consists of humans living **as humans** (i.e, rational creatures) with a holistic view of the human identity -- that a human has two hands to labour and fight with; but a human also has a rational faculty which enables him/her to observe and scientifically learn about the world, and to use that knowledge to produce with his/her hands instead of using violence, and to trade the produce of their labour with others instead of predating on others -- that a human is a being with **both** two hands **and** a mind. The enhanced capabilities granted by the mind bind the human with new moral and ethical obligations. With increased capability comes increased ethical obligation.
         - A nation with the foresight/knowledge that a particular course of action in war would cause avoidable civilian death, and which has an alternative course of action which would **feasibly** achieve its self defense objectives, has an obligation to choose the course of action which would avoid incurring those avoidable civilian casualties.
         - A nation receiving information which changes the ethical implications of a course of action in an avoidable way, has a moral obligation to alter that course of action and avoid the negative ethical consequences if it can do so while still feasibly accomplishing its self-defense.
-     - A nation should not paralyze itself with inaction in the face of a threat, but a nation which, due to its enhanced capabilities/foresight/information, has a course of action which enables it to entinguish a threat and defend itself while also limiting civilian casualties is ethically bound limit such casualties where it is truly feasible to do so.
+     - It is certainly immoral for a nation to paralyze itself with inaction in the face of a threat, but a nation which, due to its advantage in capabilities/foresight/information, has a course of action which enables it to entinguish a threat and defend itself while also limiting civilian casualties is ethically bound limit such casualties where it is truly feasible to do so.
 
 - Antonin Scalia: