To sound off with a cheerful “give me liberty or give me death” sort of argument in the face of the unprecedented and inconceivable potential of destruction in nuclear warfare is not even hollow; it is downright ridiculous. Indeed it seems so obvious that it is a very different thing to risk one’s own life for the life and freedom of one’s country and one’s posterity from risking the very existence of the human species for the same purpose that it is difficult not to suspect the defenders of the “better dead than red” or “better death than slavery” slogans of bad faith.
Which of course is not to say the reverse, “better red than dead,” has any more to recommend itself; when an old truth ceases to be applicable, it does not become any truer by being stood on its head.
As a matter of fact, to the extent that the discussion of the war question today is conducted in these terms, it is easy to detect a mental reservation on both sides. Those who say “better dead than red” actually think: The losses may not be as great as some anticipate, our civilization will survive; while those who say “better red than dead” actually think: Slavery will not be so bad, man will not change his nature, freedom will not vanish from the earth forever. In other words, the bad faith of the discussants lies in that both dodge the preposterous alternative they themselves have proposed; they are not serious.

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) German-American philosopher, political theorist

On Revolution, Introduction (1963)
    (Source)