Can you please grade my essay and make any notes for possible improvements? Any help would be greatly appreciated, my test is in two weeks 
Does true loyalty require unconditional support?
Loyalty is defined as the personal trait which impels an individual to stay unwavering behind another body - be it an organization or a whole nation - through troughs and peaks, rain and sun. But doesn’t such resolve imply a degree of concern? And isn’t approval of strategies that stymie the progress of an organization incompatible with concern and tantamount to apathy? It certainly is. Great epitomes of virtue and loyalty exempplify the validity of such thread of thought.
The field of history is replete with memorable figures who spoke up against a government’s actions out of loyalty and concern. J. Robert Oppenheimer, “The Father of the Atomic Bomb”, is one of those individuals. The affectionate codename of his “Little Boy” did not match its horrendous and morally reprehensible power to destroy mankind, which Oppenheimer witnessed in Hiroshima. Realizing that the further use of such a weapon would not only stymie the progress of America and the world, but also prove detrimental to them, he spoke eloquently against the hydrogen bomb during the Cold War. This action of his was considered treacherous against the U.S. and “soft” on communism, branding him a turncoat. He was, however, only guided by his impeccable sense of loyalty to mankind and concern for furthering the nation. Another American who essentially appeared disloyal to the U.S. in venting his true feelings of concern was Former Secretary of Defense McNamara. When in 1965 he spoke eloquently against the Vietnam War he exhibited fidelity and moral obligation to American citizens through championing the Great Society Reforms against the treasury-draining war. He was critical of the government, but, as Oppenheimer, was propelled not by disloyalty to the nation but by fidelity to progress.
Although such great men may seem out of reach in their statures, I myself have encountered critical loyalty in myriad occasions around me. A recent event takes shape in my mind - my sister’s decision to drop out of college to give rise to her adventurous nature. My father was exasperated by this immaturity and chided her - this was, however, not an act of betrayal, but of loyalty to her development. What would have been an actual infidelity is unconditional, apathetic support of an action he views as diminishing her potential.
It is as clear in the fight for furthering manking, as it is in trivial family conflicts, that critique is an essential indicative of loyalty and good intentions.
(The McNamara example is BS)