If this phrase of the 'balance of power' is to be always an argument for war, the pretext for war will never be wanting, and peace can never be secure.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A war can perhaps be won single-handedly. But peace - lasting peace - cannot be secured without the support of all.
Peace and security both in Europe and in the Pacific still depend on a balance of power.
Peace through strength works; but the flip side is war invited by weakness.
I define power as 'control over one's life.' A balanced life is far superior to the male definition of power: earning money someone else spends while he dies sooner.
When you talk about peace through strength, what you're talking about is the concept of deterrence.
Unconditional war can no longer lead to unconditional victory. It can no longer serve to settle disputes... can no longer be of concern to great powers alone.
War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms.
If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it; if we desire to secure peace, one of the most powerful instruments of our rising prosperity, it must be known, that we are at all times ready for War.
A peace that depends on fear is nothing but a suppressed war.
Balance is key. Balance is a virtue. Balance is next to godliness, maybe. We should all aspire to better balance. Too much of what is said in this world is one-sided, and we need more balance - in our speech, in our music, in our art, in everything.
No opposing quotes found.