When distrust exists between governments, when there is a danger of war, they will not be willing to disarm even when logic indicates that disarmament would not affect military security at all.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Disarmament requires trust.
So long as peace is not attained by law (so argue the advocates of armaments) the military protection of a country must not be undermined, and until such is the case disarmament is impossible.
The relationship of the two problems is rather the reverse. To a great extent disarmament is dependent on guarantees of peace. Security comes first and disarmament second.
Some pacifists have carried the sound idea of the prime importance of security too far, to the point of declaring that any consideration of disarmament is superfluous and pointless as long as eternal peace has not been attained.
If we have the intent to use the military only when needed, then that also becomes, then, therefore, a credible deterrent.
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.
Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.
Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.
The popular, and one may say naive, idea is that peace can be secured by disarmament and that disarmament must therefore precede the attainment of absolute security and lasting peace.
If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
No opposing quotes found.