Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.
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.
I know of no more important subject to the peace of Europe and the world than the reasonable reduction of armaments, especially in Europe, and of naval armaments throughout the world.
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.
Without peace and without the overwhelming majority of people that believe in peace defending it, working for it, believing in it, security can never really be a reality.
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.
Without the United States, there simply would not have been an armed uprising in our country.
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.
There are no military solutions - dialogue and diplomacy are the only guarantee of lasting peace.
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.