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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
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.
More must be done in concrete terms in order to promote the cause of disarmament.
The Disarmament Conference has become the focal point of a great struggle between anarchy and world order... between those who think in terms of inevitable armed conflict and those who seek to build a universal and durable peace.
Disarmament requires trust.
If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament - disarmament follows peace.
Do not hide behind utopian logic which says that until we have the perfect security environment, nuclear disarmament cannot proceed. This is old-think. This is the mentality of the Cold War era. We must face the realities of the 21st century. The Conference on Disarmament can be a driving force for building a safer world and a better future.
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.
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.
No opposing quotes found.