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.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.
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.
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.
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.
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.
To secure peace is to prepare for war.
To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.
We know that peace is only possible when it is the fruit of justice. True peace is a profound transformation by means of the force of nonviolence that is the power of love.
If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament - disarmament follows 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.