If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament - disarmament follows peace.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee 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.
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.
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.
The burden for achieving disarmament cannot be borne by peace groups alone. Everybody, regardless of age, income, profession, gender or nationality, has a stake in this quest.
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.
It has become impossible to give up the enterprise of disarmament without abandoning the whole great adventure of building up a collective peace system.
Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.
Disarmament requires trust.
Peace does not mean just to stop wars, but also to stop oppression and injustice.
No opposing quotes found.