A Quote by Ludwig Quidde

Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace. — © Ludwig Quidde
Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to the maintenance of peace.
A permanent peace cannot be prepared by threats but only by the honest attempt to create a mutual trust. However strong national armaments may be, they do not create military security for any nation nor do they 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 progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce, and the diffusion of education, than upon the labors of cabinets and foreign offices.
The progress of freedom depends more upon the maintenance of peace, the spread of commerce, and the diffusion of education, than upon the labours of cabinets and foreign offices.
Limitation of armaments in itself is economically and financially important quite apart from security.
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.
But it is a fallacy, if one is examining the methods by which security can be attained, to start upon the assumption, as so many hon. Members do, that we get security by an increase of air armaments or an increase of any other form of armaments.
Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of 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.
We concluded that tomorrow is a moment of truth for the world. Many nations have voiced a commitment to peace and security, and now they must demonstrate that commitment to peace and security in the only effective way: by supporting the immediate and unconditional disarmament of Saddam Hussein.
If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament - disarmament follows peace.
Armaments do not, generally speaking, cause wars. This notion, the logical crux of all arguments in favor of disarmament, turns the causal relationship upside down. Actually, it is wars, or conflicts threatening war, that cause armaments, not the reverse.
The social progress, order, security and peace of each country are necessarily connected with the social progress, order, security and peace of all other countries.
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace.
Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are not utopian ideals. They are critical to global peace and security.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!