A Quote by George Bernard Shaw

The notion that disarmament can put a stop to war is contradicted by the nearest dogfight. — © George Bernard Shaw
The notion that disarmament can put a stop to war is contradicted by the nearest dogfight.
War is a racket. It always has been... A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
We should put away the militaristic outlook. The U.S. should start talking about disarmament, nuclear disarmament, of the region.
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.
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.
The twentieth century had dispensed with the formal declaration of war and introduced the fifth column, sabotage, cold war, and war by proxy, but that was only the begining. Summit meetings for disarmament pursued mutual understanding and a balance of power but were also held to learn the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy. The world of the war-or-peace alternative became a world in which war was peace and peace war.
The notion that we won the war against Iraq is like saying we won a war against Arizona. I mean, the fact of the matter is it's not that big of a country. Nobody, I don't think, had any notion that we would do anything but win it.
A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.
When you're ready to stop, stop. If you have presented all the facts and made the point you want to make, look for the nearest exit.
I took Alexey Brodovitch course at the New School. He taught me something that I've always remembered: After we did the initial assignment, he contradicted what he had said the first week, and I said, "Okay." The next week, he contradicted what he had said the second week. We went through 10 weeks of contradicting, and I thought maybe he was drunk. At the end, he said, "You may think I've contradicted myself, but there's no one way to do anything."
We shall never be able to effect physical disarmament until we have succeeded in effecting moral disarmament.
Bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations. Weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us...No longer is the quest for disarmament a sign of weakness, (nor) the destruction of arms a dream - it is a practical matter of life or death. The risks inherent in disarmament pale in comparison to the risks inherent in an unlimited arms race.
Disarmament by war and democracy by occupation are difficult prospects.
There is an urgent need for disarmament of all kinds, but especially nuclear disarmament.
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.
We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws of geometry.
To stand up for peace and against war and for disarmament is very courageous here in America.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!