Thus, if armaments were curtailed without a secure peace and all countries disarmed proportionately, military security would have been in no way affected.

We pacifists have not ceased to point to the grave danger of armaments and to insist on their curtailment.

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.

Great progress was made when arbitration treaties were concluded in which the contracting powers pledge in advance to submit all conflicts to an arbitration court, treaties which not only specify the composition of the court, but also its procedure.

Pacifist propaganda and the resolutions of the parliamentarians encouraged such treaties, and toward the end of the nineteenth century their number had increased considerably.

Disarmament or limitation of armaments, which depends on the progress made on security, also contributes to 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.