John Ralston Saul Quotes

I came here as a practical man, to talk, not simply on the question of peace and war, but to treat another question which is of hardly less importance - the enormous and burdensome standing armaments which it is the practice of modern Governments to sustain in time of peace.

War has become a luxury that only small nations can afford.

… war is a matter not so much of arms as of money

Limitation of armaments in itself is economically and financially important quite apart from security.

The sinews of war are infinite money.

We disarm ourselves by making weapons so expensive.

Our guns are not called upon to hurl huge projectiles each one of which costs as much as the construction of a happy home.

Even a fool could see that one didn't need a war, nuclear or otherwise, to destroy oneself; the rising cost of weaponry could do that quite nicely.

There is no better constraint on the leader of a developing country than telling him that he has to pay cash for his weapons.

Any great power—especially a great one suddenly deprived of its traditional adversary—faces the perennial dilemma of showing a reasonable return on its costly military investments.

When the guns of war become a national obsession, social needs inevitably suffer.

We have to admit that, notwithstanding all the efforts in which governments and peoples have participated, no corresponding change has been wrought in the aspect of the world's armaments.

The administration has a disturbing pattern of behavior when it comes to budgeting not only for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also for military requirements not directly related to these conflicts.

Don't forget what I discovered that over ninety percent of all national deficits from 1921 to 1939 were caused by payments for past, present, and future wars.

I guess if people couldn't profit from war I don't think there would be war.

Guns will make us powerful; butter will only make us fat.

I am not disputing the need for this money. What I am disputing and calling attention to is the fact that we are taking the tab for defense in our time against terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere and shoving this tab off onto our children.

We pay for the navy, and we have no commerce for the navy to protect; we pay for the army, and we loathe and execrate the work upon which it has been engaged.

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

I know of no more important subject to the peace of Europe and the world than the reasonable reduction of armaments, especially in Europe, and of naval armaments throughout the world.

Wars are made to make debt.

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 will be sufficient to point to the enormous burdens which armaments place on the economic, social, and intellectual resources of a nation, as well as on its budget and taxes.

We need to stop spending money on those weapons systems that do not advance national security.

Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?