Richard Cobden Quotes

From 1836, down to last year, there is no proof of the Government having any confidence in the duration of peace, or possessing increased security against war.

Let us assume that the ideal were reached; let us imagine a state of international life in which the danger of war no longer exists. Then no one would dare to demand a penny for obviously completely superfluous armaments.

That is the best Government, which best provides for war.

If peace should break out, what are we going to do with all these weapons.

Whenever there is talk of peace, there is anger in the military- industrial- political complex.

Without armaments peace cannot be kept; wars are waged not only to repel injustice but also to establish a firm peace.

War as Napoleon knew it just not possible any more. However, we're very unlikely to accept or recognize 'world peace' even when we get it.

Let him who desires peace prepare for war.

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.

We cannot be both the world's leading champion of peace and the world's leading supplier of the weapons of war.

I didn't promote war when I was a weapons inspector.

I know that military alliances and armament have been the reliance for peace for centuries, but they do not produce peace; and when war comes, as it inevitably does under such conditions, these armaments and alliances but intensify and broaden the conflict.

Peace and stability cannot be achieved by means of nuclear weapons.

The most expensive peace is far less costly than the cheapest war.

The distinction between preparations made with the intention of going to war and preparations against attack is it true distinction, clear and definite than the mind of those who build up armaments. But it is a distinction that is not obvious or certain to others. The moral is obvious: it is that that armaments lead inevitably to war.

Every nation must have some degree of military organization, even among the most peaceful peoples. The possession of armament however, no matter how necessary, breeds suspicion, fear, counter-armament and hate.

Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.

We must shift the arms race into a 'peace race'.

One of the primary necessities of the world for the maintenance of peace is the elimination of the frictions which arise from competitive armament.

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.

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

But I feel convinced, and I venture even to prophesy in this regard, that the time will come when there will also be a minister of peace in the cabinet, seated beside the ministers of war.

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.

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