Aristide Briand Quotes

Disarmament offers the only effective way to bring militarism under control.

Our purpose [is] to invite the present-day civilization to cast aside the staggering burden of armament.

Even a total and universal disarmament does not guarantee the maintenance of peace.

The Cold War's end pushed disarmament down most leaders' agendas. It's a sophisticated issue, which I think is one reason why it is not so hands-on to many people. It's not visceral. It's not like a starving child.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative.

I agree with the many who consider freezing all sorts of weapons systems a first step in a realistic disarmament policy.

Among pacifists it was above all the English who always insisted on the importance of disarmament. They said that the man in the street would not understand the kind of pacifism that neglected to demand immediate restriction of armaments.

Talking to the superpowers about disarmament is like talking to drug dealers about stopping drug deliveries.

Arms control has to have a future, or none of us does.

If the history of the past fifty years teaches us anything, it is that peace does not follow disarmament -- disarmament follows peace.

Peace is not just a matter of the absence of violence. It is also necessarily about removing the potential for violence – namely the uncontrolled possession of weapons. It would be naive to believe that anybody can be at ease when it is known that a potential opponent is stockpiling arms, even if the latter swears on whatever he or she believes, that the weapons will not be used. Weapons are meant to be used and pretexts will eventually be found for their use at some point or the other.

Disarmament has become the urgent imperative of our time. I do not say this because I equate the absence of arms to peace, or because I believe that bringing an end to the nuclear arms race automatically guarantees the peace, or because the elimination of nuclear warheads from the arsenals of the world will bring in its wake that change in attitude requisite to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. Disarmament is vital today, quite simply, because of the immense destructive capacity of which men dispose.

There is an urgent need for disarmament of all kinds, but especially nuclear disarmament.

The notion that disarmament can put a stop to war is contradicted by the nearest dogfight.

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

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.

If the world is disarmed, and remains disarmed, there will be no more world wars.

We must wake up to the insane reality of our time. We are all irresponsible, unless we demand from the responsible decision makers that modern armaments must no longer be made available to people whose former battle axes and swords our ancestors condemned.

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.

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.

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.

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

Show me who makes a profit from war, and I'll show you how to stop the war.

We must halt the arms race before it halts humanity.