Do arms maintain the peace?

Question

The Romans had a saying which was 'arma tuentur pacem'(arms keep the peace). How do or don't arms keep the peace? Real life examples as well as hypothetical ones are welcome but I prefer no personal anecodotes.

Answer 1

That old Roman saying seems like more of a truism than a truth. Sometimes it works and sometimes it fails miserably.

Prior to the first world war, a combination of arms and delicate alliances were supposed to keep the world at peace. It worked fine until Germany (thanks to Wilhelm) started a naval arm's race with the British (despite the gentleman's agreement that Britannia ruled the waves). Alliances rearranged themselves creating a situation where the assassination of a duke no one cared about could send all of Europe hurtling into a terrible war.

The Cold war and arms race between the United States and The Soviet Union did (sort of) keep the peace if you don't count proxy wars in the third world. But I think the only reason no one used the weapons was because of the terrible damage done in Japan at the close of the Second World War. This is speculation but it was probably more extensive than anyone had anticipated.

I think that arms keep the peace between nations with a lot to lose (especially now with nuclear weapons available). But how much of a deterrent would arms of any kind be to desperate nations like North Korea with a crazy leader and no money except what goes into the military? And I don't think arms do much to deter terrorists, especially when their value of earthly life pales in comparison to what they will get after death.

Answer 2

If you walked into a school, as in Columbine, and knew that every student in the place had a weapon, would you be more or less likely to start shooting up the place....
I am not advocating arming our children, but to me it makes sense that the less armed you are the more vulnerable you become.

Answer 3

Peace Through Superior Fire Power

That's the bumper sticker on my 99'Ford Excursion.

Answer 4

Two nations with nuclear weapons are *much* more likely to meet over the diplomacy table than the battlefield.

This is why *EVERY* nation should have nuclear weapons. Anybody who actually uses one would make *everyone* mad.

Answer 5

Only for the bumper-sticker philosophy crowd.