A favorite position for anointed visionaries

The Quest for Cosmic Justice by Thomas Sowell, p. 108. He is speaking of the unreflecting commitment that many in North America and Europe had to non-armament prior to World War II despite the threatening actions of Hitler and Japan in the years leading up to 1939. These advocates argued that being disarmed prevented giving Hitler a pretext for aggressive action. Sowell is dismissive not so much of the position as of the unreflecting nature of the position.

The irrelevant argument that the people of various countries did not want war proved to be as politically indestructible as it was as an indicator of what the governments of those countries were likely to do. This same argument was repeated on many occasions on the other side of the Atlantic by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and was to re-surface a generation later during the Cold War and be repeated innumerable times once again, as if it were a new and deep insight. In September 1938, Chamberlain spoke of "the desire of the German people for peace." less than a year before the most catastrophic war in history was unleashed by Hitler. Similarly, Chamberlain spoke of "the passionate desire of the Italian people for peace," which was no doubt equally true and equally irrelevant to Mussolini's actions.

Like many others during the years between the two world wars, Chamberlain warned of an "arms race" - what he called "this senseless competition in rearmament which continually cancels out the efforts that each nation makes to secure an advantage over the others." This echoed what Bertrand Russell had said in 1936, that "every increase of armaments by one Power is met by an increase by the first Power." Such neutral assessments from above the struggle - a favorite position for anointed visionaries - overlooked two crucial facts in the life-and-death decisions that have to be made about military preparedness.

First of all, an obviously aggressive nation, such as Nazi Germany during the 1930s, launches a military buildup in order to accomplish its goal by force or the threat of force, while those who build up counter-force are seeking to avoid being attacked or forced into surrender. If a defensive military buildup - an "arms race: - fails to secure any net advantage whatever against the aggressor, it is nevertheless a huge success if it prevents aggression or the need to surrender. From the standpoint of the non-aggressor nation, it is not trying to gain anything at the expense of anybody else, but simply recognizes the grim reality that military preparedness is part of the price of maintaining the peace, independence, and freedom that it already has. If military deterrence permits that to be done without bloodshed, it is not a "waste" because the arms are never used, but instead is a bargain because they were formidable enough that they did not have to be used, nor lives sacrificed in the carnage of war.