The problem is that it takes only one army to start a war. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says, “To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.”
In 1776 the British occupied Boston. Washington moved cannon recently captured at Ft. Ticonderoga to the hills surrounding the city. The British made a deal: if Washington promised not to hinder their withdrawal, they would no trash the city when they left. The Battle of Boston never happened. Boston was conquered without a shot being fired.
In 1948, Stalin blocked all access to the city of Berlin. The United States and its allies responded in strength with a massive airlift and the crisis ended without violence.
In 1962 the Soviet Union put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Unites States responded in strength with a Naval “quarantine” and the crisis ended without violence. History later revealed that we made a back-door deal with the Soviets to remove our missiles from Turkey, but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
And then there was the Cold War. We never need more missiles, tanks and guns than the Soviet Union. We just had to get them to believe that we had more and they would go broke trying to keep up. This is precisely what happened and one more instance of violence averted through strength.
In the 1930’s Roosevelt cashed in his “Peace Divided” to fund his New Deal. Therefore, by 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Having a strong military can be a good thing. However, the problem is that leaders then have the temptation to use it and make it their “go to” solution.
I like JFK’s statement: “We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.” Negotiating from a position of strength is a lot easier.
…ask Ukraine how that worked out. They got rid of their nuclear arsenal, and Britain and the US pledged to protect them if they needed it. Protecting Ukraine (Crimea) from Russia ended up being Britain and the US pointing at the Russians and loudly yelling. So, don’t blame a lot of countries for not demilitarizing even if their ‘allies’ say they will back them if they do……not so easy, is it?…
finkd about 4 years ago
It makes sense, Your Holiness, and that’s why the world’s leaders will never go for it.
kaffekup about 4 years ago
“No, that’s not it. But keep trying, Holiness.”
Dani Rice about 4 years ago
As usual, Brother Leo has already solved the problem.
Thorby about 4 years ago
Brother Leo is following Francis of Assisi’s example..
dflak about 4 years ago
Bother Leo is not socially distancing and where are the masks?
dflak about 4 years ago
The problem is that it takes only one army to start a war. In the Art of War, Sun Tzu says, “To win 100 victories in 100 battles is not the epitome of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the epitome of skill.”
In 1776 the British occupied Boston. Washington moved cannon recently captured at Ft. Ticonderoga to the hills surrounding the city. The British made a deal: if Washington promised not to hinder their withdrawal, they would no trash the city when they left. The Battle of Boston never happened. Boston was conquered without a shot being fired.
In 1948, Stalin blocked all access to the city of Berlin. The United States and its allies responded in strength with a massive airlift and the crisis ended without violence.
In 1962 the Soviet Union put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Unites States responded in strength with a Naval “quarantine” and the crisis ended without violence. History later revealed that we made a back-door deal with the Soviets to remove our missiles from Turkey, but that still counts as subduing the enemy without fighting.
And then there was the Cold War. We never need more missiles, tanks and guns than the Soviet Union. We just had to get them to believe that we had more and they would go broke trying to keep up. This is precisely what happened and one more instance of violence averted through strength.
In the 1930’s Roosevelt cashed in his “Peace Divided” to fund his New Deal. Therefore, by 1941, the United States had the 17th largest army in the world on par with Romania. The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
Having a strong military can be a good thing. However, the problem is that leaders then have the temptation to use it and make it their “go to” solution.
I like JFK’s statement: “We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate.” Negotiating from a position of strength is a lot easier.
bookworm0812 about 4 years ago
Shouldn’t they all be wearing masks?
oakie817 about 4 years ago
amen
GaryCooper about 4 years ago
It’s not that we don’t know what to do; it’s just that the people in control don’t want to do it.
tung cha cha cha about 4 years ago
Amen
craigwestlake about 4 years ago
Sadly, “In your dreams”…
MCProfessor about 4 years ago
Unfortunately the history of mankind has been the history of conflict. Our warriors are celebrated more than our peacemakers.
actowers about 4 years ago
…ask Ukraine how that worked out. They got rid of their nuclear arsenal, and Britain and the US pledged to protect them if they needed it. Protecting Ukraine (Crimea) from Russia ended up being Britain and the US pointing at the Russians and loudly yelling. So, don’t blame a lot of countries for not demilitarizing even if their ‘allies’ say they will back them if they do……not so easy, is it?…