"But it cannot follow that because weapons and troops are now being deployed we are bound to go to war"

Douglas Hurd's statement, "But it can not follow that since weapons and soldiers are now being deployed we are bound to go to war", suggests a nuanced understanding of military readiness and global relations. Hurd, a former British political leader and diplomat, acknowledges the complexity of geopolitical characteristics. This quote can be analyzed as a care against presuming that military maneuvers always lead to active conflict.

Firstly, Hurd is stressing the difference between preparedness and aggressiveness. The release of weapons and soldiers is typically a strategic move targeted at deterrence instead of an instant precursor to war. Nations may release military resources to signify strength, reassure allies, or apply diplomatic pressure. This action acts as a way of negotiation, developed to avoid real battle by demonstrating ability and resolve.

Moreover, Hurd's declaration highlights the importance of diplomacy and discussion. While military preparedness is important, it does not prevent the pursuit of serene resolutions. Diplomatic channels may stay open, permitting settlement and dispute de-escalation despite the existence of armed forces. His words suggest that statesmanship includes utilizing military possessions as a settlement tool instead of as a warranty of approaching war.

Moreover, Hurd uses a pointer of the unpredictability of international relations. The deployment of military resources could be part of a wider technique including several variables, including political, financial, and social aspects. His statement advocates for a comprehensive understanding of why forces are mobilized and warns versus simplified interpretations of military motions.

In conclusion, Douglas Hurd's quote reflects the belief that military implementation need not inexorably cause war. It highlights the important role of diplomacy, the strategic nature of military readiness, and the complex nature of worldwide politics. This viewpoint prompts policymakers and observers to distinguish between force implementation as deterrence or preparation and its usage as a conclusive action toward dispute.