"If the world is disarmed, and remains disarmed, there will be no more world wars"
About this Quote
There’s a kind of clean, almost disarming literalism to Norris’s line: remove the weapons and you remove the wars. It reads like a moral syllogism, but it’s also a political dare. The repetition - “disarmed, and remains disarmed” - is doing the heavy lifting, acknowledging the obvious critique of disarmament talk: it’s easy to declare and hard to sustain. Norris isn’t naive about relapse; he’s trying to make permanence the point.
The intent is less utopian than prosecutorial. Coming out of the First World War and speaking into the anxious interwar years, Norris uses “world wars” as the keyword that turns policy into existential memory. He’s not arguing about budgets or treaties; he’s arguing about whether industrialized slaughter is an acceptable feature of modern life. By shrinking the problem to a single condition, he makes every opposing argument sound like complicity: if you accept arms, you accept the next catastrophe.
The subtext is also domestic. As a progressive Midwestern senator and a frequent critic of militarism and war profiteering, Norris is implicitly warning that armaments don’t just defend a nation; they create constituencies - contractors, hawks, patriotic pageantry - invested in finding uses for them. “Remains disarmed” is a shot at the cycle where fear justifies buildup, buildup justifies fear.
Rhetorically, it works because it’s blunt enough to be memorable and conditional enough to be arguable. He’s offering a simple sentence that forces a complex question: is the next world war a tragic accident, or a maintained system?
The intent is less utopian than prosecutorial. Coming out of the First World War and speaking into the anxious interwar years, Norris uses “world wars” as the keyword that turns policy into existential memory. He’s not arguing about budgets or treaties; he’s arguing about whether industrialized slaughter is an acceptable feature of modern life. By shrinking the problem to a single condition, he makes every opposing argument sound like complicity: if you accept arms, you accept the next catastrophe.
The subtext is also domestic. As a progressive Midwestern senator and a frequent critic of militarism and war profiteering, Norris is implicitly warning that armaments don’t just defend a nation; they create constituencies - contractors, hawks, patriotic pageantry - invested in finding uses for them. “Remains disarmed” is a shot at the cycle where fear justifies buildup, buildup justifies fear.
Rhetorically, it works because it’s blunt enough to be memorable and conditional enough to be arguable. He’s offering a simple sentence that forces a complex question: is the next world war a tragic accident, or a maintained system?
Quote Details
| Topic | Peace |
|---|
More Quotes by George
Add to List



