"So long as peace is not attained by law (so argue the advocates of armaments) the military protection of a country must not be undermined, and until such is the case disarmament is impossible"

Ludwig Quidde's quote addresses the complex relationship between peace, law, and disarmament, highlighting a point of view often held by proponents of military strength. At the heart of the argument is the assertion that up until peace can be attained and sustained through legal frameworks, a country's military abilities must stay robust to ensure protection and security.

The expression "peace is not obtained by law" suggests apprehension about the present capability of worldwide laws and contracts to maintain peace efficiently. This point of view, often shared by supporters of military armament, indicates that legal procedures alone are inadequate as warranties of peace, explaining that laws and treaties may be breached or fall brief in moments of global stress.

Consequently, these supporters argue that up until the legal mechanisms for peace are as powerful and trusted as military forces, disarmament stays impractical. The factor is the viewed necessity to keep a strong military as a deterrent against prospective assailants. This position is rooted in the belief that the existence of sufficient military defense functions as a secure, offering security and stability up until more reputable legal ways can guarantee long lasting peace.

The idea that "the military defense of a country must not be weakened" reflects a dedication to nationwide security that focuses on instant and tangible precaution, such as armed forces, over the often abstract assurances provided by global law. This viewpoint typically originates from historic examples where agreements failed to avoid conflicts, resulting in a sense of caution around completely accepting disarmament.

Quidde's quote encapsulates a stress between the perfect of a tranquil world governed by law and the pragmatic concerns about security in the lack of such a global legal order. It raises important questions about how we balance the pursuit of legal services for peace with the demands of realpolitik and national security, highlighting the ongoing debate over the conditions under which disarmament may become a practical, realistic goal.