"Some think the worst horrors of war might be avoided by an international agreement not to use atomic bombs. This is a vain hope"

John Boyd Orr's quote suggests a deep hesitation about the effectiveness of international contracts in avoiding the use of atomic bombs and, by extension, the scaries of war. In his view, the belief that such arrangements could effectively deter nations from making use of nuclear weapons in conflict is a "vain hope". This indicates a downhearted outlook on the dependability and enforceability of international treaties, which often count on mutual trust and confirmation systems.

First of all, Orr may be highlighting the limitations inherent in humanity and international politics. Nations typically prioritize their own security and interests over collective contracts, particularly in circumstances where existential risks are viewed. Therefore, the promise of not using atomic weapons could be quickly deserted in times of severe dispute or desperation.

Furthermore, Orr's use of the word "vain" suggests that he views such hopes as not only not likely but likewise maybe naive. During his time and through subsequent history, the world experienced multiple arms races and conflicts where nations acted unilaterally in spite of international efforts to reduce aggressive actions. His statement may mention a wider philosophical position: that human dispute, driven by completing interests and wonder about, is an inescapable part of worldwide relations that can not be totally mitigated by official arrangements.

Additionally, it's worth considering the context of Orr's life and times. Having actually endured both World Wars and the early years of the Cold War, he was acutely knowledgeable about how quickly alliances and arrangements could move. The experience of these international disputes perhaps shaped his realist point of view, acknowledging the fragility of peace efforts in the face of technological advancements in warfare.

In summary, John Boyd Orr's remark recommends an important view on the dependence on worldwide arrangements to avoid nuclear war. It shows a belief that the complexities of humanity and political characteristics inherently weaken such agreements, making the hope for their success unproven.