The copper country evening news., 1898-06-27
-uy mAELslROM OF MILITARY
The PREPAREDNESS.
rcopyrighted. 1881

mon - .In time Of peace prepare Tor
these =. a. now being stated that one
war. ,re ought to learn from our pres
oontict is that our nation snouid De
ens eoughly prepared. not only TO resist
thoi ottack any other nation. How
pu' hetter. II is contended, 1t would
inu." haen II we could have had ready
ma" canal TO England's and an army
nse' carmany's, Immediately to swoop
I'M mon Spain when war was de-
uo"a s The conflict would have been
elais ~, This time. All this has strong
onnearance of common-sense. IL Is d
Sactrine that is dangerous because IL Is
SO plausible.
put the fundamental assumption OF
srcb a theory is that war Is inevitable
20 NOT necessary, and that the true ma
,ional policy is to be always prepared
sor A. In truth, however, war is
.O,,,o Il Is accursed of God, reversal
.f The nrocess Of social evolution, an
ooonomic monstrosity; and it is the
Sutv of government not to prepare Tor
:. % ali except as may be needed for
dafense To many such a position may
seem absurd, but a candid reflection
mon the reasons in the case VIII show
that the idea is sound.
First. Military preparedness is i'm
rossible. 1t is based on the theory OF
one nation ruling all others, the old
notion of Roman Imperialism, and can
not apply. as a principle of statecraft,
IN existing conditions, where many gov
ernments exist co-ordinately. For 1T is
Mainly out Of the question for each
countrv to be able to subdue each one of
tbe other countries; each one cannot be
the most powerful, any more than each
tree in the forest can be the tallest.
And even If our nation were equipped
TO vanaush any one other power, 1t
could not be prepared to overcome a
combination Of two or more powers,
unless we should undertake to provide
ourselves with an armed force equal to
the subduing of the whole world, which
is absurd. Therefore, the theory of mil
itary preparedness is easily dissipated
by the reductio ad absurdum.
sss
And not only is the thing iself impos-
sible as a general national policy but
the attempt to attain to 1t is disastrous.
Each nation, as 1t arms, excites the
emulation of the others, and thus nat
ural fear and distrust entails an end
less expenditure Of money and a with
drawal of the very choicest laborers
and producers from the ranks of toll,
for an army is composed of men trans
fered from the column Of states as
sets to that of its expenditure. Sir Rob-
De- in, 10 ic
the advantage of one power greatly in
oreasing its army and navy? Does 1t
not see that If 1t possesses such increase
for self-protection the other powers will
follow its example? The consequence
of this state of things must be that no
increase of relative strength will ac-
crue to any power; but there must be
universal consumption of the re-
sources of every country in military
preparation" Lord Beaconsfleld saw
the same point, and in 1859 said: 'Let
us terminate this disastrous system OF
wild expenditure. by mutually agreeing.
with no hypocrisy. but in a manner and
under circumstances which will admit
OF no doubt, by the reduction Of arm
aments, that peace is really our policy
Even the French emperor in 1863 ex-
claimed: Shall the jealous rivalries OF
the great powers increasingly impede
the progress of civilization? Are we
still to maintain mutual distrust by
exaggerated armaments?" Yet. in spite
OF such sentiments as these the Euro
pean powers have persisted in the in
sane increase Of their military burdens
Wo fbnc eaa kbat xLo 511x-s~z - -~.ty
ltary preparedness is applicable only
10 such theories of state as was enter
tained by Alexander. Caesar, TimouI
and Napoleon, theory that one gov
ernment should dominate all the rest
IL Is an anachronism. 1t is a fallacy:
put an old one and dies hard. The true
pcIcy is for a nation to be ready only
ior defense against invasion. Suppose
the states of Europe adopted this pro-
gramme, how soon would even "a prep
aration for defense even become un.
needed, when no other power is mass
ing forces for attack? But for Europe
10 DO this is difficult, because her lead
ing nations are committed to the iniq-
uitous ambition for more territory ant
lor predominance over the rest in arms
Inc United States, on the other hand
mas steered clear Of this folly so far
IL we continue to do so we shall never
need great armament. If we cut loose
from the wise counsel Of our fathers
ana enter the lists with European land.
srapbers. then like them we must take
up the Sisyphus task Of maintaining ar
enormus military equipment.
Inc Idea that the policy Of non-inter.
ference held by Washington was goot
enough FOR us in our infancy but should
now De discarded when we have Sc.
cured worldwide commerce, and thai
We should adopt instead the tactics o.
England, Germany and the others, II
ueepiy dangerous. 1t rests upon the
mistake that force of arms can ulti.
a'a'ely adjust our issues in the China
s.a OF IN Australia. 1t is of piece will
.ne error that only our fleet and army
prevent an invasion of our shores. Blu
ne Iact Is htat this country owes IT.
Immunity from attack to its uniform
by bOney OF peace and of minding its owr
BUSINESS, and not at all to its formida.
o,eness. The preparation for war in.
'VeS war; Again No opn TVuropaov