Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
The United States finds its chief assurance of safety in its own strong arm and in its geographical position; for it has few treaties that offer solid barriers against conflict, and none that bind the other party not to wage war upon it should some conditions arise.
In seeking safeguards against war numerous obstacles have checked our progress. We have not as a people been certain as to what we ought to give up for the sake of peace. We have not been clear as to what should be accepted as feasible and desirable substitutes for war. We have lacked conviction as to the efficacy of some modes of adjustment, and have overlooked the potentialities of others; and we have been reluctant to agree to experiment. We have rigidly declined to agree to make war against a state that becomes a belligerent in violation of its covenant, without considering whether there may not be some other unobjectionable and yet effective means of penalizing such a wrongdoer.
1 It was discussed by this writer in an address on “ The Part of International Law inthe Further Limitation of Naval Armament,” delivered under the auspices of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, January 21,1926, printed in this Journal, Vol. XX, p. 237 .Dr. It has also been advocated byButler Nicholas Murray and Prof. Chamberlain. Joseph p.