There's a
bumper sticker I recently saw with a picture of Einstein and a quotation: "You cannot simultaneous prevent and prepare for war." Einstein was a brilliant physicist, but I don't know if he's worth quoting outside his area of expertise.
The line is actually vague. (Was it better in German?) Does "prepare for war" mean take the necessary measures to launch a war as soon as possible? If so, then the statement is a tautology. But if it means arming yourself well enough to defend against an attack, then I have to question the wisdom. Will war be more or less likely if your neighbors know they can easily defeat you? Seems to me preparation for war is in most cases a wise strategy, not only to defend yourself if attacked, but also to deter others from attacking in the first place.
I suppose it's a Prisoner's Dilemma situation, and I wish we could all cooperate and thus make armies unnecessary. But that's never been how the world works and I don't see it changing in the near future.
4 Comments:
Presumably he was rebutting "Whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war." This is a quote from from Flavius Vegetius' book "On Military Matters", written in the late 4th or early 5th century: Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
I think there can be some truth to Einstein's saying; after all, isn't it a bit like your recent post about neighborhood watch folks? When someone spends all his time planning for and obsessing about possible war, or possible crimes, or possible subversion, it seems that (for whatever reason) the anticipated disaster is more likely to occur.
On the other hand, a reasonable and non-paranoid precaution, like training an army to defend your nation -- or buying (and learning how to use) a gun to protect your home -- should not be tarred with this same brush. You can make such preparations and prevent violence at the same time.
Did Einstein have fire insurance for his home? Did he doubt that one can simultaneously prevent and prepare for a fire?
Einstein was gtenerally a pacifist but he recommended America develop an atom bomb to fight fascism. When the chips were down, he knew what had to be done. He was only so crazy. Maybe too much sabre-rattling is a bad idea, but when people are openly devoted to your destruction, few believe the right thing to do is sit back and take whatever happens.
One of those great lines that is open to many interpretations- I think Einstein, a genius in his own particular field, was a rational man in the context of policy (certainly not crazy because he disagreed with a particular ideology)- My sense is he was reacting to a specific set of circumstances (he spent a lot of time around military and defense hawk types, right?) where he probably perceived them to mouthing platitudes about peace while preparing some sort of pre-emptive strike. Just an unsupported guess of course. But he said it in a pithy kind of way that it leads to its continued repetition notwithstanding its essential ambiguity. He had the other line about insanity of expecting identical activities to turn differently which is similarly ambiguous.
The perils of speaking in a quotable fashion I suspect.
I don't know if he spent that much time hanging out with military types. He certainly spent a lot more times hanging out with academics. But he never liked the rigid military mentality. (Not that those in the military today are more rigid than other thinkers--in fact, I've heard some claim they're more flexible.)
We've already discussed that other line that so many attribute to Einstein: http://pajamaguy.blogspot.com/2010/10/strange-thought.html
Post a Comment
<< Home