War or Peace?

Can disarmament stop wars and promote peace? I hold a VERY strong belief on this one, but I will withhold so as not to influence replies on the matter.

Personally I don't think disarmament will promote peace.
I think a country/people should be allowed to keep enough to defend themselves with.
Taking away weapons will just make a place/person an easier target for another place/person to attack/conquer.
Honestly you can take away all the weapons in the world, and war would just turn into brawls between troops.
I personally don't think humans are capable of complete peace at this point in time.
Here's a quote "if you want peace, prepare for war" - Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus
There's also a quote "in times of peace prepare for war"

Humans are humans, and humans are aggressive and violent beings. Disarmament only means that they will rebuild their military in secrecy. The Germans did it in the 40's, why couldn't any country do the same in today's world? Rather than pointlessly protest it or be mad at it, I just see it as an exciting/interesting news story. We can't do anything about war, unless we completely annihilate human individuality and thoughts/opinions. Another words, if all humans agreed and thought the same way, which will never happen.

I think a country/people should be allowed to keep enough to defend themselves with.

But if every country was disarmed of weaponry then they wouldn't need to defend themself.

I think a country/people should be allowed to keep enough to defend themselves with.

But if every country was disarmed of weaponry then they wouldn't need to defend themself.

That would be considering every single country agreed to not build weapons in secret, that wouldn't be possible either.
The Germans did it in WWII, and the Syrians managed to make chemical weapons to use on citizens, so honestly I don't know what else to say.

I think a country/people should be allowed to keep enough to defend themselves with.

But if every country was disarmed of weaponry then they wouldn't need to defend themself.

That's another thing, if there were no weapons, countries would use economic war (sanctions, boycotts, etc..), and soldiers would beat each other to death with sticks and other foreign objects.

But if every country was disarmed of weaponry then they wouldn't need to defend themself.

That's another thing, if there were no weapons, countries would use economic war (sanctions, boycotts, etc..), and soldiers would beat each other to death with sticks and other foreign objects.

Very true but with diplomacy there are ways around that. "Human right laws" ect ect

That's another thing, if there were no weapons, countries would use economic war (sanctions, boycotts, etc..), and soldiers would beat each other to death with sticks and other foreign objects.

Very true but with diplomacy there are ways around that. "Human right laws" ect ect

With no armaments who enforces human rights or laws...

I believe it does, but both sides have to agree to disarmament. And all the factions within both sides have to condition themselves to uphold peace. It cannot work if you have America issuing threats to the Japanese, calling for a disarmament but America with no intentions for holding the same condition. Disarmament in the world today is one of the last resorts for promoting peace, unfortunately. The damage is already done, the weapons have already been created and are out in the wild or in the hands of brutes.
North Korea will not disarm itself, Iran will not disarm itself, because they realize that if they disarm themselves their country will have to submit to and be exploited by the the violent imperialist nations we see today, China and America.
To answer your question directly, yes disarmament can stop wars and promote peace. But in most cases they do not, because wars are created by capitalists with an interest in profits. If your willfully peaceful whilst they strip you of your land and goods they won't care, your just submitting to evil powers. If you have been living on the land they are wanting to exploit then you are a nuisance, peaceful or not. You are however more of a nuisance if you decide to retaliate with rightful violence, then they will begin to care because you are interfering with their business. What they will do then is make you an enemy through media and give people the excuse to kill you, poison you, whatever.

Greedy capitalists create most the wars we see today and disarmament isn't going to stop them, it will make things easier for them. However I do believe that peace can be won, the day we are all content with what we have, somehow.
Disarmament won't work today.

---

With no armaments who enforces human rights or laws...

Words with meaning can enforce human rights and laws, actions do not need to be taking if people condition themselves to listen to the words with the correct interpretation.
If all people obeyed the law, which only so many people do, then, armaments are not needed.

---

That's another thing, if there were no weapons, countries would use economic war (sanctions, boycotts, etc..), and soldiers would beat each other to death with sticks and other foreign objects.

Economic war is when you have two countries in a power struggle, it does not need to be like this if countries respected each other more and focused more on working together to suit both desires.
Like how brothers should be, of course not all brothers are good and not all countries are either.
Soldiers can live a civilized fulfilling life just by dedicating their lives to helping others.
People in general have the wrong desires, which is what creates conflict in the first place. If all people desire to help one another then the countries would be doing the same.

Very true but with diplomacy there are ways around that. "Human right laws" ect ect

With no armaments who enforces human rights or laws...

Well obviously there would be a world with human rights, and laws because then it would be out of character and unrealistic.