Page 27

Update item information
Title Ends and means in conflict
Subject Nuclear warfare--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Moral and ethical aspects; War--Religious aspects; War and emergency powers--United States; Ends and means
Description The 49th Annual Frederick William Reynolds Lecture.
Creator Firmage, Edwin Brown
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1987-10-15
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,1147
Source U263 .F57 1987
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Ends and means in conflict," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6x34vfm
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-31
ID 320434
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 27
Description ENDS AND MEANS IN CONFLICT 27 be resolved by legal techniques of fact-finding, conciliation, good offices, mediation, arbitration and court decision. Political processes and diplomacy will always be vital. The laws of war and war crimes will help ameliorate the effects of violence when peaceful means fail. Municipal systems have seen greater peace as legal systems came to monopolize violence even if it wasn't eliminated. Society moved from self-help and the hue and cry or posse to dispute resolution within judicial systems. Peaceful resolution of disputes can be done by these techniques, which we have developed as we have moved, or at least attempted to move, to higher forms of civilization. Constitutional restrictions on the decision for war should be followed. But there are limits to law as a restraint upon violence. Other institutions of society have a more fundamental, profound role to play than the law. If by some magnificent act of statesmanship equalling the brilliance of the creation of our American Constitution, all nuclear weapons were to be removed from the earth; and if we followed with fidelity the original insight of our Constitution, that many people would be less inclined precipitously, thoughtlessly to make war and thereby end the peace than would one; then still each generation could yet decide to begin again the nuclear arms race. And in so doing, we could quickly rearm and once again threaten the world with obliteration. For the knowledge of the atom has forever ended our state of innocence which existed prior to the development of the first atom bomb. No arms control agreement or international law will lobotomize generations of physicists. There is no return to a pre-nuclear Eden. And with the power of thermonuclear weapons, one mistake, one failure of the system peacefully to resolve disputes could incinerate the world. Congressional checks upon war at best improve our chances that peace rather than war will result. At best means not always. In the past, Congress has on occasion been more inclined toward war than the president. Usually, but not always, many will make a better decision than one. But many can be caught up in national frenzy as well. With this awesome source of power, how can we assure survival? In time past, war could mean the end of a nation. Carthage simply ceased to exist. Sumer, inventor of the wheel and a form of writing, disappeared in wars. Or an age may end forever even though individual states may survive war. The Golden Age of Greece ended as Athens and Sparta became convinced that the other was an evil empire bent
Format application/pdf
Identifier 030-RNLT- firmageE_ Page 27.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Ends and means in conflict by Edwin B. Firmage.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320411
Reference URL