“Defence must be a military possibility”
Reflections on the balance of power
When two equally strong opponents face each other, then violence is usually avoided. The potential attacker must be afraid of his own heavy losses, this will have a deterrent effect.
Stability is achieved. The “other” is predictable.
An important principle of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is based on this deterrence involving the presence of nuclear weapons. In the past centuries, Western Europe has never experienced such a long period of peace.
In the Western world, we must be able to defend our values ourselves, also independently of the USA. Self-determined decisions in politics must not be subject to influence by a possible danger from external factors.
There is a strong prosperity gap between Western Europe and Africa and also compared to Eastern Europe. This holds conflict potential, which can lead to escalation, resulting in defence. Ultimately, this defence must also be possible by military means.
A significant difference in military capabilities can encourage the ambitions of the strongest to escalate the situation in negotiations of whatever kind. This then justifies a military confrontation. An example is the second Iraq war with the intentionally false insinuation of the USA that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. That was the justification. An essential precondition was the massive imbalance in the military capabilities of the alliance (USA, GB, …) compared to Iraq. The list can be continued (Russia Crimea, the German invasion of Poland…).
Certainly, it is beyond dispute that balance is the key issue; the lower the absolute level of the balance of power, the better. Therefore, disarmament talks are very important, all parties must simultaneously disarm.
Reality: An increasing number of states dispose of nuclear weapons, the global balance is becoming unstable.
Rüdiger Quast
