It is rightly said that in order to avoid war we have to prepare for war. When we are well prepared and have lots of arms, warplanes, ammunition, warships and, on top of all, atomic weapons, no country will dare attack us. This is called the deterrent theory of war.
We may extend the application of the maxim that offence is the greatest defence to other fields of life. Let us examine or study some representative examples.
Quarrels and fights between individuals
Just watch two persons in their full strength and vitality in hot discussion or exchange of views. They are on the point of coming to blows. The one who hits the other or at least threatens to hit him forcefully has the upper hand in the fight. The one who gets hit or is threatened with the use of force loses the initiative, misses the chance to strike first and assumes the defensive posture. The attacker in most cases rides the horse of power, the defender, so to say, sits on the buffalo of peace.
In ninety cases out of a hundred, the attacker is the master of the situation, the judge of the fight and the maker of the final decision. The attacked party comes to terms with the attacking party. For the attacker, it is not necessary to possess superior muscular or physical force. Enough it is for him to confuse, perplex, frighten and finally overpower the opponent.
Arguments and discussions
When two or more parties are engaged in the discussion of controversial points, it is the aggressive party that steals the show. When ideas and arguments are the most impressive and appealing’even at world forums like the UN, surely those that argue originally and aggressively succeed. New ideas in a new language and in challenging sentences are like modern powerful weapons with intensive (powerful) firing capacity. When the speakers or talkers direct the missiles of their ideas at their opponents or parties engaged in discussion, they at once begin having the upper hand.
Nations and countries in conflict
When one nation or country is in conflict or disagreement with another, unluckily, the principle of attack or offense first does not hold good. It is so because most countries possess huge armed forces and weapons of mass destruction. Like our country, some of them are equipped with atom, hydrogen, cobalt and other bombs and missiles of a wide range. For one country to attack another these days is to ask for return destruction, may be far more widespread than the initial attack. The conclusion, then, is that in social, economic and political matters between individuals, parties, groups or classes “the first offense” principle may be effective. Nations and countries cannot safely act on it as they cannot afford mutual mass destruction in the present conditions.