The following quote about armies from this famous article is meanwhile a very well-known thought all around the world: “Whether their purpose is defensive or offensive, these vast powerful organizations exist solely to kill human beings. We should think carefully about the reality of war. Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous – an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable […].”(Dalai Lama; emphasis added) Mostly, the existence of war and arms races is justified by the so-called “prisoners’ dilemma“, of which, simply put, the reasoning goes as follows: “If we do not arm ourselves, but our (potential) enemies do, we will find ourselves in a position of weakness vis-à-vis them. So, we have no other choice but to arm ourselves, just in case our enemies would – and of course they will, let’s not be stupid here.” This dilemma seemingly has no exit and thus, in practical reality, it always results in arms races. This, however, is a so-called sub-optimal outcome. Why? Because it would be a better (optimal) outcome for both countries if none of them would get armed: both would be approximately as safe as they are when both are armed, and a lot (a huge lot!) of money would become available to spend on other things than buying weapons. But…! Now think about this: what if armies were not legal? If armies were illegal, we would have an exit out of this famous prisoners’ dilemma! War would consequently become unacceptable once again – as it in fact has always been and will always be. So…? What do we do? We need to start up negotiations with all our potential enemies to mutually accept laws which render armies illegal. We could follow the same course of thought and action which has guided the various nuclear disarmament treaties, like e.g. SALT (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) I & II. If it’s possible to do so for nuclear arms, it’s possible to do so for all arms. One way forward!