一、論充足的國(guó)防

（十二月十二日）

ADEQUATE DEFENSE.

Just as Congress assembles an apparently well organized and financed movement starts to create a scare about national defenses. Although there are presented no arguments not thoroughly refuted by the European war, the backers of this movement evidently hope to cause a panic and thus get the appropriations they desire. One may well question the sincerity and patriotism of those who resort to such methods. At present they deny wanting big armaments but only ask enough for "adequate defense". What is adequate defense? In case of war no defense is adequate that is not stronger than the opposing force, and inadequate defense, these panic creators tell us, is as good as none. So to have "adequate defense" we must create an armament more powerful than any possible combination of foes could bring against us. And that would only be a beginning, for our potential foes might suspect that we were planning to attack them, just as we suspect them of planning to attack us. They would attempt to outstrip us in building armaments. Our jingo alarmists would call attention to this, create another scare and urge further appropriations. Such a race would be ruinous. To stop it either one side would have to voluntarily retire, and thus make its peaceful intentions clear, or it would have to find some pretext to attack the other when conditions for victory would seem most favorable. Europe's experience shows that the latter alternative is the most likely to be selected. Preparations for war only lead to war. The only adequate defense does not consist in armaments, but in just dealings with the people of all nations.

〔中譯〕

正當(dāng)國(guó)會(huì)開(kāi)會(huì)的時(shí)候，一個(gè)有組織的為國(guó)防籌資的運(yùn)動(dòng)正緊張進(jìn)行。雖然現(xiàn)在的各種國(guó)防論都已經(jīng)被眼下的歐戰(zhàn)一一擊破，然而這個(gè)運(yùn)動(dòng)的倡導(dǎo)者仍明顯希望引起社會(huì)轟動(dòng)，從而獲得預(yù)期的國(guó)防撥款。人們不禁要質(zhì)問(wèn)求助此種方法的人，他們的誠(chéng)意和愛(ài)國(guó)主義何在？此刻這些人辯解說(shuō)他們并非要大量的軍備，而是要充足的國(guó)防。那么什么是充足的國(guó)防？就戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)而言，任何國(guó)防，若是弱于敵國(guó)，便都談不上是充足的國(guó)防。這些起哄的人又辯駁說(shuō)，即便是不充足的國(guó)防，也勝過(guò)沒(méi)有國(guó)防。所以，為了有一個(gè)“充足的國(guó)防”，我們就需要有一個(gè)強(qiáng)大的軍備，能夠抵擋所有可能聯(lián)合起來(lái)的敵國(guó)。一經(jīng)開(kāi)始，便沒(méi)有止境。因?yàn)槲覀儩撛诘臄橙艘苍S會(huì)懷疑我們正在計(jì)劃攻擊他們，正如同我們私下對(duì)他們的猜測(cè)一樣。他們可能會(huì)在軍備上超過(guò)我們。然而我們的好戰(zhàn)的起哄者也會(huì)提醒吾國(guó)人注意這一點(diǎn)而再次起哄，促成更大的軍事?lián)芸?。這樣的競(jìng)賽勢(shì)必使大家同歸于盡。要避免這個(gè)結(jié)局，雙方都應(yīng)自動(dòng)退出，表明各自的和平心愿。否則任何一方一旦看到對(duì)自己有利的取勝時(shí)機(jī)，便都會(huì)尋找借口攻打?qū)Ψ?。歐洲的經(jīng)驗(yàn)已表明后一種情況是極有可能發(fā)生的。備戰(zhàn)只會(huì)引向戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，唯一充足的國(guó)防并不在于軍備，僅僅只在于與世界人民如何共處。

此一則見(jiàn) The Public 十七卷八百七十一期，其言深可玩味。

即以吾國(guó)言之，今人皆知國(guó)防之不可緩。然何謂國(guó)防乎？海陸軍與日本并駕，可以謂之國(guó)防乎？未可也。以日乃英之同盟國(guó)也。海陸軍與日英合力之海陸軍相等，足矣乎？未也。以日英又法俄之與國(guó)也。故今日而言國(guó)防，真非易事，惟淺人無(wú)識(shí)之徒始昌言增軍備之為今日惟一之急務(wù)耳。

增軍備，非根本之計(jì)也；根本之計(jì)，在于增進(jìn)世界各國(guó)之人道主義。

今世界之大患為何？曰：非人道之主義是已，強(qiáng)權(quán)主義是已。弱肉強(qiáng)食，禽獸之道，非人道也。以禽獸之道為人道，故成今日之世界?！拔溲b和平”者，所謂“以暴制暴”之法也。以火治火，火乃益然；以暴制暴，暴何能已？

救世之道無(wú)他，以人道易獸道而已矣，以公理易強(qiáng)權(quán)而已矣。

推強(qiáng)權(quán)之說(shuō)，于是有以“強(qiáng)”為國(guó)之的者矣。德國(guó)國(guó)歌之詞曰：

德意志兮，德意志兮，凌駕萬(wàn)邦。（Deutschland，Deutschland，überalles.）

今天天下惟有一國(guó)可“凌駕萬(wàn)邦”耳，而各國(guó)皆欲之，則不至于爭(zhēng)不止，此托爾斯泰所以謂為至愚也。

今之持強(qiáng)權(quán)之說(shuō)者，以為此天演公理也。不知“天擇”之上尚有“人擇”。天地不仁，故弱為強(qiáng)食。而人擇則不然。人也者，可以勝天者也。吾人養(yǎng)老而濟(jì)弱，扶創(chuàng)而治疾，不以其為老弱殘疾而淘汰之也，此人之仁也。或問(wèn)墨子：“君子不斗，信乎？”曰：“然?！痹唬骸肮峰楠q斗，而況于人乎？”墨子曰：“傷哉！言則稱(chēng)于湯文，行則同于狗彘！”今之以弱肉強(qiáng)食之道施諸人類(lèi)社會(huì)國(guó)家者，皆墨子所謂“行則同于狗彘”者也。

今之欲以增兵備救中國(guó)之亡者，其心未嘗不可嘉也，獨(dú)其愚不可及耳。試問(wèn)二十年內(nèi)中國(guó)能有足以敵日、俄、英、法之海陸軍否？必不能也。即令能矣，而日、俄、英、法之必繼長(zhǎng)增高，無(wú)有巳時(shí)，則吾國(guó)之步趨其后亦無(wú)有巳時(shí)，而戰(zhàn)禍終不可免也，世界之和平終不可必也。吾故曰此非根本之計(jì)也。

根本之計(jì)奈何？興吾教育，開(kāi)吾地藏，進(jìn)吾文明，治吾內(nèi)政：此對(duì)內(nèi)之道也。對(duì)外則力持人道主義，以個(gè)人名義兼以國(guó)家名義力斥西方強(qiáng)權(quán)主義之非人道，非耶教之道，一面極力提倡和平之說(shuō)，與美國(guó)合力鼓吹國(guó)際道德。國(guó)際道德進(jìn)化，則世界始可謂真進(jìn)化，而吾國(guó)始真能享和平之福耳。

難者曰，此迂遠(yuǎn)之談，不切實(shí)用也。則將應(yīng)之曰：此七年之病，求三年之艾也。若以三年之期為迂遠(yuǎn)，則惟有坐視其死耳。吾誡以三年之艾為獨(dú)一無(wú)二之起死圣藥也，則今日其求之時(shí)矣，不可緩矣。

此吾所以提倡大同主義也，此吾所以自附于此邦之“和平派”也，此吾所以不憚煩而日夕為人道主義之研究也。吾豈好為迂遠(yuǎn)之談哉？吾不得已也。