A complete equilibrium of forces can never produce a suspension of action, for during this suspension he who has the positive object (that is, the assailant) must continue progressing; for if we should imagine an equilibrium in this way, that he who has the positive object, therefore the strongest motive, can at the same time only command the lesser means, so that the equation is made up by the product of the motive and the power, then we must say, if no alteration in this condition of equilibrium is to be expected, the two parties must make peace; but if an alteration is to be expected, then it can only be favourable to one side, and therefore the other has a manifest interest to act without delay.  We see that the conception of an equilibrium cannot explain a suspension of arms, but that it ends in the question of the expectation of A more favourable moment.

Let us suppose, therefore, that one of two States has a positive object, as, for instance, the conquest of one of the enemy’s provinces—­which is to be utilised in the settlement of peace.  After this conquest, his political object is accomplished, the necessity for action ceases, and for him a pause ensues.  If the adversary is also contented with this solution, he will make peace; if not, he must act.  Now, if we suppose that in four weeks he will be in a better condition to act, then he has sufficient grounds for putting off the time of action.

But from that moment the logical course for the enemy appears to be to act that he may not give the conquered party the desired time.  Of course, in this mode of reasoning a complete insight into the state of circumstances on both sides is supposed.

14.  Thus A continuance of action will ensue which will advance towards A climax.

If this unbroken continuity of hostile operations really existed, the effect would be that everything would again be driven towards the extreme; for, irrespective of the effect of such incessant activity in inflaming the feelings, and infusing into the whole a greater degree of passion, a greater elementary force, there would also follow from this continuance of action a stricter continuity, a closer connection between cause and effect, and thus every single action would become of more importance, and consequently more replete with danger.

But we know that the course of action in War has seldom or never this unbroken continuity, and that there have been many Wars in which action occupied by far the smallest portion of time employed, the whole of the rest being consumed in inaction.  It is impossible that this should be always an anomaly; suspension of action in War must therefore be possible, that is no contradiction in itself.  We now proceed to show how this is.

15.  Here, therefore, the principle of polarity is brought into requisition.