Cut in military expenses can create jobs

by SHIVAPRASAD | November 15, 2009 at 03:39 am

112 views | 28 Recommendations | 12 comments

Countries around the world spend a staggering $1464 billion as military expenses annually, despite the direct threat of war nowhere in sight. US accounts for 40% of global spend on military. $600 billion is spent by the US alone annually not to face war but to face threat of war.

Economic slow down and gloom has hit not only the US but the entire world too. The jobless in the civil societies is touching all time highs. All the nations may agree for voluntary cut in military expenses by 10% which can result in savings of more than $140 billion dollars annually and such savings can create millions of jobs across the globe and aid economic recovery. People want jobs and not incurring fresh expenditure on new military ware like tanks, airplanes, submarines, naval ships, arms, armaments will no way enhance threat as there will be equal cuts if the proposal is accepted. Nations have to choose between creating jobs or acquiring new submarines, naval ships, rockets, aircraft and other military hardware. We must also remember that the global spend of $1464 billion on defense related matters has created less number of jobs than in civil sector.

In the case of US many within the US and outside oppose foreign policy initiatives that bled the American lives as well as tax payers monies. But no nation has the courage to attempt a war of any sort against Americans and hence a 10% in military expenses for sure result in creation of new jobs and alleviate the sufferings of common man.

United Nations must take up the initiative for global cut in military expenses which not only helps the cause of peace but also helps the creation of jobs.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

Paschen

at 03:59 on November 15th, 2009

You may have made a typo here with the $1464, it should be $ 1464 Billion.

Good post and I believe my self that the only pass to lasting peace is disarming every one, starting with the Supper powers and and their closed allies.

We need to reform the U.N. and abolish the Veto right, allowing the U.N. to become a real democratic institution with a permanent peace keeping force.

SHIVAPRASAD

at 04:23 on November 15th, 2009

Thank you Paschen

I am sorry for the typing error and corrected the same after your observation. Thanks once again

Babel-Fish

at 04:18 on November 15th, 2009

What your actually saying that government can create jobs by cutting military cost, hmmmn the problem is near dictatorship or want of, works against this principle as many countries would not disarm or cut down military expense. Thus government need to protect themselves its not a nice world unfortunately

SHIVAPRASAD

at 04:33 on November 15th, 2009

I agree that a few nations especially dictatorship nations may oppose the proposal. Yet I am sure that a majority of nations agree to such a proposal. But the initiative need to be taken to discuss the subject. During the great depression Americans proved that by innovative public spending nation building as well as job creation can be eminently done.

albertacowpoke

at 04:43 on November 15th, 2009

Americans came out of the Great Depression due to military spending to support World War II and not through innovative public spending. While your proposal is commendable, it is Utopia at this time. Nations have interests and they will seek to influence them.

As much as we want to dream about World Peace, it is a long way from reality. Do you really think that either India or Pakistan would lay down their arms, yet alone the United States or Russia.

Babel-Fish has it right, this is not a nice world. This not only applies to dictatorships but also the democracies of this world.

War is a big industry and is not likely to change anytime soon, no matter how much we like to dream.

SHIVAPRASAD

at 05:36 on November 15th, 2009

I never said that nations need to lay down arms. I only suggested a cut in military spending and saving billions of dollars for public welfare as the world already has enough weapons, arms, armaments to destroy itself a thousand times. Spending billions to wage a war is different from spending billions to face the unknown enemy and a sensible cut in military spending across the majority of nations may not be an utopian to wish the success of such a proposal. Nations interests must not differ from the citizens' interests.

Coming to the Indo-Pakistan issue, we need to recall that a united nation was divided at the time of independence and the division was unfortunately based on the religious identity of people. The fact is that today India is home to more Muslims than Pakistan as a nation has. The common enemies for both the nations are hunger, poverty, low standards of living. Pakistan is harping on religious theme and in the process is nurturing terrorism that not only emerged as a menace to not only India but Pakistan too. Culture, traditions, way of life are common for both the peoples. Both the nations indulge in actions that endanger world peace at times, but none is ready to really wage a war to settle the issues needs to be noted.

You may be surprised that even India and Pakistan may agree to the 10% cut in military spending proposal along with majority of nations.

albertacowpoke

at 05:48 on November 15th, 2009

I wasn't critiquing what you were proposing, I was merely passing on my thoughts. There is no doubt that too much is spend in the defence industries. My point was that it is big business. You can see the competition in your region for contracts by the U.S. and Russia.

I think you proposal is noble, but big interests and lobbyists are only too happy to prevent such a thing.

Sputnic

at 05:12 on November 15th, 2009

Could all those billions not be spent building desalination plants, reclaiming the Sahara, and feeding a huge amount of starving people. A lot of wars are fought over poverty !

albertacowpoke

at 05:17 on November 15th, 2009

Common sense is rare these days Sputnic. Human nature is self-interest. The genocides in both Dafour and earlier in Rwanda are great examples of this.

YankeeJim

at 07:35 on November 15th, 2009

Common Sense:

When money is spent on guns, there is less money for butter.

National defense is a consumer product. We pay for it publically, consume it, and have only our safety to show for it.

Money spent on defense contractors has little tangible economic benefit except from foreign military sales.

Foreign military sales is what keeps the USA economy in the black.

René

at 10:51 on November 15th, 2009

If you're talikng about individuals buying guns vs butter, falacious argument. Individuals may buy guns once in a while, but not every week, like you would butter.

As far as a country discarding their guns, why not just invite in the next conqueror/dictator?

YankeeJim

at 11:43 on November 15th, 2009

Oh come on. We had George W. Bush and people were armed to teeth. It doesn't matter. What matters is people taking responsibility for their institutions.