ForumGarden

Without, for now, getting into "Military Keynesianism" and the failed philosophies behind why investment in the arms industry is actually bad for the people of a country, lets get some general ideas about whether or not a country should be keen to be the leading supplier of weapons around the world.

Amy Goodman's life changed when she went to East Timor to report on the genocide that no one would acknowledge was happening. She was nearly killed by American weapons there. Instead, her photographer shielded her and ended up with a fractured skull while they watched in horror as the military supplied with machine guns by the US mowed down a crowd of people who were attending a funeral procession. So, that's one use for the product of the US Defence Industry.

Then there is Saddam Hussein who was largely supplied with his weapons by the very same government that then declared he must be charged with war crimes for using the same weapons they sold him. So, that's another genocide (against the Kurds) that was enabled by the US Defence Industry.

Those stories can go on and on but here's the thought too few people are pondering: Investment into the Defence Industry is touted as an economically sound move because the "Trickle Down" effect creates jobs etc. but what would happen if that money was invested in construction, farming, education,... invested directly into the economy instead of just giving people little "trickles"? The arms industry is so ingrained in our societies now that there is a fear of change. When there is so much investment in arming the world for war that $1 billion can be unaccounted for every year (and accepted as a reasonable margin of error) while millions of children are struggling to eat and student debt has reached outrageous high, then it is time to start questioning where the money is being spent.

In the 60+ years since President Eisenhower warned about the "military industrial complex", things have only gotten worse. We have congressional representatives voting to give the Pentagon more money than it says it needs and forcing them to build weapons that the don't want (and don't work) so that the arms vendors make larger profits. How does that industry make even greater profits? But finding excuses to start wars and conflicts around the world, of course. They can sell weapons to the parties on all sides of a conflict.

It is sad when only a tiny part of the "defense" budget actually goes for defense.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R42678.pdf

In the global arms trade, these are the statistics from the CRS Report for Congress

In worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011—to both developed and developing nations—the United States dominated, ranking first with $66.3 billion in such agreements or 77.7% of all such agreements. This is the highest single year agreements total in the history of the U.S. arms export program. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms transfer agreements in 2011 with $4.8 billion in such global agreements or 5.6%. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide in 2011 was $85.3 billion, a substantial increase over the 2010 total of $44.5 billion, and the highest worldwide arms agreements total since 2004.

The main buyers are Saudi Arabia, India and UAE

This seems like a strange way to fight terrorism... loading the developing nations with more weapons than they can buy. They really can't buy them. The US gives loans to countries that can't afford weapons so the deal can be made. That means that the US is paying for their own arms sales. Did y'all know that?

Then there is the self created need to invest in more arms because they absolutely know that other countries possess enough arms to pose a threat. The more I'm reading about this, the more it's becoming obvious that the Arms Industry is raping our countries of wealth and pretending that they are helping the economy by creating jobs. Another good way to create jobs is to... build more housing.

"Military Keynesianism" ... love that phrase. I'm stealing it.

There seems to be a belief that the billions of dollars that might be spared from investing in the arms industry can't be redistributed because the economy will suffer. It's as if those lost jobs can't be restored by the very same money being invested in another industry.

There is also the idea that the defences of the country will quickly reach the point of obscurity if even part of those funds are diverted. Being able to destroy the world from outer space is presumably the goal. If that's not the goal, selling your quality weapons all over the world simply does not make sense. Any government that sells weapons creates their own need for better weapons.