World is Over-armed, Peace is Under-funded, Warns UN Chief

Clearly the title is a no-brainer...However, to put some things into perspective this article states some pretty surprising details regarding our military spending and how it compares to the rest of the world...

Link

"The world is over-armed and peace is under-funded," says Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who points out that global military spending is estimated at over one trillion dollars - "and rising every day".

Thats not even including black projects and the black budget....which probably wont have an official total for I would imagine.

The 10 biggest military spenders last year were: the United States (607 billion dollars), China (84.9 billion), France (65.7 billion), Britain (65.3 billion), Russia (58.6 billion), Germany (46.8 billion), Japan (46.3 billion), Italy (40.6 billion), Saudi Arabia (38.2 billion) and India (30.0 billion).

Quite amazing...Granted we're still in a war and pumping up our military but still quite surprising.

The United States accounts for a large share (41.5 percent in 2008) of world military spending, while at the same time it increased its spending significantly (by 67 percent in real terms over the most recent 10-year period through 2008), and by 71 percent in real terms between 2000 and the budget for fiscal year 2009 (according to U.S. official data). However, many other countries are also increasing their military spending and some other major spenders have increased their military expenditure at an even higher rate than the United States, Skons pointed out.

Almost 50% of the world's military spending is by us! We certainly are armed to the teeth. Thats just the American way.

"What we have seen, however, is a major reduction in inter-state conflict and in the likelihood that the world's major powers will go to war with one another in the near to medium term," he said. However, threats to peace still exist and the nature of those threats has changed as well. In particular, Gill said: "We see the rise in threats from non-state actors and a persistent degree of instability and civil wars within states."

I don't know if I'd agree with that statement completely but surely the possibility of civil war and unrest is always a possibility in harsh times like these. They dont seem to believe a world war is coming anytime soon though.

What do you guys think about this?

A Roman Senator, back in the days it was still a Republic, said it best:

I'm paraphrasing.

"If you would have peace, prepare for war" Seneca.

To a very large degree, that's true.

reply to post by seagull


John Stuart Mills may have said it best though:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Not to say that peace wouldn't or isn't a wonderful thing, obviously it is, or would be. But...

...yes the power to wage war is misused on a regular basis, but the ability to do so is a guarenter of freedom, if used correctly and at the proper times.

How can anyone in a leadership position make an effort toward peaceful resolution when so many people equate peace-making with being the anti-christ beast?

Seems to me they have it backwards.

As much as I would love global peace, I'm enough of a realist to know I'll probably never see it. But last I checked when the known nuclear weapons of each country were added up, it was enough to blow up the world 300 times, and they're still being produced!!!!!!! What is the need for all the excess, isn't once enough?

Most ordinary people want peace from what I have seen, they are not the ones who start wars usually.

Governments and Religions are the main cause of war, and their propaganda drives citizens to war.

This link is a rough picture of the power of nuclear weapons, obviously it does not take into account fallout radiation.

"There never was a good war or a bad peace."
Benjamin Franklin

There is one important fact that bears on this case.

Starting with the Bush administration, there was a massive outsourcing of the functions of the Defense Department to private contractors -- the privatization of the defense department was a cherished goal that was achieved during the Iraq war on an unprecedented scale. For example, the ration of contractors (like Blackwater) to US military personnelis 1 to 1. During the first gulf ware it was considered to be high at about 1 contractor to 20 military personnel -- and (as far as I know but if someone can confirm or correct this with an appropriate source I will appreciate it) none of them in combat.

So what happens when you take away the military function from the government where the mission is to keep the country safe, and contract it out to private firms whose mission is to make a profit from military actions. I would suggest that it is basic business that in order for Blackwater et al to survive, they need to ensure a continuous stream of revenue which is generated from continuous military conflict and threats. In other words, the defense of the nation is being contracted out to organizations whose raison d'etre is best served by NOT keeping the country safe but in a constant state of threat, real or imagined.

Giving over defense functions to those who profit from war seems to be a strange way to make peace.

reply to post by metamagic


Great comment and star-worthy indeed. War is money and without war, those who are benefiting from everyone elses misery have nothing. If you keep people constantly entranced in fear, war becomes "necessary for survival". Fear mongering is a business, war is the CEO of that business.

By hiring private contractors, the government stays a safe distance away from any type of responsibility and no-one is accountable for the actions of those hired to do their dirty work. They operate on their own terms and that takes the spotlight off of the military.