Do you agree that some of the Funding for arms should be diverted towards helping the needy?

explorerx7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
220
Reaction score
36
Country
Jamaica
Location
Jamaica
This is a topic which I believe will probably not sit well will many people. However, weapons are made for the destruction of life and property, which is not the ideal thing, however, they will the argument that these acquisitions are essential. Many of these countries stocking up on arms have lots of underdeveloped areas where there is much sufferation amongst the people. These people have a right to the resources which would enable a fair standard of development. Arms are not cheap, they cost huge sums of money. Would you agree that it would be appropriate that a sizeable portion of the expenditure on arms be diverted towards human development?
 

Corzhens

MEMBER
Joined
May 26, 2015
Messages
853
Reaction score
111
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
Yes is my answer. Until now I cannot come to terms why countries such as ours (Philippines) put more importance on national defense than education or agriculture and other food production industries. When Japan has no military for defense, their economy zoomed up and lately their stock market is suffering a bit maybe because some funds have gone to national defense instead of the usual productive industries.

Make food, not war.
 

djdefense

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Messages
151
Reaction score
31
Country
India
Location
India
Sure, but you'd have to ask the country that spends the most to cut back first. And they wouldn't because the US literally protects half of Europe, Japan and a lot of other countries come to think of it.

Also, the way that development happens is not by diverting funds from defense forces to other areas. It is by protecting people from internal and external threats and enabling them to grow in a corruption free environment.
 

Valois1790

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Country
USA
Location
USA
Focus should be more on development in other sectors, I agree. But each country has it's own issues and fears to deal with. America foots a big bill but it's because the U.S. wants to maintain a strong position. Do I think that's wrong? In most cases, sure. My issue, in terms of U.S. expenditure, isn't so much that we have so much of it. It's that it seems to lack focus. We don't change with the times as easily as we should, but that's a whole other discussion.

In terms of some other countries? I'm not quite qualified to say, not knowing much about their military affairs and international interests. But I hear The Phillipines has a bit of an issue with terrorist groups, so maybe that accounts for the focus on armed forces?
 

darkrebelchild

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
18
Reaction score
2
Country
Nigeria
Location
United Arab Emirates
I think there should be allocation for both; think about it literary, if a country does not protect its citizens and they are destroyed, there will be no needy person to fend for. The fact is, the poor will always be with us, there should be allocation for both arms and the needy.
 

remnant

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 21, 2016
Messages
160
Reaction score
8
Country
Kenya
Location
Kenya
The fact remains that the global weapons industry churns staggering figures of expenditure compared to food security. The human race has failed to deescalate and call it a day because precedent has shown that more weapons do not translate into better security and that peace comes at a small fraction of the war expenditure. Some countries have done away with the necessity to have standing armies to divert funds to more pressing priorities like food security and health. Civilization should point to this direction in future. Wars are fought along the faultlines of resources food being a central physical and psychological element. Security should not supersede hunger since the latter has a dynamic of its own which breeds more insecurity.
 

Lisa Davis

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Country
USA
Location
USA
I'm not sure if we should necessarily divert funds from weapons/war to the other, but the fact of the matter is that we are spending way too much money on war and not enough on war development, disease, and poverty. I agree with other posters about security should definitely not supersede things like clean water, medicine, and food.
 

vash

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
189
Reaction score
27
Country
USA
Location
USA
Yes, of course. That is my answer to OP.

But do you realize why the support was for arms? It is definitely not for helping the well being of the civilians. Any time when you see one country support another country with weapons, it is for political purpose. Usually it is to have them become a diversion for a third party. Sometimes it is even just for the purpose of that country will purchase more (think about "free" samples").

Despite all the wishful thinking, all the arms support will still be arms. The cruel reality in this world is, true help comes very rare. Everything is with string attached. Sometimes it is even the case with other form of aid including food and economical development. So never mind direct military weapon support.
 

vegito12

MEMBER
Joined
Dec 26, 2014
Messages
349
Reaction score
41
Country
New Zealand
Location
New Zealand
I think that countries need to take care of the needy in the country and also improve the economy and make sure that everyone can make a good living to survive and while money is being spent on war, the people who need the money suffer which is sad to see in this modern world which is meant to be advanced. Food needs to be there for everyone otherwise people will not be able to fight in the wars if the food sources are not protected and developed and this needs to be addressed and politics can get in the way sometimes, and we see guns and ammo being brought when the money could go to important issues like health and food and the people. I think it is sad that as humans we have not advanced in health and education in some places due to politics and greed in most cases as the leaders of the country want to spend money on war and tend to forget about the people of the country they are meant to protect.
 

xTinx

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
446
Reaction score
66
Country
Philippines
Location
Philippines
In the case of welfare states, I think they're already doing that. It's just that some countries, like the United States for example, spend more on arms and nuclear development and proliferation than for welfare provisions because exporting weapons is a huge source of income for the country. War is basically business. Besides, the budget allotted for space exploration is just as absurd as the regular military funding.
 

vash

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
189
Reaction score
27
Country
USA
Location
USA
In the case of welfare states, I think they're already doing that. It's just that some countries, like the United States for example, spend more on arms and nuclear development and proliferation than for welfare provisions because exporting weapons is a huge source of income for the country. War is basically business. Besides, the budget allotted for space exploration is just as absurd as the regular military funding.
Not really.
In the US for example, the 2015 annual military spending is $583 billion (16% of US Federal budget) .
The budget for NASA is only $18.4 billion (0.5% of US Federal budget)

Military spending is 32x of the budget for space project.

War is business for some people, but weapons do not feed people, house people, or cloth people, entertain people (well maybe some), cure people, etc. The more weapons you produce, the less consumer goods you can make. Not to mention the potential destruction can be caused by these weapons.

Yes, the export of weapons is a source of income... for the arms industry and arms dealers. Common people do not gain any benefit from it.
 
Top