Distruction of the world $1/2 billion

[Theory5]

A few weeks ago I got bored and figured out it costs the US government only around $14 million to build a nuke. So theoretically someone like Warren Buffett (Net worth: $62.0 billion ) or Bill Gates (Net Worth: $58.0 billion) could become a private nuclear power.
But doesnt it bother you that we spent so much money making weapons cheap rather than doing other things? With the money that has been put into the American nuclear program we probably could have a better educational system and lots of other things this country needs more than war.
In fact, it is my belief that without war we probably could have cities (or atleast temporary living quarters) in space, ended hunger, cleaner energy, and we probably could have stuff that you only hear about in sci-fi books, such as augmentations such as implants and magic bullets (idk why they are called magic bullets, but they are devices that are implanted in you and are programed to know your exact structure and they help produce things such as pain killers when you get hurt, chemicals that assist white blood cells in fighting infection, and tailored cures for desease) . :-)
Why so much distruction? Why so much killing? Hate? Fear? Money? Power? Or a combination? We must figure out a way to quell such distructiveness, to make the world better for once.

Comments? Suggestions?

[freeztar]

I think most people would agree. I certainly do.

But, in order to further discussion, I'll play devil's advocate here.

1. There's a reason it's called the Department of Defence, rather than the Department of Offence. If we layed down our guns, other countries might view this as a weakness and attempt to take over the US.

2. Wars can help fuel an economy. It keeps lots of people employed.

3. Terrorism dictates that we must actively combat those that wish harm to other people, regardless of nationality.

[Theory5]

Originally Posted by freeztar

1. There's a reason it's called the Department of Defence, rather than the Department of Offence. If we layed down our guns, other countries might view this as a weakness and attempt to take over the US.

I think the first step would be to stop attacking countries on flimsy pretenses. I agree with taking out Saddam but that seems more like a job for the UN to decide. And I dont agree with the occupation of Iraq and afganastan. If we stopped attacking other countries and trying to police others (once again, the UN's job(kind of)) that would be a huge step forward. Right now, I do belive in defense, if another country tried to take over, then I agree with the use of force to get them out of our country, but only to get them out of our country. The big "players" got really upset when Iran launched a satillite because they thought it would lead to ballistic missile tech.

2. Wars can help fuel an economy. It keeps lots of people employed.

Yea, sure. WWI ruined the econemy. Not directly during the war, but after the effect it has was severe, most soldiers were "laid off" and as a result a significant part of the military population was left unemployed. Then came the great depression.....

WW2: people in the United States gave everything they had to the war effort. Everything was changed because of the men who were fighting, and because the women had to do everything.
Vietnam: we fought the Russians in a proxy war in vietnam. Soldiers were forced to clean up dangerous chemicals without proper gear. The M151 was top heavy and rolled over resulting in injury but mostly death. The notorious Agent Orange was introduced as a "defoliant". When veterans started suffering from everything they were put through, the millitary denied that they had anything to do with it, and hundreds of former soldiers were denied compensation and many couldn't even work because of their injuries.
Bush's "war": trillions of dollars are spent on weapons and wages sending America into a debt so large it will take years to even bring the market back to where it was.

3. Terrorism dictates that we must actively combat those that wish harm to other people, regardless of nationality.

You want to see your terrorists? Ive got four of 'em right here:

From Sticksandstonesscz.blogspot.com
On February 19th and 20th, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Adriana Stumpo, 23; Nathan Pope, 26; Joseph Buddenberg, 25; and Maryam Khajavi, 20 - 4 people it described as "terrorists".

They were arrested under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2007 which labels anyone who radically (like attacking corporate workers of a company, or vandalism which includes writting with chalk) goes agaist big companies that do animal testing, as terrorists.

(Thanks for playing devils advocate)

[sanctus]

Theory I from wiki

Originally Posted by wiki

The 2005 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined [5] and is over eight times larger than the official military budget of China. (Note that this comparison is done in nominal value US dollars and thus is adjusted for purchasing power parity.) The United States and its close allies are responsible for about two-thirds of the world's military spending [...]

and

Originally Posted by wiki

2003, the United States spent about 47% of the world's total military spending of US$910.6 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Just so that you see, the cost of a nuke is nothing compared to what is actually spent...or thrown out of the window I would say.


Freez, since you are playing the devils advocate I will ignore the following statement (but don't worry I know that we usually agree on things like this, but then the reply to your post would be less fun...):

Originally Posted by freeztar

I think most people would agree. I certainly do.

Originally Posted by freez

1. There's a reason it's called the Department of Defence, rather than the Department of Offence.

You can lay it out as you want, but this department can and does also create situations which force them to defend, so I would say it is wrongly called. Going to Afghanistan (I know not many agree with me here, there is a big discussion I had with Modest somewhere here) was just revenge, claiming to be defense and creating offence which implied the need for defence again. Same with Irak, it was the defence of what? Against weapons of mass destruction? It was just plain offence tried to be sold as something good, because it ended some bad regimes...all I can say to this if this was the reason why did they wait so long to react (taliban and saddam where in power already for more than a decade), so it is just a good excuse.

Originally Posted by freez

If we layed down our guns, other countries might view this as a weakness and attempt to take over the US.

This is the reason I am in favor of abolishing all world armies, but have one really democratic world-army (not like UN where there is veto-right) which could intervene when and where needed. There studies made on armies like this, it would cost worldwidely only a few hundred billions and could be really high-tech...

Originally Posted by freez

2. Wars can help fuel an economy. It keeps lots of people employed.

Building a space station, good educational system, cleaner energy, etc. with that money not invested in armies would also create employment. This is not really an argument for me, there is no reason why technicians building the casing of nukes cannot build the casing of space stations as well for example or the army physical condition trainers cannot be sports trainers or ... So also the argument that the new employments are not compatible with the old ones does not really hold; sure, there would be some people needing re-schooling, but not a big % of the peole working now somehow for tha army.

Originally Posted by freez

3. Terrorism dictates that we must actively combat those that wish harm to other people, regardless of nationality.

[/quote]

If you create terrorism by your foreign politics (by going to Irak and Afghanistan for example, or by creating Guantanamo bay) it is quite a logical consequence that you will have to fight terrorism. Why combat? Why for example not giving the independence many of the terrorists groups want (eg. ETA,Tchetchenia,...)? Why not talk to each other to find compromises? For example I never understood, why Jerusalem can not be both the main city of Israelian and Palestinian state...instead of talking, they just bomb each other and since Israel is a state it is called defence and Palestinians actions called terrorism (since they are not really a state)...but the result for the other side is the same in both cases.

Also, many terrorists do not wish to harm other people, they often just think that terrorist attacks are the only way to reach their goal (and in their view it justifies it ). So there is actually no way to combat (I mean with an army) terrorism, as long as the reason for their cause is there they will fight, the more you repress by force the more violent the terrorist attack will get. Can you tell me about one example where an army has ended a terrorist movement? Why is getting worse and worse in Israel?
The only way to end a terrorist movement is to take the reasons away, just look at Ireland, it has stopped when both sides eventually sat down and created a government together...

Ok, now I have to go back to work, looking forward to the replies, I really like to discuss politics and the (not-)usefulness of the army (see my signature)