$1.5 trillion dollars

[Randwulff]

$1.5 trillion dollars per year is spent on killing people and training people to kill people (world military budget: $1.5 trillion, To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

What if every nation in the world abandoned their militaries and diverted 100% of their military budget towards research?

$100 billion to cancer research, $100 billion to propulsion research, $100 billion to genetic research, lack of money would cease to limit technological advancement. For comparison, the LHC, the most expensive research project to date, cost about $1 billion per year to build.

Or if you're into that kind of thing we could put everyone in Africa on welfare.

The amount of money we spend on buying death is nuts.

[Theaetetus]

It'd be pretty cool, but reasoning needs to become the default means of dealing with problems. That means that humanity itself must change before the manifestations of human nature change.

[Zsych]

Speaking in a purely theoretical fashion - yes that money could be used elsewhere.

Practically, since the world as a whole will not disarm - weakening the position of those who do, and smaller groups with weapons will suddenly gain power if the world were to disarm...

That money is being spent where it needs to be.

"The art of war is of vital importance to the state. It is a matter df life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence under no circumstances can it be neglected."
- Sun Tzu

Why don't you suggest a universal science tax instead? :P

[Randwulff]

It'd be pretty cool, but reasoning needs to become the default means of dealing with problems. That means that humanity itself must change before the manifestations of human nature change.

This is true. It's a utopian idea. It can't happen for a long time.

It can't happen at all as long as people keep the "take from others" attitude.

But I don't think we'd be as far as we are today without that same attitude -_- Militarism is but an emergent part of the complex that got us to where we are now. Can it be ended? I think so, but not now.

[Causa Mortis]

What if every nation in the world abandoned their militaries and diverted 100% of their military budget towards research?

Except there aren't 1.5t in quality researchers sitting around :) There might be 100b or even 150b, but there's not 1.5t. Physical capital and consumption are always good too though :)

Think real resources, not nominal ones.

[Randwulff]

Except there aren't 1.5t in quality researchers sitting around :) There might be 100b or even 150b, but there's not 1.5t. Physical capital and consumption are always good too though :)

Think real resources, not nominal ones.

Right, those would be the limiting factors of technological advancement, it would no longer be money.

Could put the other $1.35 trillion into extravagant science scholarships :p

A sort of scientist society would evolve. Where there's money, there's people willing to grab it, which is sort of the reason we're spending $1.5 trillion dollars per year to keep our neighbors from doing so.

[Warrior]

The military does a considerable amount of research and the technology that results often finds its way into everyday application. How much of that funding would just be used up replacing the research capabilities that already exist in the military?

In addition, funding the military (at least in the US) is also funding one of the largest logistically capable organizations in the world. It makes things like disaster relief possible in ways that other organizations would be hard pressed to duplicate. Saying that military spending is only buying death is incorrect. It bought a fair amount of life in Haiti.

[Causa Mortis]

Speaking in a purely theoretical fashion - yes that money could be used elsewhere.

Practically, since the world as a whole will not disarm - weakening the position of those who do, and smaller groups with weapons will suddenly gain power if the world were to disarm...

That money is being spent where it needs to be.

Bollox. THe US could cut its military expenditures in half without a significant disruption in geopolitics - they are outspending other powers by a factor of 5 or more.

If everyone agreed to slash expenditures by 80%, that would be a good thing. There's no other power who could spend 100 or even 50b on defense goods, and if they did, then we'd follow suit.

[AnnoyingPony]

I think the military budget should be slashed by a substantial amount, and the U.S. should stop all its wars. It's really hypocritical to go on crusades in other countries when you haven't even gotten your own problems fixed at home.

[Randwulff]

The military does a considerable amount of research and the technology that results often finds its way into everyday application. How much of that funding would just be used up replacing the research capabilities that already exist in the military?

In addition, funding the military (at least in the US) is also funding one of the largest logistically capable organizations in the world. It makes things like disaster relief possible in ways that other organizations would be hard pressed to duplicate. Saying that military spending is only buying death is incorrect. It bought a fair amount of life in Haiti.

That is true, armies do do more than kill people. I'd be willing to hazard a bet that they've killed a lot more people than they've saved though. But you are right, there are benefits to having an organization such as the US military for disaster relief. But I wouldn't go as far as to say that the military couldn't effectively be replaced with a much cheaper organization that doesn't have a quadrillion dollars worth of killing machines to maintain. But honestly that's sort of outside of the scope of this topic. But it is an important point to acknowledge and I'm glad that you brought it up.

As for how much of the $1.5 trillion currently used by the world's militaries is used for research purposes, I am unable to find a source. My own guess would be between $50 and $100 billion.

[hubcap]

There is no doubt in my mind that total military spending should be significantly reduced in the United States. We need to cut the high $$$$ toys out of the budget. The B-2, the F-22 and other programs such as those are extraordinarily expensive and quite unnecessary.

One of the reasons that many other nations can get by with spending so little is that they rely on the United States' military strength to be a deterrant to their potential enemies.

[Wien1938]

In reference to the OP, the idea is ridiculous because it is entirely unlikely. The next step from this idea would be the suggestion that the West should "lead the way" morally and disarm to set a good example.
The world is and will remain a dangerous place for the foreseeable future and the best guarantee of peace remains military alliances and the national organisations prepared and trained to fight wars. Weakness invites aggression.
Furthermore the idea only concerns uniformed militaries. Have anyone thought about the non-uniformed armed groups or movements? Look up the gangs in Brazil which are better armed than some African countries (anti-tank rockets and 30mm anti-aircraft guns). Try Hezbollah or Hamas? How about the Lord's Resistance Army? Or the numorous other armed gangs who do not abide by the rules of war?
To disband the military is to lay civil society open to assault from its enemies and humankind's worst instincts and to ignore what Hobbes and Locke had to say about the foundations of society and the state.

"It's really hypocritical to go on crusades in other countries when you haven't even gotten your own problems fixed at home."
So, by your logic, when there is a better poverty-wealth ratio, universal healthcare (which I favour) and a better education system, then the US is morally entitled to wage war abroad? This is irresponsible nonsense which takes place in a moral vacuum where the complexities of the outside world are not allowed to influence the theory.

On the contrary, the expensive toys give a leading technological advantage of present and future enemies. And the "other nations" argument is apt only to the allies of the USA - this doesn't include Israel. The other party excluded from the assumptions here are the enemies (potential or real) of the USA.

Politics never takes place in a vacuum and it is always worth remembering that we must constantly compromise our ideas with the hard logic of reality.

[Zsych]

In the past - consider WW2, take away some militaries here and there (apart from the German and Japanese), and loss of life, and long term effects on the human race would've been problematic. Take away the US military programs, and things would've been very problematic :P

Now whether we could cut spending - probably. We can probably cut spending and make processes better in just about everything we do, even apart from military expenditures.

Anyway, the US is much bigger than other countries, so in terms of GDP the spending isn't that high compared to many places, and the US is trying to maintain a political position in the world, and the military strength helps.

As for
It's really hypocritical to go on crusades in other countries when you haven't even gotten your own problems fixed at home.
I think this is a valid point, and were we really going out into the world on moral crusades while not helping the countless Americans who need help, it would be kinda idiotic. But the US attacking other countries, has little to do with helping them, and everything to do with protecting ourselves (sometimes in not particularly obvious ways, and not necessarily in an effective manner)

[Causa Mortis]

There is no doubt in my mind that total military spending should be significantly reduced in the United States. We need to cut the high $$$$ toys out of the budget. The B-2, the F-22 and other programs such as those are extraordinarily expensive and quite unnecessary.

One of the reasons that many other nations can get by with spending so little is that they rely on the United States' military strength to be a deterrant to their potential enemies.

The B-2 is one of the few very high cost projects that I actually think makes sense. It gives the US true first strike capability against anyone besides the Russians.

In the past - consider WW2, take away some militaries here and there (apart from the German and Japanese), and loss of life, and long term effects on the human race would've been problematic. Take away the US military programs, and things would've been very problematic :P


lol Except there's no power in the world that's significantly increasing its defense expenditures as both Germany and Japan were doing in the late 1930s. There's no strategic threat, ergo there's no need for weapons. Better to use the money on capital goods and consumption and r&d.

[jm123]

Politics is quite often defined as: The procedure by which intrinsic items are divided and allocated. Militaries allow governments to have political power. Therefore there can be no effective government without a military, unless we have an endless supply of free resources.

[Mogura]

Except there aren't 1.5t in quality researchers sitting around :) There might be 100b or even 150b, but there's not 1.5t. Physical capital and consumption are always good too though :)

Think real resources, not nominal ones.

Earmark some of that 1.5t to fix the education system and you'll get those quality researchers. Don't want to wait? Poach the talent from other countries...

[Randwulff]

In reference to the OP, the idea is ridiculous because it is entirely unlikely. The next step from this idea would be the suggestion that the West should "lead the way" morally and disarm to set a good example.
The world is and will remain a dangerous place for the foreseeable future and the best guarantee of peace remains military alliances and the national organisations prepared and trained to fight wars. Weakness invites aggression.
Furthermore the idea only concerns uniformed militaries. Have anyone thought about the non-uniformed armed groups or movements? Look up the gangs in Brazil which are better armed than some African countries (anti-tank rockets and 30mm anti-aircraft guns). Try Hezbollah or Hamas? How about the Lord's Resistance Army? Or the numorous other armed gangs who do not abide by the rules of war?
To disband the military is to lay civil society open to assault from its enemies and humankind's worst instincts and to ignore what Hobbes and Locke had to say about the foundations of society and the state.

"It's really hypocritical to go on crusades in other countries when you haven't even gotten your own problems fixed at home."
So, by your logic, when there is a better poverty-wealth ratio, universal healthcare (which I favour) and a better education system, then the US is morally entitled to wage war abroad? This is irresponsible nonsense which takes place in a moral vacuum where the complexities of the outside world are not allowed to influence the theory.

On the contrary, the expensive toys give a leading technological advantage of present and future enemies. And the "other nations" argument is apt only to the allies of the USA - this doesn't include Israel. The other party excluded from the assumptions here are the enemies (potential or real) of the USA.

Politics never takes place in a vacuum and it is always worth remembering that we must constantly compromise our ideas with the hard logic of reality.

I'm not suggesting that everyone ditch their militaries. I'm not advocating anything. I'm making note of the vast amount of resources that could be freed if there was no longer need for military (and how much we currently do spend on military, which I believe is unnecessarily high but necessarily existent). You are right that it is not practical. I'm being a bit INTP here and playing on the "what-if" side of the playground. The input in your post is fine, but I feel that I need to make clear that I'm not advocating the idea that you rightly called "ridiculous".

[zibber]

The military does a considerable amount of research and the technology that results often finds its way into everyday application. How much of that funding would just be used up replacing the research capabilities that already exist in the military?

This is a very interesting point. A lot, if not most of the (American made) technology humans value so much today is a direct result of research done primarily for the military.

In addition, funding the military (at least in the US) is also funding one of the largest logistically capable organizations in the world. It makes things like disaster relief possible in ways that other organizations would be hard pressed to duplicate. Saying that military spending is only buying death is incorrect. It bought a fair amount of life in Haiti.

Ouch. That's not really the whole story, though. Not only did Haiti become so terribly destitute through centuries of colonial violence, but the US army isn't exactly universally praised for the way they handled themselves in Haiti. (Probably universally praised in the USA, but this is no huge surprise.)

armed gangs who do not abide by the rules of war

This is a neat phrase, as the two biggest, most fearsome examples are actually America and Israel. Literally. Without jest. By international consensus.

[Causa Mortis]

By international consensus

By the international consensus of Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Would you honestly prefer the Chinese or Russians to be playing global hegemon?

[zibber]

By the international consensus of Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea.

If those form the UN and international human rights organisations, then you are surely correct.

[Causa Mortis]

Really, Causa.. Do those form the UN and international human rights organisations?

Citations.

[zibber]

The UN didn't authorize the Afghanistan invasion. They did not authorize the Iraq invasion by a long shot. The US has systematically ignored the Geneva convention. The overwhelming majority of human rights organisations condemn Israel's actions in Gaza (especially during the most recent attack) and the UN published a long report (written by the self-proclaimed Zionist, Goldstone) detailing the utter disproportionality of Israel's use of force.

(By the way, in case this needs explaining: yes, if you go against international political organs and directly violate international laws, that's literally being a (war) criminal. Even if you invent special (ie no) rules for "unofficial" mercenaries (Blackwater et al) and call the people you torture unlawfully "unlawful combatants". (I could go on, but I hope I don't have to explain why assaulting hospitals with white phosphorus isn't something legal.))

Would you honestly prefer the Chinese or Russians to be playing global hegemon?

Invading countries illegally isn't "playing global hegemon". (Unless you consider the show conflict with Al Qaeda to be the result of the US training and funding them to fight Russia when they were in Afghanistan and all other "terror", which is used as a pretense for 95% of the atrocious crimes committed by the USA and Israel, somehow to be the result of their enduring ("hegemonic") arrogance. Come to think of it - yes, you're quite right.)

[Causa Mortis]

The UN didn't authorize the Afghanistan invasion.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yup, they did actually.

They did not authorize the Iraq invasion by a long shot.

No contest.

The US has systematically ignored the Geneva convention.

By muddling with what constitutes a terrorist and what does not for the purposes of detainment without trail and waterboarding? It was shady, but it wasn't exactly firebombing Dresden either.

Invading countries illegally isn't "playing global hegemon". (Unless you consider the show conflict with Al Qaeda to be the result of the US training and funding them to fight Russia when they were in Afghanistan and all other "terror" somehow to be the result of the USA and Israel's enduring ("hegemonic") arrogance. Come to think of it - yes, you're quite right.)

You didn't engage the argument. In the total absence of US military power, you get either China or Russia as the global military power that illegally invades countries at will. I'm asking which you think is the least bad choice.

[zibber]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Yup, they did actually.

I'm sure that link worked when you just googled it, but I can't open the page.


You didn't engage the argument. In the total absence of US military power, you get either China or Russia as the global military power that illegally invades countries at will. I'm asking which you think is the least bad choice.

Thankfully it didn't take you very long to admit the illegality of the USA's actions, which was the only point I was trying to make.

:lips:

[Causa Mortis]

I'm sure that link worked when you just googled it, but I can't open the page.

Adobe


Resolution 1386 (2001)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 4443rd meeting, on
20 December 2001
The Security Council,
Reaffirming its previous resolutions on Afghanistan, in particular its
resolutions 1378 (2001) of 14 November 2001 and 1383 (2001) of 6 December
2001,
Supporting international efforts to root out terrorism, in keeping with the
Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming also its resolutions 1368 (2001) of 12
September 2001 and 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,
Welcoming developments in Afghanistan that will allow for all Afghans to
enjoy inalienable rights and freedom unfettered by oppression and terror,
Recognizing that the responsibility for providing security and law and order
throughout the country resides with the Afghan themselves,
Reiterating its endorsement of the Agreement on provisional arrangements in
Afghanistan pending the re-establishment of permanent government institutions,
signed in Bonn on 5 December 2001 (S/2001/1154) (the Bonn Agreement),

Thankfully it didn't take you very long to admit the illegality of the USA's actions, which was the only point I was trying to make.

:lips:

No, your point was that the US and Isreal are a pack of roving bandits who do not obey the rules of war.

The case against the US violating geneva is weak. The case against the war in Afghanistan being a violation of UN law or will is very weak. The case against the war in Iraq has a degree of merit, but I do not think that this qualifies it as a "bandit".

Nor does this (still) address the fact that the US is by far the least bad option of the potential global military powers. If you want to see banditry, let the US remove itself from international relations and let the Chinese do things as they will.

[Wien1938]

There is also an argument that the previous security council resolutions have to be taken into consideration. The UN action against Iraq in 1990/1991 was ended by a ceasefire, not a cessation of hostilities (i.e. a peace treaty or the equivalent thereof). By refusing to comply with the conditions of SCR 1441, which was framed in terms of the continuing validity of the previous resolutions, the security action of 1991 was reactivated. This also bears in mind that the indecision of the SC over a subsequent resolution had no bearing on the validity of action taken under 1441 and previous resolutions.
Link here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

The issue of non-uniformed combatants is controversial in anycase. They fall under the jurisdiction of military law and are not deemed to be protected persons. The determining factor in law is the safety of the state. I suggest reading the wikipedia pages on this issue.



To Randwolff, apologies, I get a bit annoyed with pacifist arguments! I wasn't sure if you were being serious!

[Geminii]

The military is just one more tool of politics to wield and gain influence and resources for a particular group.

Even if you could invent a device which would permanently jam or disable every mechanical weapon and military vehicle on the planet, and destroy every nonmechanical weapon (bioweapons, knives, sharp sticks, fists) wielded on a battlefield, you'd still have huge amounts of budget going towards spy agencies, covert assassins, unsubtle diplomatic and economic threats, and so forth. Plus there'd probably be a lot more government-funded terrorism-style urban warfare if they weren't allowed to duke it out openly.

[Mader]

Wouldn't it be lovely if all people put down their arms????

Maybe you should send a letter to the Taliban, Al-Queda, and a few other groups. Don't forget about those mass-murderers from the Bosnian conflict, Darfur.......