The cost of wars

[Anonymous]

During these 13 years in fighting a war in the Middle East, the military complex industries have produced massive amount of weapons, aircrafts and vehicles to combat terrorism. While the defence contractors make massive profit in producing weapons, civilians in the Middle East are killed when bombs land on them.

They are not the only ones suffering in this warfare; we in the west are also suffering because how does supporting the military industrial complex benefit us.

Have you ever wondered the amount of money spent in warfare’s and how that money could help the people in needs?

It is more expensive building a nuclear missile destroying in entire city then feeding the homeless. It’s more expensive building a military aircraft then building a school or college. It’s more expensive creating advanced drones and war ships then providing the homeless a shelter to live. 

http://www.militaryeducation.org/military-equipment/

When we spent massively on the military industries, this only helps the military defence contractors and they may even bribe political figures to engage in other potential warfare’s in order to make more profit. About 53 years ago, US President Eisenhower made a speech warning the public about the danger of the military industries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13Gt1bhKLhs

The military industries has also helped militarised our local law enforcement. Since the war on terror started in 2001, massive amount of weapons have been produced and some of them have even gone to the hands of law enforcement.

The military industry has not benefited the public; instead it has cost more conflict around the globe. The more wars we continue to fight and support the military industrial complex, the more social welfare and rights we will continue to lose.    

[ALB]

User555net wrote:

Have you ever wondered the amount of money spent in warfare’s

Yes, many times. It's part of the waste and misuse of resources built into capitalism.

User555net wrote:

and how that money could help the people in needs?

In theory it could, but in practice it wouldn't as capitalism is not a system geared to meeting people's needs. Before adequate resources can be properly directed to this we need to get rid of the whole profit system and replace it by one where resources are owned in common and so can be used, under democratic control, to provide what people indicate they need. This can be done directly, without money, according to the principle "from each their ability, to each their needs".

[ALB]

Just remembered. Someone posted this on our facebook page. That's just how we would put it (in terms of resources not money)

[alanjjohnstone]

Listened to a Chomsky interview and he didn't really credit the ending of the Vietnam War with protests or the moral outrage of the crimes being committed but simply the elite decided it was too costly a venture to continue.Obviouslly i am sure there were sections of the ruling class were benefiting and were against ending it, but others who were not benficiaries managed to have their way. So it isn't just if wars serve the ruling class…but what part of the ruling class. We already see some evidence of the re-allignment of the corporations in the environmental campaigns. Same with the present immigration debate in the US. Some are pro, some are anti. I can't see the insurance companies being happy wirh the increased risk of natural disasters that premiums won't match the pay-outs and indeed they have published many of the findings about all the extraneous costs climate change will result in. I suppose there is an opportunity of a PhD awaiting someone from a dissertion on inter-capitalist rivalries.   

[Author]

Posts