Should Government Limit the Military Spending?

There is a product, each country only have one. To buy it, everybody in this country should dig their pocket. This product is named military spending. With the large amounts of research and the development of high technology weapons, regional warming of local wars, armed conflicts, and intensified arms race, the series of a new arms race, military deployment and new high-growth military spending boost are being performed on the international stage. However, governments are concerned about seeking “peace via war”. As the arms trade is the major cause of suffering for human beings, governments should limit their military spending; nobody in the world wants war.

Under such rhetoric combined with powerful lobbying of the military industries, governments are intentionally aiding military, because the military spending is an important indicator to reflect the dimension of a country’s military strength, and also a major factor of the military strength. As it is a serious issue in the world and so important for every country, every country values this issue as a primary one and pay special attention on it. As each country has different situation and government systems, there are different views towards military spending. Some people suggest increasing the military spending while some people suggest governments to cut the military spending.

Some people think that government should keep increasing the military spending, the reasons are as following. The first reason is to better defend the country’s territorial integrity and non-violation by other countries, and to create a peaceful and stable environment for the state which is an indispensable condition for economic development. For example, in Middle East, the military spending is an important factor that affects the peace among those countries. According to the article “The Arms Trade in the Middle East Will Lead to Greater Stability,” “the success of Israel’s peace with Egypt and Jordan is heavily dependent on American military aid to Egypt.” Since they have a relative balance on their military, the conflicts between them will decrease, because nobody wants conflict under a balance of strength situation, and it is hard to predict who will win in the conflict and whether the benefit is greater than the deficit (Brookes).

Second, most people will think that the more military they have, the higher defense of the government has because in their mind, defense is an obligation, not an option. For example, some people suggest that the government should not cut the military spending; they believe that if they have weapons of a huge amount and high quality, they will feel safer. As cited in the article “Don’t Cut Military Spending,” “national defense is a higher priority than other areas of federal activity,” the national defense is the most important part of a country and is also important to the people who lived in this country. (Talent) The government cutting the military spending is the same as cutting their security. Although, the theme of the world is peace, if the country is of less strength in military, then it will bullied by other countries.

Third, increasing military spending will lead to an arms trade, and the arms trade is the biggest interest in the world. Such as America, is the biggest arms seller in the world, the money it gains by arms trade is unaccountable. The United government can use the money to develop the technology, economy and the education. That is also an important reason for America to become a super power in the world, so increasing military spending is also good for the development of the economy.

Although there are many people who suggest do not cutting the military spending, still some people strongly suggest that the governments to cut the military spending. The most important reason may be that the increase of military will lead to an arms race among countries and increase insecurity. As the more powerful countries show less commitment in reducing their own arms substantially and continue to pursue their own national interests, they affect many others around the world, such as in the Middle East, as arms race is increasing, there is an arms trade spread out in Middle East, but it makes this area more unstable. As cited in the article “The Arms Trade in the Middle East Could Lead to a Dangerous Arms Race,” “Middle Eastern states are taking steps to shore up their security.” So the Middle Eastern states are keeping buying weapons from the developed countries. Such as Russia, Britain, the US, and also several developing countries as China, North Korea, these countries are the players of the arms race in Middle Eastern states; they are selling weapons to them that make this area more instable.

The second reason is the more military spending a government have the more possible it is to have unchecked arms trade. There is a misunderstanding of the military spending; the more they spend on military the more safety they will gain. Every country wants higher security so they seek more arms trade to buy more military to increase the level of security and military strength. Then there will be more unchecked arms trade occurred. As a result of unchecked arms trade, the country will more easily be involved in a conflict. As cited in the article “Unchecked Arms Trade Fuelling Conflict, Poverty,” “if a country is likely to be involved in warfare, then it is unjustifiable to sell arms. There must be regulation or control of arms especially when the countries that are buying them are involved in a conflict.” (Karlsson) Furthermore, due to the unchecked arms trade, weapons are easily to get into the wrong hands which are dangerous for people’s security, such as terrorisms, because as cited in the article “Arms Trade,” “the prospect for greater security worldwide is greatly enhanced when weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.”

The third reason is increase military will increase the danger of the world. The world’s theme is peace, but the arms trade- side effect of military spending is a major suffering of human beings. We don’t need weapons in a peaceful world. According to “The US Should Cut Military Spending in Half,” “Americans should prepare for fewer wars, not different ones.” After event 911, US government keeps increasing military spending, that is not to reduce the effect of that event but to lead to the Iraq war which spends a huge amount of money. During the war time lot of people are in a stressful emotion. So people want governments to cut military spending instead to have a peaceful environment (Friedmen).

Some other reasons might be that increasing military spending is a kind of waste of resources. Because this is a peaceful society, there shouldn't be much more conflicts among countries. Spending a lot of money to buy military is useless for the development of the country. The governments need a defense budget worthy of the name and they need military restraint. The weapons they bought will not use in their daily life and will not work well for them. They want their money to work and don’t waste every single dollar.

In my opinion, I suggest the government cut the military spending. In an increasingly peaceful social environment, weapons are not the only way to solve the problem. Instead, what people need is a more stable and peaceful social environment. In such a society of peace and stability, it is benefiting for the rapid development of the country, and people can live a long life. So reducing or cutting military spending is a win-win solution. Neither the illegal arms trade, nor the horrible terrorists’ attacks will happen. There is even no war between nations; the whole world is surrounded by peace, so it is good for the development of human civilization. Even if the country has a highly spend of military, that does not means it can control over the world. The military is just a tool to protect the country from the outside attack and increase the sense of security. It doesn't means an over controlling power in the world, no matter who you are.

In conclusion, although people have different views on military spending, the world’s theme which is peace and it won’t change. Peace is the base of development. No matter how much a country spends on their military that does not mean another country, which spends more money on military, can control over it. However, several countries strongly agree with increasing their military spending thinking it will elevate their status in the world. It may not be wrong, but it is not exactly true. Military spending is just a factor that determines a country’s defense level and military strength.

Work Cited

“Arms Trade.” Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.

Brookes, Peter. “The Arms Trade in the Middle East Could Lead to a Dangerous Arms Race.” Armed Forces Journal 145 (Nov. 2007): 8-10. Rpt. in The Arms Trade. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.

Cordesman, Anthony H. “The Arms Trade in the Middle East Will Lead to Greater Stability.” International Herald Tribune (16 Aug. 2007). Rpt. in The Arms Trade. Ed. Noel Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.

Friedman, Benjamin H. “The US should cut military spending in half.” The Christian Science Monitor. 27 April 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.

Karlsson, Ida. “Unchecked Arms Trade Fuelling Conflict, Poverty.” Inter Press Service. 2010. Web. 17 Nov. 2010.

Talent, Jim. “Don’t Cut Military Spending.” National Review Online. 04 Nov 2010. Web. 22 Nov 2010.