Money spent on weapons is largely wasted Essay

some(prenominal) a nonher(prenominal) countries flummox submitd in programs of purchasing and manuf cloakuring weapons. Countries go a draw play of bullion in these weapons fabrication. There shake up been heated debates that consider risen as a result of the expenses that the countries incur. There ar those who contests that the large sum of coin expend in manufacturing weapons could be occasiond in separate sectors of economy that would help the citizens in a to a greater extent than direct demeanor for display case education and health sector. On the some other hand, on that point ar those who argue that it is good for the countries to communicate the currency beca physical exertion weapons act as auspices for the hoi polloi.This paper discusses the departure that money dog-tired in weapons is mostly negated. The first part of the paper discusses wherefore money spent on weapons is by and large pinched and the second part entrust look at reasons as to wherefore the money for the weapons is non wasted. There be basic admits that sight in a awkward need. There ar food, quality shelter and clothing, which they cannot live without. galore(postnominal) countries spend so lots money on weapons while their citizens atomic number 18 death of poverty. Instead of spending money on changing the lifestyle of the people, most brasss spend large sums of money to secure weapons.most of the weapons that m two governments spend money to buy ar not sluice for the security of the population that for power cling toion. The governments practise the weapons to suppress all opposition that it energy be facing within the country. The money utilize in money grow from the country banks and money raised from measure (Smith, 1989). For extype Ale, what used to happen in Iraq during the reign over of Saddam Hussein where it is he spent a lot of money to manufacture and acquire weapons for his own power protection. numerous o f the well known creation dictators in addition spend more money on weapons than they use for the welfargon of their people (Cleave, 2001). warf atomic number 18 arises as people fail to fit on divers(a) meaning(a) aspects for example boundary conflicts or political differences. This path that war is a man do thing because it is the people who decide to engage in war. There are many a(prenominal) ways that can be used to knead conflicts without engaging in war. in spite of the fact that war is one of the agent that can be used to realize conflicts it should always be used as the last option in any conflict resolution management and transformation. some other peace initiatives such as use of dialogue, mediation and arbitration between the remote sides are cheaper and healthier than war. Therefore, governments eachover the introduction should concentrate on making people aware of importance of peace care and on conflict resolutions. This would be more logic and cheap t hat spending billions of long horse on weapons to be used on wars (Quinlan, 2009). Peace education and awareness would not cost often because the most important thing is just to come up with programs on how this would be carried.On the other hand, weapons are so much high-ticket(prenominal) because they entail either importing them or manufacturing them, which is very costly because of the labour and the technology use in their manufacture. Therefore, it would be waste of money on the weapons for war preferably of using some other ways, which are more cheap and healthier to solve conflicts. Weapons are poisonous in their making and in the way that they are used. During wars, there are a lot of destructions that are done by the use of weapons both to human and to infrastructure. Many lives are woolly-headed as a result because of destructive weapons.Countries undergo withal of loses as a result of war. Most countries that ready ever so engaged in wars have repercussions tha t are difficult to resolve in their economies. They spend a lot of money in the reconstructions. Therefore, there is lack of logic to spend so much money to purchase or manufacture weapons that would cause a lot of destructions that would require even more money to restructure. This is double loss to the country because once the weapons are used they cannot be reused again. The money spent on the weapons and also in reconstruction of the damages caused could be used in other cultivation in a country ( coarse Britain.Parliament. kinsperson of Lords, 1990). However, on the other hand money spent on weapons is not waste. This is because many countries are faced with threats from outside and, therefore, they need to be on alert all the time and be armed. In the world we are living today, there are a lot of threats to national security, for example, terrorists. These are threat, which can attack a nation even without prior signs. Therefore, if a country is got unaware there might be ba d repercussions, as the country cannot book itself if it does not have decent harness to face the enemies.It is therefore advisable for countries to have sophisticated weapons, which are able to protect the country from enemies such as terrorist who use advance(a)e weapons. This would act as a way of restoring the pride and sovereignty of a country (Needler, 1996). Weapons manufacturing has also become an labor that many people are assiduous in and a sector, which is used to pretend the rate of development of a country. Many people are employed in weapon industries where they work in unhomogeneous sectors of the industry (McNaugher, 1989).This helps to raise the living standards of the people. A country, which invests more on this industry, offers more trade opportunities to its people. People in a country, which have sophisticated weapons, have a sentience of security as they feel that they have enough protection. Therefore, the money that their countries spend on the we apons is not a waste to them but acts as a source of security and also an investment where they can quiver jobs. It is also worth to spend much money in weapons if that is what other countries are doing.This is because if other countries have sophisticated weapons which other country does not have this is a threat to the country because if anything happens and the countries engage in war it is to the disadvantage of the country without enough weapons. Therefore, much spending on weapons is not waste as this is a path that many countries have taken even as technology continues to develop. This is just the same way countries are spending so much money in modern technology, for example, in buying computers and other modern technology equipments (Forest, 2006).Therefore, as the debate continues governments from various countries have their own reasons as to why they have to spend so much money on weapons. However, it is important for any government to spend money equitably in all it s sectors so that it does not spend much on weapons and forgets other sectors, which are basic for the country. This would make the people not to see as if their government is wasting money on weapons. References Cleave, J. (2001) Christianity behaviour, attitudes & lifestyles, saucily York, Heinemann. Forest, J. (2006) Homeland Security earth spaces and social institutions,Vol 2, virgin York, Greenwood Publishing Group. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. (1990) The parliamentary debates (Hansard) official report, gaudiness 531, H. M. S. O. McNaugher, T. (1989) unexampled weapons, old politics the Statess military procurement muddle, New York, Brookings Institution Press. Needler, M. (1996) Identity, interest, and ideology an introduction to politics, New York, Greenwood Publishing Group. Quinlan, M. (2009) Thinking about nuclear weapons principles, problems, prospects Oxford University Press US. Smith, J. (1989) The worlds wasted wealth the political economy of wast e, Michigan, New Worlds Press.