Wars are costly in terms of cold hard cash, even preparing for war and maintaining our armed forces is very costly. In 2008 world military spending reached $1.531 billion 50% more than in 2000 despite the world going in to recession during that year. Obviously in the question of ‘guns or butter’ guns are currently winning despite there being much more need for spending on helping the economy and people back to work and in some countries preventing them from falling back in to poverty. The cost of military technology is soaring, in 2003 each individual F22 fighter for the US Airforce cost $178 million for a fighter that if it is like its predecessors will never fire a shot in anger before it is replaced by something even more expensive. All this cost and for what? What does our militaries do that compares to education, health or poverty allivation spending?

The biggest reason for disarmament has to be the human cost of armies and more specifically the wars they create. War is an ugly business that even in small conflicts takes thousands of lives. A conservative estimate puts the number of 20th century battle deaths at 34 million. However this is only those who lost their lives fighting on the battlefield. It does not include the numbers of civilians who died in these conflicts which while the numbers may have been reasonably low compared to military casualties in world war one at the beginning of the century rapidly became as likely to die as those in the military. Even once civilians have been taken in to account should we account for side effects of war, such as for example the outbreak of spanish influenza at the end of world war I?

There have been numerous attempts at estimating the total deaths caused by war in the 20th century. They range from a low estimate of 61million by Mathew White to 87.5 million by Zbigniew Brzezinski up to a high 142 million estimated by Milton Leitenberg. No matter who is right these are very big numbers and do not even begin to count those who whose lives have been scarred by war. Nor does it come anywhere close to considering how immensely destructive a new war between great powers could be, do we really believe in the situation of a major war no one would use any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to get an advantage?

Many of the worst states in history have been among the most militarised. Take for example Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in World War II. The way that many militaries work, following orders and not being allowed to think about it makes them the natural allies of dictators (many of whom come from the military - all these colonels who are involved in coups!) The military is a potential instrument of repression of the people because it is capeable of so much force compared to any other group within a state and at the same time it is less likely to question the use of force than other institutions as it is what they are there do. This means that the Military is who is turned to if protests, movements, rebels etc are to be repressed or broken whether this occurs peacefully as with the General Strike in the UK in 1926 or violently as was the case with Tiannaman Square in 1989 and Hungary in 1956.

The military is often a powerful insititution that holds back democracy by constantly taking power, as in countries like Pakistan. Many states are unstable because the military will not let their democracies mature and use the fragility of a young democracy as an excuse to take power for themselves saying that the nation needs strong government.

Freedom's a peculiar thing. Like, I mean, I totally agree that nations like North Korea and the Soviet Union have been very harsh with people rights, but at the same time, don't these nations have the right to do as they please? Who are we to govern them as a global police force, oh so high and mighty, when we ourselves in a strange turn of events could someday learn that WE may in fact be wrong. Going further into the realm of freedom and social ethics, and maybe even a little common sense, I'd like to ask you how on earth people under these oppressive rules or corrupt governments would ever get themselves free without some sort of resistance. So, I'm going to point out something pretty close to home so this makes more sense. The American Riflemen Association strictly abides by the idea that we have the right to defend ourselves and to stand up against an oppressive government because that's how democracy works. Open up your eyes and think of how much you would be affected if the Congress (or Parliament) passed a bill that denied your right of true freedom. Whether you like it or not, a gun is your voice, and it can be very persuasive. I'm Canadian, and I'm biased because I enjoy target shooting and hunting, but I'll tell you one area where I don't find myself to be biased. I believe that as an open-minded individual it's easy to see that the pursuit of disarmament by the liberals in Ontario is a very Orwellian premise. Governments need to fear they're employers, so that they don't stray too much into our affairs and focus on running the country as we the people see fit. I'm going to finish by saying conflict is really quite natural, and is a big part of shaping the political landscape of the world and that this obsession with utopian dreams of peace is very much stationary thinking.

Unfortunately we cant just abolish arms and be done with it. There always seem to be rogue states at the moment how much more likely are there to be such when it comes to disarmament? There will always be holdouts against any attempt at disarmament no matter how sincere the attempt may be by many nations. The nuclear powers at the moment are among the most advanced and often least threatened states on the planet but this does not seem to motivate them to give up their nuclear weapons despite treaty commitments to do so. The USA has 5113 nuclear weapons while it only needs 311. This is obviously therefore a lot more than needed. If the most secure nation in the world with the largest conventional and nuclear firepower is not even willing to reduce its nuclear weapons to the amount it needs what hope is there of more general disarmament?