The obscene spending on weapons and need for a world government

• Worldwide spending on weapons is 20 times spending on aid and, at a time when there are many indications that the world is running short of food, spending on weapons is 50 times as great as spending on improving food production;
• The vast majority of people do not want big spending on weapons; when was the last time you heard of anyone fund-raising to buy more war planes, frigates, or tanks? It's always governments that want more weapons; why?
• A world military would be a much more efficient use of resources than each nation having its own, and of course, if national military forces were banned then there would be little need for any military forces at all. The main factor acting against this is that individual governments (and leaders of governments) want to be big fish in their own small ponds. (See Whom should we fear?);
• Climate change must be urgently addressed, at present it is not because nations are squabbling about who should be taking what action. A world government could force appropriate action.

The military forces of individual nations could and should be strictly limited by international law.

The advantages are as obvious as they are huge. Greatly reduced spending on weapons and savings could go into environment, education, health, international aid, and other humanitarian or responsible uses.

This would answer the 'rogue states' problem.

Why is so little said about a world military force?

Atmospheric pollution

It is often to the short-term advantage of individual nations to allow atmospheric pollution, while it is disadvantageous to the world as a whole.

Fisheries in international waters

There is no advantage to one nation to try to place controls on fish catches if other nations do not have restrictions in place. There must be some sort of international body in charge.

Nuclear weapons

Many nations see possession of nuclear weapons as security, but for the world as a whole the more nations with nuclear weapons the greater the risk of nuclear war.

International boundaries

If the boundary between two nations is in dispute then there must be a world body to decide the case if justice is to have any chance of prevailing. Otherwise the decision can be made by whoever has the most guns.

Fair sharing of resources

For example, if a river flows through one nation into another there is need for some authority above the two nations to resolve disputes about the equitable sharing of the water.

Also see my notes on this subject under Government.

Index