Filed under: Uncategorized
In this era, the presence of deadly weapons and killing machines like missiles, submarines, nuclear bombs, machine guns, grenades has magnified war to a much larger scale than it was in the days of spear and bow fighting. Take for example the nuclear bomb that wrecked Hiroshima and Nagasaki within split seconds, it was never possible before that to create so much damage in war. However, what is it that results in these arms and their widespread circulation and usage? Is the availability and deadliness of arms the cause of the proliferation and growth of war? Are the any other roles that arms play other than being a Magnifier of war?
Due to the presence of a global arms trade, the most basic weapon-the rifle- could be mass produced cheaply, using a combined effort of industrialisation and technology, it is so dirt cheap that an ‘ AK 47 can be purchased for as little as twenty dollars, less than a bag of rice’ according to sociology textbook, ‘Global problems’. Their availbility is also prompted by America’s donations of ‘Stingers’ to ‘mujadeen warriors’ in their fight against ‘Soviet army’ and yet these arms are not recollected after their purposes has been served. Such a provision of arms to support certain groups by America does not just stop here, it is repeated again and again as seen in AmerIca’s supplying of arms to Iraq during the Irad war. This availability of arms, though profitable to America as they earn from the business transaction, makes it easy for ward to occur. It is this availability that allows international organised criminal groups like MS13 in America to carry out their activitities with the power that arms gave them. And it is possible that they have the power to carry out warfare with the government should they continue to grow.
It is interesting to note that America, an advocate of human rights and peace is encouraging war with the sales and supplying of arms that supports and magnify the impact of war. It made America much like a two headed-snake. However, it could be due to how they perceive peace to be a by-product of arms or a usage of it. It is the usage of nuclear power in WWII that stunned Japan into near immediate surrender and the world into fearful peace. Does it mean that countries need to be threatened by arms with the possiblity to destroy the entire world easily in order to be peaceful? Apparently, during WWII, this is how things appear to be. Which is why, during the cold war, superpowers refuse to go into war, yet constantly stockpiling and creating better arms to threaten each other into not fighting with each other in a bloody, physical war.
The production of arms which supposely provides security to those who wield it mirrors the inner insecurities modern countries have. How having arms gives a feeling of superiority and security in this dangerous modern world of uncertainty drives countries to pump in significant funds into research and development of better, deadlier arms and the purchase and production of more arms. Yet this is almost like a cycle. Once a country has more superior and more arms to feel secure against other countries, other countries feel insecure and catch up, spiraling into a rat race to build up defense walls. This is a situation where changes in global politics is called for. Perhaps the improvement of ties and closer teamwork between countries’s leaders might just be the best way to solve this problem of the excessive development and production of arms.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
