[[link removed]]

THE LIMITATIONS OF MILITARY MIGHT  
[[link removed]]


 

Lawrence Wittner
April 29, 2025
CounterPunch
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ In 2024, the nations of the world spent a record $2.72 trillion on
expanding their vast military strength, an increase of 9.4 percent
from the previous year. It was the tenth year of consecutive spending
increases and the steepest increase in 30 yrs. _

, Filip Andrejevic

 

Although the statement that “power grows out of the barrel of a
gun”
[[link removed].]
was made by Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong, it’s an idea that,
in one form or another, has motivated a great many people, from the
members of teenage street gangs to the statesmen of major nations.

The rising spiral of world military spending provides a striking
example of how highly national governments value armed forces. In
2024, the nations of the world spent a record $2.72 trillion
[[link removed]]
on expanding their vast military strength, an increase of 9.4 percent
from the previous year. It was the tenth year of consecutive spending
increases and the steepest annual rise in military expenditures since
the end of the Cold War.

This enormous investment in military might is hardly a new phenomenon.
Over the broad sweep of human history, nations have armed
themselves―often at great cost―in preparation for war. And an
endless stream of wars has followed, resulting in the deaths of
perhaps a billion people
[[link removed]],
most of them civilians
[[link removed]]. During the 20th
century alone, war’s human death toll numbered 231 million
[[link removed]].

Even larger numbers of people have been injured in these wars,
including many who have been crippled, blinded, hideously burned, or
driven mad. In fact, the number of people who have been wounded in war
[[link removed].]
is at least twice the number killed and has sometimes soared to 13
times that number.

War has produced other calamities, as well. The Russian military
invasion of Ukraine, for example, has led to the displacement of a
third of that nation’s population. In addition, war has caused
immense material damage. Entire cities and, sometimes, nations have
been reduced to rubble, while even victorious countries sometimes
found themselves bankrupted by war’s immense financial costs. Often,
wars have brought long-lasting environmental damage
[[link removed]],
leading to birth defects and other severe health consequences, as the
people of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, and the Middle East can
attest.

Even when national military forces were not engaged in waging foreign
wars, they often produced very undesirable results. The annals of
history are filled with incidents of military officers who have used
their armies to stage coups
[[link removed]] and establish brutal
dictatorships in their own countries. Furthermore, the possession of
military might has often emboldened national leaders to intimidate
weaker nations or to embark upon imperial conquest. It’s no accident
that nations with the most powerful military forces (“the great
powers”) are particularly prone to war-making
[[link removed]].

Moreover, prioritizing the military has deprived other sectors of
society of substantial resources. Money that could have gone into
programs for education, healthcare, food stamps, and other social
programs has been channeled instead
[[link removed]]
into unprecedented levels of spending to enhance military might.

It’s a sorry record for what passes as world civilization―one that
will surely grow far worse, or perhaps terminate human existence, with
the onset of a nuclear war.

Of course, advocates of military power argue that, in a dangerous
world, there is a necessity for deterring a military attack upon their
nations. And that is surely a valid concern.

But does military might really meet the need for national security? In
addition to the problems spawned by massive military forces, it’s
not clear that these forces are doing a good job of deterring foreign
attack. After all, every year government officials say that their
countries are facing greater danger than ever before. And they are
right about this. The world _is_ becoming a more dangerous place. A
major reason is that the military might sought by one nation for its
national security is regarded by other nations as endangering their
national security. The result is an arms race and, frequently, war.

Fortunately, though, there are alternatives to the endless process of
military buildups and wars.

The most promising among them is the establishment of international
security. This could be accomplished through the development of
international treaties and the strengthening of international
institutions.

Treaties, of course, can establish rules for international behavior by
nations while, at the same time, resolving key problems among them
(for example, the location of national boundaries) and setting
policies that are of benefit to all (for example, reducing greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere). Through arms control and disarmament
agreements they can also address military dangers. For example, in
place of the arms race, they could sponsor a peace race, in which each
nation would reduce its military spending by 10 percent per year. Or
nations could sign and ratify (as many have already done) the Treaty
on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
[[link removed]], which would end the
menace of nuclear annihilation.

International institutions can also play a significant role in
reducing international conflict and, thus, the resort to military
action. The United Nations [[link removed]], established in
1945, is tasked with maintaining international peace and security,
while the International Court of Justice
[[link removed]] was established to settle legal
disputes among nations and the International Criminal Court
[[link removed]] to investigate and, where justified, try
individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the
crime of aggression.

Unfortunately, these international organizations are not fully able to
accomplish their important tasks―largely because many nations prefer
to rely upon their own military might and because some nations
(particularly the United States
[[link removed]],
Russia
[[link removed]],
and Israel
[[link removed]])
are enraged that these organizations have criticized their conduct in
world affairs. Even so, international organizations have enormous
potential and, if strengthened, could play a vital role in creating a
less violent world.

Rather than continuing to pour the wealth of nations into the failing
system of national military power, how about bolstering these global
instruments for attaining international security and peace?

===

DR. LAWRENCE WITTNER is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany
and the author of Confronting the Bomb
[[link removed]]
(Stanford University Press.)

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]