Military Spending Research Paper
TITLE: HOW DO WARS AFFECT ECONOMY
War is a state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.
The factors leading to war are often complicated and due to a range of issues. Where disputes arise over issues such as territory, sovereignty, resource, or ideology, and if a peaceable resolution fails, is not sought, or is thwarted, war often results.
Factors leading to war:
The basic motivation, of course, is willingness to wage war, but motivations may be analysed specifically. Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For a state to prosecute a war it must have the support of its leadership, its military forces, and the population.
There are many …show more content…
There are two answers to this question depending on whether we are talking about short term or long term economic consequences. In the short term, war is good for the economy. Military spending generates innovations and technological advances through spin-offs from research and development. Many beneficial products we use every day, such as the Internet and laser eye surgery, have their roots in military spending.
Military spending also leads to more jobs and more income. Spending of any kind, whether it is for a candy bar, cleaning up after an oil spill, or expanding your business, stimulates demand for a whole variety of goods and services. This in turn creates jobs and increases peoples’ income, thus generating economic growth. So in the short run wars and oil spills are good for economic growth in the same way as investing in your child’s education or in expanding your business — jobs are created and incomes increase.
In the long run, however, the outlook is not so promising. Dollar for dollar military spending creates fewer jobs than spending in civilian programs. It is estimated, for example, that $10 billion spent on weapons systems generates 40,000 fewer jobs than $10 billion spent on civilian …show more content…
The military action not only aggravated the humanitarian crisis, but also engendered major economic, political, legal, military and strategic repercussions. Pre-war speculation (often exaggerated) here yields to post-war realities. Though Saddam Hussein did not use weapons of mass destruction nor set fire to Iraq's oil fields nor attack Israel with rockets, and though the conflict was relatively short, the war has had many serious results ranging from death and destruction in Iraq to regional instability to a weakened world economy.
Humanitarian Crisis
With close to 4 million displaced people in and outside of Iraq, an average of about 100 people killed daily, and a third of the population living in poverty, Iraq 's humanitarian emergency has reached a crisis level that compares with some of the world's most urgent
War is a state of violent, large-scale conflict involving two or more groups of people.
The factors leading to war are often complicated and due to a range of issues. Where disputes arise over issues such as territory, sovereignty, resource, or ideology, and if a peaceable resolution fails, is not sought, or is thwarted, war often results.
Factors leading to war:
The basic motivation, of course, is willingness to wage war, but motivations may be analysed specifically. Motivations for war may be different for those ordering the war than for those undertaking the war. For a state to prosecute a war it must have the support of its leadership, its military forces, and the population.
There are many …show more content…
There are two answers to this question depending on whether we are talking about short term or long term economic consequences. In the short term, war is good for the economy. Military spending generates innovations and technological advances through spin-offs from research and development. Many beneficial products we use every day, such as the Internet and laser eye surgery, have their roots in military spending.
Military spending also leads to more jobs and more income. Spending of any kind, whether it is for a candy bar, cleaning up after an oil spill, or expanding your business, stimulates demand for a whole variety of goods and services. This in turn creates jobs and increases peoples’ income, thus generating economic growth. So in the short run wars and oil spills are good for economic growth in the same way as investing in your child’s education or in expanding your business — jobs are created and incomes increase.
In the long run, however, the outlook is not so promising. Dollar for dollar military spending creates fewer jobs than spending in civilian programs. It is estimated, for example, that $10 billion spent on weapons systems generates 40,000 fewer jobs than $10 billion spent on civilian …show more content…
The military action not only aggravated the humanitarian crisis, but also engendered major economic, political, legal, military and strategic repercussions. Pre-war speculation (often exaggerated) here yields to post-war realities. Though Saddam Hussein did not use weapons of mass destruction nor set fire to Iraq's oil fields nor attack Israel with rockets, and though the conflict was relatively short, the war has had many serious results ranging from death and destruction in Iraq to regional instability to a weakened world economy.
Humanitarian Crisis
With close to 4 million displaced people in and outside of Iraq, an average of about 100 people killed daily, and a third of the population living in poverty, Iraq 's humanitarian emergency has reached a crisis level that compares with some of the world's most urgent