FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What are weapons?

Weapons have perverse consequences for all societies. They do nothing to promote economic progress and impede development. They contribute to the poverty of the Third World by creating debt for countries in the South, who import arms from the North- This trade is a principal source of inequality.  If the same resources that go into armies and military industries were invested in civilian services, there would be a global increase in human and social benefits. [go up]

Are there as many weapons as we are told? Are weapons really necessary?

Weapons are often divided into weapons of massive destruction and conventional weapons. Weapons of mass destruction are atomic, biological and chemical weapons. Conventional weapons account for four-fifths of the world’s military expenses.

The abundance of weapons in the world are evidence that they actually generate insecurity. Since the end of the Cold War, there have been 87 armed conflicts, which have caused more than seven million deaths, 90% of which were among civilians. Furthermore, the majority of these conflicts have taken place with the use of conventional weaponry imported from Northern countries. [go up]

What does it cost to maintain this industry?

Globally, military spending is still at extraordinary levels: eighteen times the aid to development in the Third World and seven times the amount countries of the South pay to service their debt. [go up]

What are the economic benefits of arms production?

It is difficult to calculate the economic contribution of arms because they cannot be classified as a consumer good, such as shoes or groceries, nor as a productive good like tractors or other machinery.  From a strictly economic perspective, they are unproductive goods that do not produce any economic value, despite their great cost. They consume valuable resources that could contribute to social well-being.  The ostensible purpose of weapons and a standing military is security and defence, but whom do they defend? Against whom and how?  How are the threats defined and who defines them?

Studies show that military investment has long-term consequences for developing countries in terms of the accumulation of debt, a negative development. A developing country needs stable investment, an educated work force, a good health-care system, and efficient communications and transportation systems. To divert attention from the the meeting of these basic needs is to choose a path that destroys the economy and well-being of the country. Spain is no exception. Military production has long-term negative effects. [go up]

Is military power necessary for a country’s defence?

It often supposed that a country’s defence requires a strong, viable, export-oriented defence industry. What is less often discussed is who decides what a country’s defence needs are. Recent history shows that the political priorities of the world’s political leaders do not agree with those of the public. Politicians frequently decide to defend their countries from people or nations their own public do not even consider threats.

As a result of the prevailing militarist climate, governments’ defence policies generally overemphasise military and armament considerations at the expense of diplomatic and economic considerations. The arguments of the arms industry and government defence policy-makers always make reference to the “national interest”, but it is they themselves who define what the “national interest” is. [go up]

Is there such a thing as a strictly defensive defence policy? Would it cost less?

Weapons research and production is driven by trade and market considerations, which is to say that from the point of view strictly of defence (and not provocation or intervention), much of the world’s arms production is unnecessary. Arms are not produced solely in the national interest, but for the benefit of the corporations involved. Interestingly enough, national interest often coincides with the interests of capitalists or the military-industrial complex.

As offensive weaponry is on average ten times more expensive than that designed to thwart it, a far cheaper defence policy can be devised by giving up offensive weaponry. The Spanish government has adopted the opposite strategy of  manufacturing, either domestically or internationally, such unnecessary conventional weaponry as the Eurofighter 2000, the Tiger helicopter, the F-100 warship, the Leopard tank, and the A-400M military transport plane, all of which are produced for fighting wars in other countries. The explication is simple: the government opted for a security policy based on rearmament and military strength, and this, and not the national interest, requires strengthening the country’s domestic war industry. [go up]

Does a country need to have a powerful military to avoid dependence on other countries?

It is widely believed that the development of a national.defence industry makes a country less dependent on imports and thus increases self-sufficiency. What goes unmentioned though is that the country’s weapons needs depend on the type of defence it adopts and the alliances of which it is a part. For example, Spain has chosen a system that makes it necessary to import weaponry, even though it would be possible in the medium run to reduce these through international co-manufacturing and increased domestic production. It bears repetition that these arms would be unnecessary with a non-provocative defence policy.

Furthermore, the independence of a country is not based solely on its self-sufficiency in military terms.  At a time when developed countries, at least, are not at risk of military invasion, an economic, financial and cultural presence would be much more effective. [go up]

Does the defence industry create jobs?

Various United Nations studies indicate that more jobs would be created by investment in industries that do not require as much specialisation as in the defence industry.

To take Spain by way of example, growth in the military sector has been unequal. While some have shown great increases in sales and exports, others have registered considerable losses and have required major restructuring. The trend has been toward promoting companies that are capital intensive and hence require little manpower. This means that military technology does not only not create jobs, but reduces their number. The same investment in other sectors would always create more jobs. [go up]

Is the export of weaponry inevitable?

The answer is not necessarily. It all depends on whether weaponry is produced solely for security reasons, or if they are produced primarily for export.  Official statements tend to be circular: the arms industry provides a defence capability. Given the cost of military goods, the industry’s survival depends on reducing costs by raising production; overproduction, however, creates the need for export outlets.

There are certain companies that thrive mainly on exports without satisfying the needs of the national market. Countries such as Sweden and Germany export only one-fourth or one-fifth of what the country produces, whereas others such as Italy export about seventy percent. Spain, like France and Great Britain, export between forty and fifty percent of their production, which means that many arms are designed mainly for export. [go up]

Does the export of arms have to do with politics?

Justifying arms exports by arguing the need to reduce costs and cover investment in R+D would be to forget the political nature of the industry. Everywhere the defence industry is given special treatment, everywhere it often enjoys incentives and subsidies, everywhere exports are promoted by laws and regulations. This is no ordinary industry. Governments are often the major, if not the only, buyer of its products.

One cannot take two contradictory positions at the same time: either “it is necessary to have a weapons industry for reasons of national security” despite its costs, as security is said to have no price; or “the national market in itself can never justify the numerous investments derived from the production of arms.”  Attempting to make both arguments simultaneously invalidates them both. In any case, exporting arms only for “profit” does not exempt businesses, governments and citizens from their political responsibility for the sales of arms to dictatorships, countries that violate human rights or nations at war. [go up]

Can pacts or treaties control the international arms trade?

Theoretically, yes.  It would be possible to create agreements among suppliers aimed at reducing the volume of arms traded. However, attempts have been few and far between, and largely unsuccessful. Another possibility would be to limit and control arms through the United Nations or embargoes adopted by international bodies. The UN has proposed numerous resolutions. In 1978, during the first Special Session dedicated to Disarmament, all member states promised that the suppliers and receivers of weapons would initiate talks about limiting the arms trade.  However, till this day, not one state has gone beyond the promise stage.

International agreements, while desirable, generally do not work for the following reasons: a lack of clear data, accepted by all countries, on transfers; the different economic and political interests in play; arguments by governments and business citing sovereignty and right to free enterprise. There are usually diverging economic and political interests. It is therefore essential to impose controls over the production and export of arms at the national level. [go up]

Is it possible for a specific country to control their trafficking of weapons?

Yes, though there are, without a doubt, political, economic, technical (the need to set out precisely what is meant by a “weapon”) and legal difficulties, it can be done by those who really want to. Countries such as Sweden or Austria have made it possible by establishing policies that restrict exports. Other countries that have opted for clearly restrictive policies are often pressured by the military industrial complex. Governments often make arguments such as “If we don’t sell them ourselves, someone else will, so it would be better for us to take advantage of the opportunity,” or resort to illegal trafficking in arms, bribery, or blackmail. There are some countries where the export of arms is first approved by their respective governments, and there are others that have government commissions that control exports in order to continue triangular trade concealing exports through false destinations. Despite the legislation, Spanish policy toward the arms industry is quite permissive. [go up]

Are there indirect ways to reduce the trade in arms?

Yes; among other ways: a) by cutting back on military budgets; b) by dedicating the resources saved to development (though by “development” we do not mean selling trucks for military use to a developing country); c) by banning the sale of arms to developing countries based on soft credits; d) by starting a process of converting military industries into industries dedicated to the production of socially productive goods. [go up]

Is it really possible to transform the arms industry?

There have been some very well work-out proposals in various countries.  In Spain’s case, while information on the arms industry does not include studies that have been coordinated with unions, the following general criteria are clear a) alternative products should require the same skills required by the present workers; b) the alternative products should be produced at the same locations using the factories, assembly lines and already existing resources, with the necessary innovation and investment; c) the new products should be feasible and necessary, meaning, products that would be bought and used by the public or the government; d) the workers should not have to transfer to a new location; e) the process of conversion requires completely democratic planning, decision making and execution. [go up]