Defence spending, economic burden and disarmament

Usually, economists regard military expenditure as unproductive, a burden expressed by the famous choice between « guns or butter ». However, this analysis is not confirmed in fact, at least in the short term, due to the difficulty of converting the arms industries, the reduction in national research and development efforts, employment issues, but above all difficulties in ensuring a national security strong enough to avoid the predation of other countries. The power of states exerts a considerable influence on international economic relations. Security between states cannot always be maintained without the armed forces. Analysis of the defence effort often gives contradictory econometric results, notably concerning investments, consumption or inflation. A negotiated disarmament process can, however, lead to more satisfactory economic results in the medium run, provided that they are distributed equally, a concept which is not shared by the economic actors of multinational firms and banks, or even of the States. Disarmament for development is an interesting idea, but arms producers in developed countries will suffer significant losses that States will probably have to reimburse all or partially, even though aid will have to be given directly to developing countries, aggravating thus the crisis. The reduction in military spending must first be seen as an investment to improve the lives of all parties.