Navigation:        Index Class Projects
English 301 Class Portfolio
Paper 1 - Exploratory Paper
Download Word Document: This document is currently offline.
Note: This paper is currently in a first draft state, it will be updated soon.


The Pros and Cons of Becoming an Armed Nation

At times in our existence we live a very sheltered life. One that can make us forget about the problems going on outside in the world and the even the problems faced at home. As citizens of the United States of America, these blind spots can become more amplified than the average American would care to realize. How little most Americans know about current and historical foreign policy and dealings can be rather shocking. This is especially true when it comes to one of the most controversial subjects since the beginning of recorded history. That issue is armament and conflict; in essence, war. There is no possible way to deny the fact that war has caused countless hardships and causalities throughout history, that innocents and soldiers alike have died unjustly, and that the will and desires of the citizens have not always been correctly represented. On the other side of the coin however, being an armed nation and having the ability to fight is not always a bad thing. It has been used incorrectly and for the wrong reasons, but there are large advantages to being an armed nation that many people who are anti-violence have missed. This paper will focus on the pros and cons of living in a country that is armed and has the ability to go to war, be it for defense or offense, at the drop of a hat.

War. Few will hear that word and think of anything but horrors. Loss of life, non fatal casualties, the missing in action that will never return, the prisoners of war being tortured for information, all of the horrible things that can come with the connotation of the word. The loss of life alone in conflict is enough to get people to cringe or simply not discuss the topic. At the same time however, it can be said that war, and being prepared for it, can save lives. This is a hard concept to grasp for some people, because the driving factor behind war is generally imperialism and hate. Since long before well recorded history, regardless of what creational theory you believe in, wars have played a vital role in the shaping of our modern day landscape. There will always be someone that believes his or her opinion is more correct than another. There will always be someone that believes his or her opinion is in fact so much more correct that they are willing to fight them over it or enlighten them in ways they should see more clearly. When the second party does not take well to this enlightenment, the first party generally doesn't take to fondly to the situation and it can cause a conflict to take place. Other causes throughout history are quite simply space, or lake thereof. If a nation feels that another is encroaching on its borders, they would generally be willing to fight them back. If a nation feels they are in need of more land, they may go conquer to fill their needs. Now none of these reasons for conflict are necessarily right, just, or warranted, however it does not take away from the fact that becoming an armed nation is the right thing to do. Even as pacifists, an armed nation has the ability to defend itself against an onslaught by another. An unarmed nation is at the will of those with power. An armed nation has the chance to defend the freedoms it chooses, an unarmed nation can only do so with words.

Becoming and maintaining an armed nation is not always the best thing for its citizens. For example, the 2006 "Budget of the United States Government," states the following about expanding troop safety devices and generally bringing troop equipment technology into modern times:
  Some of the forerunners of these new systems are being used today in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 2006 Budget provides $1.7 billion for these efforts (US Office of Management and Budget).  
The budget statement also goes on to state that "[t]he Budget raises defense spending by 4.8 percent and raises homeland security spending by 8 percent, including fee funded activities" (US Office of Management and Budget). While security is a great feeling to have, there are many other things these advances in already high military spending could have been spent on. If one will look back to the Hurricane Katrina situation, many people went without food, shelter, or water for days because there was not enough funding to help when the problem occurred. At the same time, one must ask themselves the question; what is more important to me, poor funding that can create problems while recovering from a natural disaster, or being prepared for the total annihilation that could happen in a military strike against my country. Defense spending to become a well armed nation has done many good things for our society.

The most obvious is technologies, which has not only helped in the situation of the United States of America, but globally. Items like the internet, cell phones, walkie-talkies, encryption, and many other devices that have helped spread global trade and economy have come from the need for armament and protection. Many would agree that what we are moving towards now, a more global economy, because of the advancements in these technologies that came directly from military spending is an amazing thing. Being able to split and trade resources over oceans that would have made the trade and production of many things nearly impossible only about 100-200 years ago. At the same time, not everyone will agree that the an economy that changes in this way as a result of military spending and development is a good thing. For instance, being an armed nation that needs oil to keep itself going, and having very little of your own is a problem. It can become even more of a problem if you see another civilization as worth scuffling with because you need a strong foothold in the area most of the oil comes from. This is a common argument from many that disagree with going to war with Iraq in the first place, and staying so long with such a high money commitment to the growing problem.

At the same time the push for arms and the general changes caused by military involvement have created some of the strongest economic growth the world has ever known. The push in World War II caused the American economy not only to rise from a horrendous depression, but shoot to levels it had yet to see. Lawrence Wittner noted for Howard Zinn that the "'war rejuvenated American capitalism.' The biggest gains were in corporate profits, which rose from $6.4 billion in 1940 to $10.8 billion in 1944. But enough went to workers and farmers to make them feel the system was doing well for them" (Zinn, 425). These numbers at the time are astonishing levels of growth. Especially since they are in the private sector and make the people feel better about the situations they are involved in. Zinn points out that enough of that corporate growth went back to the little man for them to feel great about what was happening. This is a huge factor in arms and military production, because money in essence increases the morale of the entire nation, which in turn makes them feel better about the government, who sees this as more national pride, which puts them back in a position of power. Charles E. Wilson was president of General Motors at the time of the boom, and he "suggested a continuing alliance between business and the military for 'a permanent war economy,'" (Zinn, 425). At first this renewed power and progression caused by the post war economy boom which was a direct result of the nation banding together to produce for the military was looked upon at amazing. As a direct result of this however, one of the largest world problems to ever occur between two armed nations came into the forefront. Under the guise of a continuing struggle for freedom, Truman entered into the largest arms race the world would know, without even really knowing what was happening. The Cold War was a direct result of the boom caused by World War II in both the USA and USSR economies.

The free people of the United States saw that the USSR, whom had been devastated by the advancing Nazi armies during WWII, had rebounded so well that it was alarming to non communist nations. The "country that had come out of the war with its economy wrecked and 20 million people dead … [was] rebuilding its industry [and] regaining military strength" (Zinn, 425). In order to preserve freedoms the US and other countries basically began an arms race with the Soviets in order to stay one step ahead of them in a "just in case" defensive philosophy. While this may not sound horrible to some, and the Cold War in general may not sound horrible as no one really engaged in combat, it caused some fairly large problems for the entire world. For the first time in history, the threat of an atomic weapon was real. Not only was this threat of mass destruction real, it was believed (and with the defensive technology of the time it was largely true) that it could happen anywhere at any time, and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it. A large part of the blame to this situation has to be put on the US government. The way it ended the war with Japan put the entire globe into a new perspective on what was possible with money and power. It is also arguable that the US government saved hundreds of thousands of allied troop lives by not invading the Japanese homeland if the projected numbers were anywhere near correct for losses, and if "D-Day" had taught us anything about attacking a fortified beach position against an enemy of equal training, determination, and technology. The real question was however, and this still haunts us today, was flexing the all-mighty dollar, showing off power, and announcing to the world that we had not entered an atomic age really worth the potential casualties of trying to get Japan to surrender by attacking their homeland?

In my personal opinion, yes. However my personal opinion is absurdly biased and based off the fact that I've had my best friend spend a year in Iraq that has changed him forever. If we can become an armed nation that is advanced enough to be able to throw more money at a situation then personnel casualties I am all for it. The situation before World War II was a bleak one for the United States. The country was practicing a form of global pacifism which had yet to try because of the losses suffered in World War I. It was good for the US government to try this new form of global policy, but it was not working. People were starving, and without Japan drawing is into WWII, who knows what we would be doing today. The reason to spend money on potential war, regardless of conflict existing at the time is quite simple. If history has taught us anything there will always be conflict, there will always be an aggressive party, and there will always be a repressed party who is not to happy with their current situation. Global peace, as amazing as it sounds, seems well out of reach of society, and has stayed that way for over 3000 years. It was Adolf Hitler who said "The victor will never be asked if he told the truth" which rings true now as it did throughout history. A victorious party can pretty much get away with anything, which is why we should never stop criticizing or asking questions. While we ask however, it is, as I see it, in our best interests to keep ourselves defended from any threat. If that means spending money then so be it. I feel most people will agree with me when I say that I'd rather be alive and slightly scared, then dead and wondering what happened. This is why I feel living in an armed nation is of a major benefit to its citizens, but I will agree at the same time that there could be better budgeting and spending of the excess to help the world as a whole perhaps one day move towards global peace.


Works Cited:

Office of Management and Budget. "Budget of the United States of Government, FY 2006: Protecting America." 12 September 2007. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/protecting.html
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York, HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2003.