 | |
|
13 June 2006 The economic case for pacifism
Ok, so much for the glib but staggeringly obvious bit. Killing people is also really, really expensive. I happened upon the master table of Government spending by department, part of the Treasury's Comprehensive Spending Review. The NHS gets £87bn per year. Fine. The next most expensive department (discounting Local Government, which basically means "all local spending via councils") is the Ministry of Defence. £33bn. £33-fucking-billion. With 29m income tax-payers in the UK, that's over £1,000 each per annum. That's, on average, 4% of everyone's salary. Shee-it. The last time mainland Britain was invaded was in 1797, and even then, the invaders were repelled by a bunch of Welsh farmers' wives. Ok, an army was probably helpful 50 years ago for geopolitical strategic reasons and stuff. Today, as shown by the staggering success the Coalition of the Willing is "enjoying" in Iraq, it's a bit less so. Why doesn't this ever enter mainstream political debate? Why do even the LibDems decry cost-cutting in the armed forces? Why don't people ask what harm it's ever done Switzerland, which doesn't even have the natural advantage of a 400ft-deep moat? This post brought to you by the Monster Raving Lefty Party. Thank you. CommentsCouldn't agree more, old boy. There hardly seems much point nowadays in having an army for defence. All we ever use the armed forces for is covering for striking firemen, rescuing people from mountains, and killing foreigners who should be grateful to be killed, but for some reason aren't. Posted by Jon on 15.6.06 08:26
Posted by forces of creation the Who armed day announced us on 19.5.08 17:38
Posted by assistants laboratory medical on 25.7.08 00:53
Posted by instatute institute america of culinary on 25.7.08 11:04
Posted by realtytrac website on 26.7.08 16:47
Posted by health and cancer treatment conditions skin diseases on 8.8.08 00:22 | |
Killing people is bad, whether it's because 