People who work for peace are used to being told that they’re too idealistic. In fact, the pro-war and pro-military build-up crowd are often believers in the following myths.
Myth One: Military strength will ensure peace
It sounds sensible at first. If we are properly armed, other countries won’t attack us, so the world will be a more peaceful place, right?
Wrong! An arms buildup on one country can inspire arms buildups in other countries, leaving all involved worse off (because they’ve spent money on weapons that could have been spent on making the people healthy and educated) and still fearful.
The other problem with this myth is that weapons tend to be used. Just look at the number of wars waged by the US.
Myth Two: Military spending helps economic recovery
“It’s good for the economy” is a popular justification for spending an eye watering amount of money that comes from the working people of a country on weapons.
It’s true that money spent on the military produces some jobs. According to German economic research outfit the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, military spending has a distorted effect on the economy because spending on the military is divorced from the needs of society. When it comes to jobs, spending on education, healthcare and clean energy all produce more jobs than spending on the armed forces and their equipment.
Myth Three: War is bad, but at least there are technological spin-offs that are good
Most people know about spinoffs. You’re using a famous one every day – the internet. DARPA, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, is an R&D arm of the US military and famously invented the internet as a way for the armed forces to communicate with each other after a nuclear attack. Hurrah for DARPA!
Not so fast. Economist Mariana Mazzucato has looked at the facts. What really made a difference for the internet was universities, companies and laboratories, all backed by government funding. The web browsers and addresses that we take for granted were developed at a civilian project, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), so that scientists could share their discoveries speedily.
CERN has discovered new subatomic particles and introduced HTML which makes all your web pages possible – it sounds like a much better use of money than buying a new missile system.
Myth Four: Atomic weapons meant that there were no wars after 1945
This one is an updated version of the “peace through strength” argument, and is trotted out by a lot of people who should know better. The nuclear powers were afraid to go to war, fearing that the other side’s nuclear weapons wiped them from the face of the earth, therefore nuclear weapons are a good thing.
While it’s true that there hasn’t been a world war since the last, pre-atomic world war, this line of reasoning is very dodgy.
Sure, the nuclear powers haven’t used their nukes since the bombing of Nagasaki 80 years ago, but nuclear weapons haven’t prevented wars in Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq … The Palestinian people have no reason to thank Israel’s nuclear arsenal for peace.
When someone says that nuclear weapons kept the peace, what they mean is that nukes kept the peace in the countries they care about.
Not a myth: Working for peace through disarmament and political resolution of disputes is way more realistic than the military lobby would like you to think.
Guardian (Australia) – edited slightly for context
[Photo: American Friends Service Committee]
Support working-class media!
If you found this article useful, please consider donating to People’s Voice or purchasing a subscription so that you get every issue of Canada’s leading socialist publication delivered to your door or inbox!
For over 100 years, we have been 100% reader-supported, with no corporate or government funding.
