The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

The student news site of Guilford College

The Guilfordian

United States controls majority of global weapons trade

The United States now controls 70 percent of the global weapons trade. A recent congressional study found that the U.S. weapons trade was valued at $37.8 billion, while its closest competitor, Italy, was valued at $3.7 billion. Vernie Davis, professor of peace and conflict studies, thought back to when he was in the Peace Corps during the 1960s in Ethopia. “We (United States) gave them a lot of military aid,” he said. “Sometimes the weapons even had ‘United States’ stamped on them.”

Today, U.S. weapons trade is bigger than ever before.

“I think this has a lot to do with quality of weapons,” said Ken Gilmore, associate professor of political science. “Would you want to buy an Italian airplane or an American one?”

Gilmore was also quick to point out that there is a lot more involved in these numbers. First, the weapons trade primarily consists of services, like Blackwater, and large-scale weapon systems to a few select countries. Also, the United States’ military involvement in the Middle East plays into this 70 percent.

“The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan. All of that is going into the numbers,” said Gilmore.

But how does selling all these weapons affect the United States at large? According to Davis as well as Bob Williams, professor of economics, this does not bode well at all. Both Williams and Davis feel that this is going to be problematic for the United States’ interests abroad.

“If there’s more arms, there’s more violence. It’s as simple as that,” Davis said.

“Selling arms in different countries is going to impact our relationships internationally,” commented Bob Williams. “It’s going to help fuel conflicts.”

Williams adds that the well-paying jobs the weapons business provides aren’t a sufficient reason for having the weapons industry. The weapons sector of the economy can switch to more beneficial alternatives.

“It’s not like there’s not other things these people can do,” said Williams. “There are plenty of unmet social needs. With the proper government incentives, the economy can be restructured to something else.”

Davis, on the other hand, feels that the solution to lowering weapons sales is much easier than that. All that is required is involvement on the part of each individual.

“All you have do is say ‘I don’t want to make money on death’,” said Davis. “Don’t invest in companies involved in arms dealing.”

Not everyone though feels the United States’ hefty control over the weapons trade is nearly as ominous as Davis and Williams do.

Gilmore mentioned that although the United States controls 70 percent of the weapons industry, this 70 percent is a tiny percentage of the U.S. economy.

“This is a $37.8 billion dollar industry in an economy that makes about $13 trillion a year,” said Gilmore. “This is a really small part of our economy.”

Gilmore added that the countries the United States is selling to aren’t threatening United States’ interests abroad. In fact, Gilmore argues that the countries the United States is selling to is important for the United States’ long-term international relations.

“Let’s look at the countries United States is selling to,” said Gilmore. “Brazil, South Korea, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and India. Is this surprising to anyone? These are all strong potential allies that have mutual interests with the United States.”

Davis took a different view on the situation explaining that alliances quickly change in the political arena and thus weapon trades can be risky.

“There’s Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Both of these men we once armed later became our enemies,” said Davis. “Helping our friends today could be arming our enemies tomorrow.

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

The Guilfordian intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. The Guilfordian does not allow anonymous comments, and requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All The Guilfordian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *