The obscene spending on weapons and need for a world government

It is obvious that the world needs a single authority with the power to make and uphold laws in some fields. Below are some thoughts.
  • Worldwide spending on weapons is 20 times spending on aid and, at a time when there are many indications that the world is running short of food, spending on weapons is 50 times as great as spending on improving food production;
  • The vast majority of people do not want big spending on weapons; when was the last time you heard of anyone fund-raising to buy more war planes, frigates, or tanks? It's always governments that want more weapons; why?
  • A world military would be a much more efficient use of resources than each nation having its own, and of course, if national military forces were banned then there would be little need for any military forces at all. The main factor acting against this is that individual governments (and leaders of governments) want to be big fish in their own small ponds. (See Whom should we fear?);
  • Climate change must be urgently addressed, at present it is not because nations are squabbling about who should be taking what action. A world government could force appropriate action.
Written 18th February, 2004, last edited 2020/12/07
Contact: David K. Clarke – ©
I have also written on this subject in Government.


Some fundamental changes would have to be made to the UN before it could be trusted to control the world's only major military force. The first of these would be the removal of the veto right of the permanent members of the Security Council.
If the UN had more power to act militarily when either the General Assembly or the Security Council saw the need then there would be little need for individual nations to have their own military forces. Since WW2 and formation of UN there have been few wars in which one nation invaded another; largely because of the UN. (A notable exception was in 2003 when the US lead a coalition in the immoral, illegal and unjustified invasion of Iraq.)

The military forces of individual nations could and should be strictly limited by international law.

The advantages are as obvious as they are huge. Greatly reduced spending on weapons and savings could go into environment, education, health, international aid, and other humanitarian or responsible uses.

This would answer the 'rogue states' problem.

Why is so little said about a world military force?

There is an obvious need for some sort of world authority in some fields

Atmospheric pollution
It is often to the short-term advantage of individual nations to allow atmospheric pollution, while it is disadvantageous to the world as a whole.
Fisheries in international waters
There is no advantage to one nation to try to place controls on fish catches if other nations do not have restrictions in place. There must be some sort of international body in charge.
Nuclear weapons
Many nations see possession of nuclear weapons as security, but for the world as a whole the more nations with nuclear weapons the greater the risk of nuclear war.
International boundaries
If the boundary between two nations is in dispute then there must be a world body to decide the case if justice is to have any chance of prevailing. Otherwise the decision can be made by whoever has the most guns.
Fair sharing of resources
For example, if a river flows through one nation into another there is need for some authority above the two nations to resolve disputes about the equitable sharing of the water.

The grand conspiracy theory

There seems to be paranoia in the USA about a plot to establish a single world government. Some Americans see it as the work of Satan. One wonders whether these crackpot theories are encouraged by some within the US government. These conspiracy theorists talk about a plot by the 'Illuminati'; "Those who direct the Illuminati are against Christ and for Satan".

Also see my notes on this subject under Government.