There is no money left for weapons

The defence ministers of the seven most developed countries in the world have raised the alarm for what they have described as «critical situation of military budgets». Apparently, the successive clippings in military expenses carried out by governments, together with the increase in other expenditures, have taken the accounts of armies to a terminal situation. «The currency reserves will last perhaps for one or two months of bombs and missiles», declared the general secretary of the NATO, «What about later?».

Such is the generalised clamour within the high circles of government as well as in the man in the street. They fear for the continuation of the several war commitments acquired by the International Community. A representative of the UN expressed in the following terms: «The situation is desperate. We have several wars against disloyal regimes working and nobody knows what will happen after five or six weeks. I don't want to take an alarmist view but I cannot guarantee that we'll be able to keep on attending to these conflicts over the medium term».

Among the causes of this bankruptcy appear the more and more frequent cracks of stock markets and, in general, the serious global economic crisis. An American congressman described perfectly this scenario: «In a world increasingly overpopulated and impoverished, it's becoming more difficult to deduct funds from national budgets for the acquisition of war material. Taxpayers are already doing a great effort and we can't ask for more».

[British tank photographed by a paparazzi] Weapon makers and distributors have also been pointed as a cause for their abusive policy of prices. «They take advantage of the needs of people and fix disproportionate prices, without the faintest fit of remorse, because they know that their buyers are not in conditions to negotiate. That's the result of a lamentable and prolonged oligopoly», were the words of a Euroarmy official who preferred to remain anonymous. The aforementioned manufacturers and merchants have defended from these accusations: «People should understand that modern armament is a high-tech product and investment in research and development is rather high. The retail price of a Tomahawk missile may look expensive, but the fact is that it hardly reaches to cover costs».

The International Red Cross has drawn attention to the situation of the less favoured ones: «The problem is serious in the so-called developed countries, so we can't even imagine what they must be experiencing in the Third Worldrlaquo;. In actual fact, there are numerous civil wars and frontiers conflicts in the less lucky places of the planet and it is not clear that they can manage to keep on financing them when the economies of the participating countries hardly let them feed their population. The for-life prime minister of a small nation close to the equator regretted: «I'm concerned about the fact that our people need assault riffles, landmines, antitank grenades, cruise missiles and atomic bombs, but there comes a moment in which it's impossible to accomplish magic with numbers. Ours is a poor country and the meagre incomes from the sale of petroleum are almost completely spent in education, health, industrialisation and agriculture. There's no money even for bacteriological warfare!».

In that sense, some voices claim for a most rational and human distribution of resources. «We understand that hospitals and universities are necessary, but it's a shame that they spend in that all the funds that could be used to get armies back on their feet», publicly expressed a well-known activist. «It's unacceptable for any conscientious person that they're never short of money for the public health system or assistance to refugees, while our combat pilots have to carefully target each missile because they don't know whether they'll have another one the following day ».

Add document to Favourites