The matter is there is no state on earth that accepts what comes to its share.. its human nature, pushing more a larger portion , and it brings plundering.. And in 21. century, there are modern ways of plundering and slavery... But when those modern ways wouldn't work, they would revert to old style, weapons... so it is not realistic...

But I have more realistic opinions to help the people who are starving, children who can't take education etc.. : distribution channels under Nato or UN protection if its requires, even what we don't use, what we send to thrash cans can save a lot of lives, can educate a lot of children... if there would be direct distribution channels, I am sure as individuals, we don't permit people starve to death in our planet... But most of those regions are corrupt, so when you use official channels , nothing reach to people who are in need.

__________________

...and if you lay down yours who ensures that the others do the same? Naive to think that they will just follow suit. History has shown that the Soviets would lie left and right, as the Iranians do today. They actually joke about how they are lying to the EU and getting away with it.

it would be nice to have an unarmed world, but all that would do is invite someone like Chavez to think that he could conquer it and make himself emperor.

If a country stops making weapons then how will it be able to defend itself if attacked, or defend other countries if they are attacked?

I agree. Many people disagree with countries having nuclear weapons, but countries such as France and Britain know that it is almost certain than no-one is ever going to try and invade whilst they have nuclear weapons.

Well, at least not militarily.

Oh, why should we?
Weapons are important, arent they?! For some people, yes. But war makes money...and thats it.

Japan is a shinning example of how having a pacifist government that has allowed the majority of government spending on civilian research, social programs and skills. As a result it has a strong technology based economy, although this may be due to the Japanese disciplined culture and their willingness to embrace new technology in order to achieve their cultures high standards of organisation and efficiency. But none the less the country spends comparably less of its budget on military weapons devopment when compared to other western 1st world nations. So my point is that you can have a dynamic economy that is stable and strong with a pacifist constitution and limited spendng towards the military.

Although I must say that the USA has shown how productive and useful a thorough military research program is to the economy. Meaning alot of technology and research used to give the capability to launch missiles to another continent has allowed for space exploration. the complex computers needed to control the silo launch systems have allowed the US to gain a strong economy through computers when the technology i transferred to a civilian platform. The invention of a lightweight armour - Kevlar has great opportunities for civilian uses. GPS is critical to civilian life too. The discovery of aluminium as a ignition source that offers almost 100% more thrust than conventional explosives allows missiles to be smaller but also allows space exploration to be more feasible as rockets can carry more and be smaller.
So military research allows for discoveries that can be applied to civilian platforms to give the countries economy a huge boost.

I am waiting for the fruits of nanotechnology from US or European researchers to give great results for civilian applications such as cloud seeding, absorbing polutants, repairing human tissue or even in manufacturing to compete with China and Indias huge cheap labour.

I am also excited about robotic technology that can also allow small populations to offer a cheaper alternative to Chinas and Indias cheap human labour but this I think will most likely come from Japanese or South Korean advances.

The reason why the Japanese have a pacifist government is because it was imposed upon them by the United States after WWII. It was written into the Japanese constitution that the Japanese could only have a defensive military which curbed most of the Japanese military spending. At the same time they didn't need to worry about getting involved in the nuclear arms race of the Cold War because they were protected by the US nuclear envelope.

This is beginning to change as China pursues a modernized military and the Japanese take on more deployments for the UN. If you look at Japanese military spending over the past few years you will see that it is going up and they are pursuing more military assets.

It takes many to pacify a country, but only one to arm it.

lmao. i have to agree with you on this.