(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
Dear Fredrik Solvang and NRK. Thank you for exciting debates.
I wonder if you dare to raise the question of what is security today? Can the world defend itself against today's threats with weapons, or make it impossible instead militaryt defend what most people want, namely human security (from disease, distress, poverty, war, environmental and natural disaster…)?
Over NOK 16 billion last year.
SIPRI, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, compiles annual statistics on how much money is spent on defense. Over NOK 16 billion last year. Such high numbers have never existed before, not even at the peak of the previous Cold War.
US military spending is greater than the next 10 countries on the list combined. NATO is by far the world's largest military power – and expanding out of its original territory. Russia is the size of France.
In comparison, the UN's regular budget is about 1/600 of the world's military budget and 8 days of the military budget would provide 12 years of free quality education to all the children of the world. With a reduction of approx. 10% annually, we would be able to achieve all the Sustainability Goals. If we want world peace, we can not transfer the military and the UN, which will help us build fred by peaceful means. If we want peace, we must prepare for peace, not war.
Weapons have become much more dangerous, faster, and easier to use, at sea, on land, in the air, and in space. The nine nuclear-weapon countries are now upgrading, as is China, which for many years did not spend much money on it arms and not at all at war. The United States and Russia have about the same number nuclear weapons. We who are under NATO's "nuclear defense umbrella" are gagged and do not even dare to support the UN's new nuclear ban. The five permanent members of the Security Council all have nuclear weapons and are among the largest military forces.
This autumn's choice
For those of us who are scared and angry because of the enormous rearmament in the West, in Norway and also in the rest of the world (apart from Africa and South America), there does not seem to be any alternative before this autumn's election.
In the preliminary party programs, no party in the Storting is in favor disarmament. The female foreign policy spokespersons also appear as hawks, even though women have been strong anti-war activists over the centuries. Only the minimal communist party talks about disarmament. Rødt and SV, which probably want out of NATO, still want armaments, but not NATO's out-of-area attack wars. They want a strong Nordic military defense. The others support NATO's nuclear-based, aggressive "defense policy" with min. Two percent of gross national product for military purposes.
Rødt and SV want rearmament.
Not even the MDGs seem to worry about the huge one pollutionone from the military, or the enormous consumption of natural resources. The military sector has been exempted from orders to reduce environmental toxins from the environmental conferences in Rio and Kyoto, and the Paris Agreement uses neutral language – but with earlier, underlying, "exceptionality" for military defense. The war industry's consumption of rare minerals and energy is very large. The military and the oil industry are closely linked.
Debate between all parties
It would have been very useful and enlightening for people with a debate between all parties about what kind of security they want to give the people. Do they think an outdated and life-threatening military system is more important than strengthening the health service (also against devastating pandemics) and meeting people's needs – for education, work, housing, infrastructure and culture?
Should this be of interest, I would be happy to send more references and references, and the whole starving peace movement is certainly at your service with more information.
