Recently I started watching Iron Man the movie. I haven't finished it yet, but what I've seen so far has made me think about the impacts that weapons manufacturers have on the world and war. People keep developing weapons that can kill in a more sophisticated manner. In some ways, I believe that this is necessary. It's slightly ironic, but it could be possible that having weapons is actually a prerequisite to peace. Because if somebody wants power, and they get there hands on weapons, then somebody else will also need to have weapons in order to stop them. But if nobody made weapons in the first place, and nobody had weapons, then there wouldn't be a problem. But won't humans never feel safe unless they have weapons to protect themselves, because they believe that everybody else has weapons to? But doesn't it become overkill eventually. Doesn't the USA have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the earth ten times over? Why is it necessary to have this many weapons. And what about the people who work for the weapon's manufacturers. How do they feel about their line of work? Are they okay with it as long as they only sell to countries that will use it for good? But, like in Iron Man, some weapons will fall into the wrong hands, or are sold to them. Either way, people will die. Another question is, will creating more advanced weaponry decrease the amount of deaths or increase them? Would it be better if we resorted to having men line up with their swords across from each other, and the last side standing the victor? Wouldn't this shed less blood than dropping a nuclear bomb onto somebody? How can weapon's manufacturers answer these moral dilemmas and come to peace with them selves?
6 comments:
Kyle,
I thought that this blog about weapons was very interesting. I had just been thinking about this the other day! Nuclear weapons are CONSTANTLY in the news/media because they are affecting politics greatly. Presidential candidates are having to answer questions about nuclear weapons and how their relationships will be with countries who are in possession of them. On one hand, I'm scared that Iran and some of these countries with dictators have the power to blow up countries, and I'm glad we are working with them to reduce or eliminate their production. However, on the other hand, I wonder why we (the U.S.A.)think we have the power to decide who is allowed to have nuclear weapons and who isn't. We have nuclear weapons, so why wouldn't we expect for other countries to follow our example? I know the answer is that we are allowed to have nuclear weapons because we have a (somewhat) stable government, and these other countries do not. I just wonder how we are viewed by other countries when we tell them that WE are allowed the weapons, but THEY'RE not. I think that that probably makes them pretty mad. I, personally, am a little scared with all of this nuclear weapon production. Hopefully, the governments of countries will start to work out treaties. Until then, let's just hope Iran doesn't decide to bomb us off the map!
Kyle,
Gatling, the inventor of the first automatic gun, the Gatling Gun, thought that by creating a better weapon he would save lives by reducing the need for as many soldiers. Little did he know...
I think you touch on two very different ideas when dealing with the same umbrella title "weapons manufacturers."
First are the domestic weapons manufacturing giants with big time Department of Defense contracts. Companies such as these, domestically and internationally, manufacture most of the weapons across the world. Iron Man creates a fantastical character based on weapons developers and the like who work on creating the weapons of the future. Although some men like the character probably do exist, there's a reason it's a comic book superhero movie and not a documentary.
Second are the illegal arms transporters and states, such as China, who ship large amounts of weapons to rebels and insurgents, in places such as Darfur, to promote or protect US interests. The US of A has a long history of such activities, the first example I thought of being the Kennedys and Cuba. In to this category fall underground dealers in high-grade uranium and other potentially catastrophic weapons and weapons-grade materials. These people do not manufacture weapons, but do make them deadlier.
Certainly there is some moral conflict in creating things to be used to kill, but often having a better weapon is a matter of life or death for the good guys, and they make more than a pretty penny. It's immaterial whether better weapons save lives, the bottomline is that weapons are inevitable, as are people who will try to use them against us. We just have to stop those people from getting weapons in the first place, and fantastic weapons help us do that.
Mitch
Kyle!
I really like your idea for the blog! I feel the same way! Why do we need guns and weapons at all? To control the OTHER people with weapons and guns?? Shouldn't we just eliminate them all? Well, the controversy is that people in unsafe places feel like they NEED a gun. I don't personally think eliminating guns would stop people from killing each other...they'll find ways...but maybe all the lazy people wouldn't take the time to figure out a way and just go on with their lives instead of actually doing damage.
Kyle,
This post is really interesting in the fact that you address it on a multidude of levels. I really enjoyed it because it reminds me of a debate argument I heard today and yesterday. Hegemony, sumed up in two words, is American prodominence. It can be good because Hegemony is argued to be stabalizing; we keep a check on countries and keep conflicts to a minimum. Hegemony can also be problematic in the fact that other countries also strive to be global leaders, and thus, inevitable wars would break out due to fighting to be the world's great power. What is an important debate in itself connected to this issue is is hegemony inevitable? That's where I felt that you made a uniquely compelling argument. Are weapon manufactoring going to continue inevitably? Could all the nations just stop? It's a great argument that swings both sides in debate, so bravo. :D
_Alyssa
Kyle,
Wow, this entry was VERY thought provoking for me. You came up with a very solid central topic, but enhanced it with a number of very good questions which made it even better.
I think weapons are necessary to keep peace in a world like todays, where there is essentially one single world power. Weapons serve as a deterrent to other countries, reminding them that if they become too aggressive, they stand a good chance of being hit pretty hard. However, this strategy only works when this central power's government/leader is not evil or corrupt. You can not have someone who puts his/her own beliefs or wishes above his/her countries or the world's interests sitting on top of tons of weapons.
I could probably go on forever on this topic, since there are so many different ways you could answer the questions you brought up. Again, great post!
Kyle-
Your blog post was very interesting. I've seen Iron Man too, and although I can't honestly say I made the connections you did, you've really made me think about the moral questions behind weapons. I personally think we'd be much better off if weapons were never invented, or at least not so advanced. Of course, the ideal situation would be that nobody would have the desire to harm others...but, we all know this is ridiculous. The fact is, weapons do exist, and they have advanced rapidly and will continue to advance, causing more and more destruction. The sad thing is that there is no simple solution. Otherwise, it would have been discovered. People are going to do what they want to do with whatever's available to them, and if nuclear bombs are available, then there's no way of getting them out of the wrong hands. It's just going to happen.
-Kate
Post a Comment