Archive for November, 2010

November 2010 Newsletter

newsletter0

Last year, the world spent $1.53 trillion dollars on the military. That is an almost inconceivable number. To put this number in perspective, the World Food Summit estimates that $30 billion a year could eradicate world hunger. That’s what the world spends on the military in a single week. We can’t afford this price tag. We have too many other priorities that require our money: poverty, climate change, job creation. It’s time for people all over the world to come together and say no to the generals and the military contractors.

Click here for Spanish version

Fact Sheet: Military Spending vs. Millennium Development Goals

mdg2

The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.The following graphs demonstrate the extent to which military spending eclipses all other global priorities. The estimated cost of compliance with all eight United Nations Millennium Development Goals are eclipsed by yearly military spending figures.

Defense Trims: Why Not?

Eugene Robinson 2

Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.Bowles and Simpson properly classify defense spending as discretionary, meaning we are able to make choices. This should be axiomatic. But it has been Republican Party orthodoxy to inveigh against “big government” and its out-of-control spending while blithely ignoring the nearly $700 billion we’re lavishing annually on the Pentagon, as if every penny were somehow preordained and inviolate.

Video: What Is $1.6 Trillion Worth?

numbers

At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.At the expense of pressing global priorities in health, hunger, and education, the world spent about $1.6 trillion on the military in 2010. In order to appreciate just how big that number is, we added up what it would cost to address several other global problems — and didn’t even come close.

Video: Cultures of Resistance: A Look at Global Militarization

CORfeatureimage

In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”In 2009, the United States government spent some $650 billion on its military. This is more than the next 46 highest-spending countries combined. Much of this treasure ended up in the hands of profit-driven weapons manufacturers. In the following short film, Cultures of Resistance takes a brief look at the current state of what President Eisenhower famously called the “military industrial complex.”

Catfood Commission Provides Opening for Defense Cuts to Go Mainstream

erskine-bowles-alan-simpson-111010jpg-24f9447578932205

Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.Exceeding the expectations of many arms control advocates, the deficit panel commissioned by President Obama earlier this year has actually proposed $100 billion in cuts to the Pentagon budget (do consult Miriam Pemberton’s brief treatment of its pros and cons). The cuts come primarily from unnecessary weapons procurements, overseas basing, and health care benefits for military families.

Military Spending Takes Its Place At The Table

obama-f-22-defense-budget

Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.Sustainable Defense Task Force member and IPS fellow Miriam Pemberton evaluates the pros and cons of the deficit panel’s recommended defense cuts.