How can we reduce global military expenses?Because the military reserve has a negative goal of maintaining its own safety, it is unrealistic to require a country to reduce military expenses alone.A reasonable strategy is to coordinate between the world, especially the great powers, and sign a treaty to gradually reduce military expenses in an open, transparent, and verified manner.In fact, this coordination is not impossible. The control of large -scale killing weapons is a more successful case.
The world situation is becoming increasingly tense. Many countries are increasing military expenditures, which has exacerbated the sense of insecurity and the tension of the international situation, leading to a vicious circle.This vicious cycle is both negative and game, but also the absolute internal roll of global military expenditures. Although global military expenses have increased, the global sense of security has not improved, but has declined.This can't help but reflect: Is these military expenses worth it?With this issue, I checked the global military expenditure.In 2023, the budget of the top 20 countries around the world was US $ 1782.2 billion (about S $ 23.93.2 billion).Coupled with the military expenses of other countries and the hidden military expenses of various countries (such as the national security department's expenditure for foreign countries can be regarded as military expenditures), the total global military expense budget in 2023 is estimated to be $ 3 trillion, which may not be an exaggeration.If so, the global per capita military expenditure is about $ 400.
According to investment logic, the income must be greater than the cost.In addition, as an investment, the return rate of military expenses must be far greater than normal commercial investment, which is reasonable.Because military expenditure investment is to obtain benefits with real or imaginary war behaviors. Compared with the equivalent military expenses and commercial investment, military expenses include the direct costs of commercial investment (manifested as military expenses), as well as indirect risk costs that commercial investment do not havePolitical risks, life risks, etc.), so the actual total cost is far greater than commercial investment.For example, under the limited liability system, the maximum loss of a $ 10 billion commercial investment is $ 10 billion.However, if a country loses a war that directly invests 10 billion US dollars, it may also pay indirect costs such as cutting land, compensation, and dead country.
Because the indirect risk cost of the war is too large, it can be said that the war -based annual yield (including short -term and long -term yields) with less than 100%is not cost -effective.This means that the $ 3 trillion military expenditure should receive at least $ 6 trillion in revenue a year. It is a cost -effective and rational investment (specific valuation can be adjusted).
From this, you can ask: How much returns do countries and global military expenses produced?For example, the US military expenditure budget in 2023 was $ 877 billion, and the hidden military expenditure expenditure was estimated to be $ 1 trillion.Can it produce $ 2 trillion in revenue and make a profit of $ 1 trillion?I am very doubtful for this.
Some people may defend the global huge military expenditure: military expenditure expenditure should consider two goals, first of all, negative goals, that is, to avoid being aggressive and maintain national security; secondlyOthers and maintenance of international order.Therefore, if a country does not armed himself, it may be invaded, causing huge losses and cannot achieve negative goals.This defense is reasonable for military expenditure for the previous (the dividing line of the World War II or the 1970s), but today is outdated for today.
The Basic Logic of the War of the Human Great Change
Why is it difficult to eliminate war?Because war is an important means for groups (including the country) to obtain wealth.
Before World War II, because land was the most important source of wealth, it became the most important goal of war in war. Many war were directly or indirectly related to land. The territory and geographical disputes between countries were surrounded by land.Although the cost and risk of war are huge, the benefits may also be extremely high, so humans cannot get rid of the war.This is the basic logic of war.This logic determines that a strong arms (manifested as high military expenses) has great rationality.
However, the big change of human changes with scientific and technological progress as the first driving force is subverted to this basic logic.
One of the important performances of the current big change is that the wealth production mode has undergone tremendous changes: since the 1970s, the interaction of factors such as technological progress and the improvement of global trade rules, etc., which has greatly changed wealth production methods, science, technology, capital and managementThe importance of importance (weight) is increasing, and the importance of territorial and geographic factors has declined significantly, which has shown macro globalization characteristics in the era of the post -territory and even the post -land era.
The advent of the post -territory era has made wealth production increasingly getting rid of space restrictions and localization (although it still depends on land, it no longer depends on specific territories, and no longer depends on specific land), thereby reducing the cost of wealth acquisition.This means that human beings have obtained technology and business capabilities that can avoid war and achieve war purposes, and make war a huge cost but a serious reduction in investment behavior.
This is the essence of the basic logic of the human change to subvert the war.
From this, it can be compared. Before World War II, the localization of the production of technical conditions means that as much as possible to occupy land and control the geography, it is a way to maximize wealth returns.Typical examples, such as the end of the 19th century to the end of World War II, Japan's aggression, colonial Chinese land, and development resources.But in the contemporary era, the former World War was launched by the country such as Germany and Japan's globalization (again) to become developed countries, so it is difficult for us to imagine that they will launch the war of aggression again in order to obtain wealth.In the same way, before World War II, people could not imagine that there were lack of resources such as Singapore and South Korea, and they could use globalization to become developed countries like today.From this, you can ask: Is it necessary for a country to have a good life through the development of economy and trade and live a good life?Does this mean that the possibility of war is significantly reduced?In the same way, it is even more difficult for us to imagine that the northern northern nation will once again plunder and aggressor south like ancient times.
From the perspective of the large historical scale, although there are still many wars and conflicts after World War II, in fact, after World War II, it is a period of peace in human history and a period of unprecedented development.The key reason is that human beings have the ability to transcend the land and geopolitics and carry out wealth production.In this sense, war is unnecessary.In other words, it was impossible for humans to have no war before, but humans in the Geographic Age after the territory may not have war (this refers to traditional hot war, excluding trade war, public opinion war, etc.).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the change of human change has severely weakened the value of the tools of war.
Contemporary mainstream cognitive logic is disconnected from factual logic
Since the value of the tools of war has been severely weakened, is it necessary to maintain huge military expenses that directly serve reality or potential war?——Bing obviously not.So, what is the reason to drive countries to maintain huge military expenses?——The backwardness of cognition leads to serious disconnection of cognitive logic and factual logic.
A point of view of Pretto, which is summarized by political scholar S.E. FINER: "Specific political acts do not depend on the true and false of a proposition, but depend on people's views on these behaviors." This principleApplicable to all areas.The basis for people's behavior is not a fact, but cognition.Although the world has actually entered the post -territory in the post -territory (fact logic), the world still adheres to the traditional territory view, geography, and war concept (cognitive logic).) It is the key reason why the world still maintains huge military expenses.In addition, this cognitive error is also the basis of the concept of the Russian and Ukraine War and the Taiwan Strait crisis ("The stupidity of the Geographical Age and the Russian and Ukraine War in the Russian and Ukraine War of the Russian and Ukraine War", June 6, 2023To.
Improvement strategy
On the one hand, increase military expenses will only fall into the vicious circle of "increase in military expenses -rising sense of insecurity -international situation tensions". In this sense, maintaining huge military expenses or even increasing military expenses is not a foolishness?On the other hand, reducing military expenses in various countries will definitely achieve a virtuous circle of "reduction in military expenses -rising security -international order", which canIncreasing global security and increasing human benefits is beneficial to all countries.Therefore, should countries work together?
How can we reduce global military expenses?Because the military reserve has a negative goal of maintaining its own safety, it is unrealistic to require a country to reduce military expenses alone.A reasonable strategy is to coordinate between the world, especially the great powers, and sign a treaty to gradually reduce military expenses in an open, transparent, and verified manner.This coordination is not impossible. The control of large -scale killing weapons is a more successful case.
But can countries around the world effectively cooperate?With the help of Einstein, which is widely circulated, the stupidity of human beings: "There are only two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the infiniteness of the universe."madness.
The author is a professor at the School of International Relations of Sichuan University
