Nuclear race: a waste of money

Although economic crises and natural disasters have caused damage to the global economy, the damage caused by expenditure on developing nuclear weapons and the nuclear arms race is much worse.

It seems the leaders of nuclear countries have realised this fact under the pressure of the global financial meltdown.

US President Barack Obama presented a draft resolution last month that calls to ban the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

His proposal is based on the fact that when it comes to nuclear war there will be no winners. The US president earlier suggested that nuclear arms be gradually phased out.

If this is the case, then what is the point of spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually since the end of the Second World War on lethal weapons that cannot be used.

Lack of resources

There is a huge expenditure on nuclear armament at a time many parts of the world are still suffering from hunger, poverty, disease, backwardness and lack of life essentials.

The advanced world has discovered this fact after 60 years of wasting money, effort and expertise which could have been devoted to scientific and economic progress.

Unfortunately, the developing world does not want to learn a lesson from this experience that cost mankind dearly.

At a time the developed countries are seeking to get rid of their nuclear arms, many developing countries are trying to join the nuclear club.

In doing so, these countries are ignoring the lack of resources and services in their economies and the problems suffered by their societies, the most important of which is unemployment.

Will it take another 60 years for developing countries to be convinced of Obama's view that nuclear weapons cannot be used and must be ruled out?

Regretfully, by 2070 these countries will have lost precious development opportunities.

It is obvious that developed countries are determined to discard their nuclear arms gradually. This will help them speed up growth rates, improve living conditions and reduce unemployment.

Also, such a tendency will lead to concentration on scientific research, especially in medicine to find remedies for lethal diseases.

Here, a question arises about helping poor countries which were badly affected when their resources were utilised for producing nuclear weapons in the past decades, especially in the cases when the development of these weapons started during the western domination of natural resources of those countries.

It is well known that getting rid of atomic weapons is costly, just like their production and maintenance.

Yet, this does not mean overlooking the possibility of allocating part of the resources used in manufacturing nuclear weapons to help developing countries which have started to export their problems to other countries in different ways and means.

The annual budget of the US Department of Defence exceeds $500 billion (Dh1,836 billion) a huge portion of which is spent on the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

If we assume that half of this budget is allocated for nuclear arms, then the allocation of only five per cent means investing an annual amount of $12.5 billion into the development of poor countries.

If this is the case in the US alone, what would it be on an international level? Of course, this amount will increase to contribute effectively to helping developing countries overcome many economic and social challenges, and eliminate famine, disease and epidemics that hit these countries at present due to the lack of medical, curative and educational services.

In the meantime, countries which seek to join the nuclear club or those which joined recently must learn from the experience of advanced countries to preserve their resources and devote them in the service of developing their societies and fulfilling their requirements in the 21st century — which is characterised by open markets and heated competition.

The initiative by Obama, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, to have a world free from nuclear arms, opens up new horizons for all world countries to benefit from the new approaches of the US administration.

The administration is seriously seeking to comprehend changes in international relations and the end of the 20 year domination of the single magnate.

— Dr Mohammad Al Asoomi is a UAE economic expert.