What do you think about the imposition of an arms embargo on countries which are continuously involved in conflicts, have dictator regimes or are involved in subversive activities?

Would it be a good idea to limit the amount of arms available?

Might it cut down on civilian casualties?

How would one go about implementing such a thing?

Can arms purchase be monitored accurately?

Lastly, based on the following figures, would such an embargo be acceptable to the UN Security Council?

The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

* The French Republic
* The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)
* The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
* The United States of America
* The Republic of China

Top arms sales in 2004

United States $18,500,000,000
Russia $4,600,000,000
France $4,400,000,000
United Kingdom $1,900,000,000
Germany $900,000,000
Canada $900,000,000
China $700,000,000
Israel $500,000,000

The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, selling more weapons than the next 14 countries combined. Military sales account for about 18 percent of the national budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any other nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP. According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries.

What do you think?

How would you enforce it? Terrorist groups that we all hate have no trouble getting all the weapons they can handle. A nation, with its budget, spies, and international corporate networking, could buy anything short of nukes.

I was wondering that too, which is why I put it out.

It was based on this article
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153292003067&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

What % of arms sales of other nations go to developing countries?

How would you stop the traffic in illegal arms? Or let me put the same question in another way: how would you stop the high-level bribery and corruption that sees legal arms diverted into the hands of all kinds of unsavoury characters? To do so, someone is going to have to take on and win a battle against some of the most powerful and influential people in the world. Only when governments and big business start putting people before greed will this happen.

Incidentally, how would a reduction in the flow of illegal arms reduce civilian casualties. Most of the civilians killed in the current conflict were killed by arms that are all-too-legal.

What % of arms sales of other nations go to developing countries?http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/politics/30weapons.html?ex=1283054400&en=3cfe3f671fb60922&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

The United States once again dominated global weapons sales, signing deals worth $12.4 billion in 2004, or 33.5 percent of all contracts worldwide. But that was down from $15.1 billion in 2003.

The share of American arms contracts specifically with developing nations was $6.9 billion in 2004, or 31.6 percent of all such deals, up slightly from $6.5 billion in 2003.

Russia was second in global arms sales, with $6.1 billion in agreements, or 16.5 percent of all such contracts, a notable increase from its $4.4 billion in sales in 2003. In 2004, Russia signed arms transfer deals worth $5.9 billion with the developing world, 27.1 percent of the global total, up from $4.3 billion in 2003.

Britain was third in arms transfer agreements to the developing world in 2004, signing contracts worth $3.2 billion, while Israel ranked fourth, with deals worth $1.2 billion. France followed with $1 billion.

How would you stop the traffic in illegal arms? Or let me put the same question in another way: how would you stop the high-level bribery and corruption that sees legal arms diverted into the hands of all kinds of unsavoury characters? To do so, someone is going to have to take on and win a battle against some of the most powerful and influential people in the world. Only when governments and big business start putting people before greed will this happen.
Hi Red
Yes, you are right, of course. And if the sanctions are to be imposed by the UN Security Council, it would be the same countries who are supplying the arms in the first place.

Incidentally, how would a reduction in the flow of illegal arms reduce civilian casualties. Most of the civilians killed in the current conflict were killed by arms that are all-too-legal.

The idea is to have an embargo on all sales of arms I think, legal and otherwise.