About One Week of US Military Spending Would Wipe Out World Hunger

Anthony Gucciardi
by
June 24th, 2013
Updated 06/27/2013 at 2:26 am

What does it take to end world hunger? About one week of United States military spending, according to the pile of data on the subject. 

As continued reports of expensive and devastating military drone strikes roll in from overseas, which have actually taken the lives of US citizens in addition to countless innocents, virtually no one is talking about the very realistic expense of literally solving world hunger. An overall expense that has been calculated to be about $30 billion per year. To put that into perspective for you, the US military spent $737 billion on ‘military defense’ in 2012.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that it is not the ‘job’ of the United States populace and government to go around saving the word in every manner, but it’s especially not the job of the nation to be policing the world through military dominance based on fabrications and laughable WMD allegations. The bloated military budget is funding things like drone strikes on innocents (to which the real figures have been scrubbed by the Air Force), the continuation of an excessive 1,000 or so military bases around the globe, and a series of new wars brought upon by political rhetoric.

But it’s not even about the military budget.

As The Borgen Project notes on their website, feeding the world actually offers benefits beyond the basic moral implications (that most corporations and politicians couldn’t care less about). Even the Los Angeles Times has written about how spending the 30 billion to annihilate the massive worldwide starvation crisis, or perhaps even a fraction of it for less, would generate business on a level that would trump virtually any form of economic ‘recovery’ that may be hiding behind the next financial meltdown scare.

We’re talking about a new revolution of individuals who were previously unable to work, let alone walk, now providing economic value to the world. Perhaps most importantly, we’re talking about a method that could solve the highly complicated immigration problem once and for all. An initiative that could ultimately save many more billions from this fact alone.

Solving The Immigration Problem

The inherent problem regarding immigration is extremely simple: more people want to get into the United States and other developed nations than can be let in for reasons of economy, stability, and otherwise. But why do they want to get into these nations? Well, for one we’re talking about people who live in third world scenarios, and they are living a poor lifestyle. But an even larger issue which affects billions is the lack of basic food and water. Now we’re talking billions, and virtually everyone’s ‘answer’ in this situation is to go ahead and move somewhere else like the United States — oftentimes done so illegally.

Now instead of doing something ludicrous¬†like letting the hundreds of millions/billions of hopeful immigrants into the country and suffering the inevitable destruction of the nation’s infrastructure, you can actually go in and fix at least some issues with where these people are coming from. The $30 billion that goes into solving world hunger, for example, may be enough to cause inhabitants of third world nations to instead stay in their present countries. To instead take up employment within that nation, and therefore expand that economy.

Through generating reasons to stay, this effectively reduces the number of those who would seek to game the system of the developed world and come into developed nations as illegal immigrants. And over time, it drastically improves the wealth and infrastructure of the nations themselves.

Will this ever come to fruition? Will the corrupt corporate-owned government ever dish out enough cash to potentially fix the root issue of this problem? Not unless we force them to through activism. But to have the knowledge is the first step, and knowing that just a bit over one week of military spending could alleviate world hunger for around a billion people is indeed a powerful amount of knowledge.

Share Button

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Injustice, War

Anthony Gucciardi

About the Author ()

Google Plus Profile Anthony Gucciardi is the creator of Storyleak, accomplished writer, producer, and seeker of truth. His articles have been read by millions worldwide and are routinely featured on major alternative news websites like Drudge Report, Infowars, NaturalNews, G Edward Griffin's Reality Zone, and many others. He is also a founding member of the third largest alternative health site in the world, NaturalSociety.com.

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. If you want to solve the hunger issue (or the war issue) globally then why not start with determining what a human beings intellect and labor is worth. For thousands of years we have allowed those who would rule us to dictate our worth by bestowing on us a "minimum wage".

    For the first time in history we have an actual minimum number for a humans worth for his/her intellect and/or labor. It's called the Human Energy Renewable Measurement. Like time or temperature, the HERM is a measurement. Want to stop hunger worldwide and improve quality of life globally? Let people know what they are worth. Check out the HERM on Wikipedia.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Energy_Renewab

  2. Rain says:

    I wish they would do it, but sadly they don't care about us

  3. ifonly says:

    Shared

  4. @PeacePoll says:

    It's great to point this out, but $30bn vs. $737bn is 15 days, not 8 days. It's a real shame that the author weakens his credibility this way.

  5. Misty says:

    Hi Anthony, can I get a source for the $30 Billion calculation please? It just seems so hopeless, and yet, relatively speaking it's such a small number. I'd like to see the how of it.

  6. Robert Counts says:

    This one week of military spending by the U.S. that would wipe out world hunger would allow America's enemies to wipe out America! Then, the world would be tortured and hungry with it!

    Anthony Gucciardi and Jeff Too are foolish men! Jeff Too hates the Jewish people and would like to see them exterminated as did Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Islam who met with Hitler and approved the extermination of the Jews!

  7. Oscar says:

    Mr. Gucciardi, as much as I would like to believe in your optimistic scenario where a simple diversion of a small portion of US military spending (about one week, you say?) can alleviate the problem of world hunger that is so persistent amongst the poverty-ridden third countries, you must understand that the social conditions that exists in those countries are not simply a matter of purely economic concern; in countries such as Nigeria or the Central African Republic (to name a few examples; this list is not meant to be exhaustive), political turmoil means that the logistical infrastructure and set up that is required for a effective food distribution network to materialize simply does not exist. It is not possible to solve the problem of world hunger simply by throwing money at it. A well renowned point of contention made by humanitarians all over the world is the widely known fact that there exists enough food in the world to alleviate hunger; however, how is it possible for us to expect to deliver that food to an impoverished African family living in the interiors of his/her impoverished county, where even simple dirt roads do not exist, and if they do, contain numerous check points managed by renegade soldiers armed with AK47s?

    The problem lies with logistics, not money. And to develop the infrastructure needed for a effective food distribution network, we need a working economy capable of building such a network. For such a working economy to exist, we need a stable political government that can bring about law and order to those societies. Thus it is purely politics that poses the greatest hurdle to world hunger — not because of a lack of monetary contributions.

    However, I understand that the main point you were trying to make in your article has to do with the obligation, if you will, of richer countries in promoting a higher standard of living in developing countries. On that point, I agree with you 100%. It is in the interest of richer, developed nations to improve living standards in poor, impoverished countries. By doing so, richer nations are making a long-term investment and commitment in uplifting the rest of humanity to our current standards of living, which really needs no good reason other than the fact that it is the humane thing to do.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *