That amount of money works out to £ 3.33 per living human being! Rich or Homeless.
That will guarantee that every single person can have a meal for at the least 1 night (UK), ranging to months possibly??? in worse off countries! That’s at least 6 nights in South Africa, to give u an idea! I worked it out on 6 000 000 000 people divided by £20 000 000 000 Sad that it might actually be justifiable! I doubt it though. Ref Article: "£ 20bn is 'price of keeping us safe'" METRO 5 Dec 06
2006-12-05 06:55:58 · 17 answers · asked by Rodney J 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
What I find sad is that ANY nation has to spend money on defense. The US spends much more than that but I would rather spend the money on defense than to recover from another day like 9/11/01. Defense is necessary, whether we like it or not. It comes down to what is a life worth to you. If cutting defense costs a life, I can't say it was worth it. Can you?
2006-12-05 07:09:14 · answer #1 · answered by Lorrie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
properly area of it has to do with them being the richest u . s . a . in the worldwide. inspite of debt problems the U. S. has the optimum GDP in the worldwide. the only u . s . a . that comes close is China and you would be conscious that their protection stress spending is on the boost per annum. In 2010 the chinese language protection stress value variety substitute into US$seventy seven.ninety 5 billion. In 2011 that's US$ninety one.5 billion. the U. S. is a extensive u . s . a . and that they have got greater to guard than maximum worldwide places do. there is likewise that element called the chilly conflict which brought about extensive protection stress build united statesby employing the U. S. and the Soviet Union. As a proportion of GDP the U. S. certainly spends much less now than it did throughout the top of the chilly conflict. basic experience truly.
2016-12-18 07:55:45 · answer #2 · answered by salgueiro 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may be 3.33 worth of foods to an individual, but if England don't get with the program and beef up its munitions, she might find one day theres nobody left to spend that 3.33 in food.
Dammit England wake up! Theres bad guys and evil people who just wanna take over a country, set up shop and threaten humanity!
Its not IF, its WHEN...deterents are a first step. Build Them up.
2006-12-05 07:35:18 · answer #3 · answered by Diadem 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Without the 20 bn spent on defense UK would not be able to lend the support that it does already and would be attacked by some foreign entity who would not even put one tuppence toward feeding anyone.
2006-12-05 06:59:32 · answer #4 · answered by El Pistolero Negra 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
how is it England's job to feed the world?
it's England's job to protect its citizens thats why £20 bn is spent on defense per year
2006-12-05 06:59:39 · answer #5 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Ok, and after the few days or months, then what? That's a very simplistic way of approaching policy judgements.
2006-12-05 07:05:54 · answer #6 · answered by The Scorpion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I smell another Cold War coming....if the Berlin Wall goes back up I want OFF this planet
2006-12-05 06:58:58 · answer #7 · answered by Snarky 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why would you wanna keep feeding poor people, so they multiply and keep having more poor people - isnt that like feeding cockroaches so they will have more cockroaches? Hey Man, life stinks sometimes - survival of the fittest.
2006-12-05 08:08:14 · answer #8 · answered by Baghdad Pete ! 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
you do realise there would be immense transportation costs involved, and that america spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. should you really be asking about them
2006-12-05 07:03:57 · answer #9 · answered by supremecritic 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What is really sad is when people have children even though they don't have the means to feed them.
2006-12-05 08:51:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋