In order to make up for the lack of domestic consumption newer markets are to be explored and also created, if necessary, by the manufacturing countries. The US, Russia, France and Britain do the most business in arms trade in the world. Sometimes, these arms sales are made secretly, and sometimes openly, to human rights violaters, military dictatorships and corrupt governments.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute's (Sipri) 2006 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security has made some interesting revelations in this regard. World military expenditure in 2005 is estimated to have reached $1001bn at constant prices and exchange rates, or $1118bn in current dollars. This corresponds to 2.5 per cent of the world's GDP, or an average spending of $173 per capita. This expenditure presents a real term increase of 3.4 percent since 2004, and 34 percent over the 10 year period between 1996-2005.

The US, responsible for about 80 percent increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world's total. The US being the most formidable military power of the world, it is worth taking a look at its spending.

Generally speaking, the US military spending has been on the increase since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. While FY 2008 budget requests for the US military spending are known the most recent data is from 2005. Using this data, we can compare US military spending with the rest of the world's.

The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender, and was two-fifth of the total. The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six rogue" states i.e. Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria and Sudan, which spent a total of $14.65bn.

The US's military expenditure was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations. The United States and its close allies i.e. the Nato countries, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Israel, accounted for some two-third to three-quarters of all military spending across the world. The "rogues," or potential "enemies," as well as Russia and China together spent $139bn, which is only 30 percent of the US military budget.

In spite of the massive military spending, particularly by the US, compared to cold war levels the amount of military spending and expenditure in most nations has been reduced. For example, global military spending declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $809bn in 1998, though in 2005 it had risen to almost $1 trillion.

The US's spending up to 2007 was reduced compared to cold war levels, though still close to cold war levels. Supporters of America's high military expenditure argue that using raw dollar is not a fair measure, instead it should be per capita, or as percentage of GDP, and relative peace and prosperity for themselves.

But what is ignored in that argument is whether the policies pursued breed contempt, an euphuism for anti-Americanism, or resorting to terrorism and other forms of hatred. Unfortunately, more powerful countries have also pursued policies that have contributed to more poverty, and at times have even overthrown fledging democracies in favour of dictatorship or more malleable democracies.

So, the global good hegemony theory may help justify high spending for a number of other countries, but it does not necessarily apply to the whole world. To be fair, this criticism can also be simplistic, especially if an empire finds itself against a competitor with similar ambitions. That risks polarising the world, and answers are difficult to find.

In this new era, traditional military threats to the US are remote. None of their enemies, former enemies, and even allies, pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that the most likely form of threat to United States world be terrorists actions rather than conventional war, and that the spending is still geared towards cold war-type scenario and other such conventional confrontations.

It seems ironic that the United States spends more on things which destroy, yet this world power was at the forefront in founding the United Nations on the basis of its commitment to the preservation of peace through international cooperation and collective security. And, if we compare the military spending with the entire budget of United Nations, we will be surprised to find that the United Nations and all its agencies and funds spend only about $20bn each year.

The UN's entire budget is just a tiny fraction of the world's military expenditure, approximately 2 percent. For the past about two decades the UN has faced financial difficulties, and it has been forced to cut back on important programmes in all areas.

In his book "Roads to freedom" Bertrand Russel writes, "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinise it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming he will refuse to believe it." In recent years, we have seen that military spending has diverted valuable economic means toward a dangerous direction and wasteful production which may satisfy the instincts of a few war mongers, but a vast majority of the world is asking for the over whelming evidence.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.