The Pros And Cons Of Militarize The Attic

587 Words3 Pages

Currently, multiple countries have decided to militarize the Arctic in order to fight for their place in the pot of gold, or the benefits that they can reap from the Arctic. However, the militarization should not occur, as there are many things that could be potentially harmful in the process. Economics and other environmental concerns play a big factor in the face of things. Things that may be considered mild, will build up, and crash like a tsunami. The Arctic should be demilitarized because of all of the possible environmental damage the militarization could cause, and the effects it could have on our ecosystem. When anyone looks at the Arctic region, they see beautiful mountains and wilderness. Now look in the future, and imagine walking around, and just staring at the nuclear wasteland, barren of the past beauty. If this committee continues to let all of these countries to militarize the Arctic, then this future might be a reality. This is because of the destructive potential that the militarization can hold. It is highly possible that any weapon of mass destruction could be used, and would absolutely obliterate much of the environment. When a huge quantity of people moves somewhere in a short time, it is hard to govern everyone’s activity. “Widespread …show more content…

If the militarization should continue, there is a possibility of a war forming, and so, the possibility another economic crash. Many countries are involved in the conflict, and the United States of America knows all too well, that wars cause a lot of problems. According to watson.brown.edu, “Between a quarter and a third of this increase in federal indebtedness is due to war spending: by the end of 2011, deficit spending on the wars had raised the ratio of debt to GDP by about 10 percentage points.” The amount of money spent on a war is so high that you could live luxuriously for a whole lifetime just off of the average amount of money spent on a