Could the trade of weapons ever be justified?

It is very intriguing to see countries which are claiming to fight for peace trading weapons with other countries and stockpiling its weapons in preparation for war. Weapons are a cause of mass destruction of lives and property in the world today and yet countries trade these easily proliferated equipments. Basically such thirst for weapons and power is due to the obsession of countries to be well defended. As such the demand for such weapons kicks off its trade among countries. At first thought, especially to those who consider warring unreasonable and unjustifiable, trading of weapons may seem unjustifiable. Although there is enough ground to hold on to such an ideal, there are also various reasons under which the trade in weapons can be justified.

Countries with similar ideologies form alliances. This has been practiced since ancient history. It is also evident from our recent history in which the NATO countries formed alliances to counter the Warsaw pact countries and vice versa.
Countries in alliances usually have agreements to sell weapons to each other or to develop certain weapons for their defense. This is justifiable as it would ensure that one country is not too powerful while the other is too weak. Countries in such alliances are duty bound to help each other and thus the trade of weapons becomes justifiable here.

Some countries seeming to be quiet and reserved may suddenly start to pile up its weapons due to its overly ambitious politicians. Such countries may have state of the art technology to produce new and more powerful weapons. While it creates a sense of security to the countries involved in this, it gives a great deal of insecurity to neighbouring countries especially to those weaker and poorer ones. This is especially the case when one country tries to become dominant in its part of the world. As a result countries known to be in good terms may fall out on each other. How can these weaker countries then protect themselves without purchasing weapons?

It becomes a responsibility of other powerful nations to help out this weaker country in protecting itself from being invaded. These powerful nations may channel some of their weapons to the country in need. This act then becomes justifiable as the trade of weapons here occurs in response to a possible threat of invasion. Great caution must be exercised during this because history too has seen the sudden change in behaviour of countries which have seeked help. An example would be when the timid Iraq became aggressive itself. Fearing Iran’s aggressiveness, the US and it allies armed Iraq to balance Iran. In fact, Iran and Iraq have fought a war. In the end, Iran ceased to be a threat while Iraq became a rogue. Without the slightest provocation it set out to annex Kuwait and an expensive war had to be fought with loss of lives and property to all countries involved.

Another justification for the trade of weapons seems to be when people are fighting against a tyrannical regime. Sometimes governments become oppressors of people instead of their guardians. In such situations people are mercilessly mowed down by people of the government with powerful weapons. Selling of weapons to these victims becomes justifiable so that these people can defend and protect themselves.

It must also be noted that when America sold arms to Taliban in Afghanistan in the their fight against their communist government, it resulted in the take over of the country by Taliban who were more aggressive than their previous communist government. Moreover, Taliban firmly supported international terrorism directed towards US. The end result saw the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and more bloodshed as a result.

It is clearly evident that the trade of weapons is justifiable among Allies and between countries when trying to arm a country whose neighbour is building up stockpiles of weapons and when supporting rebels against an oppressive regime. However it is very crucial to consider the consequences of such trades before a country goes on to be involved in trading weapons for this has resulted in the unexpected bloodshed of people.