The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars... overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it's small, amateurish, and under-funded, it's likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in "fork over your lunch money, weakling.") Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen "fire soldier-boys" on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal "problems." In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
<span>Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of African countries find them pretty handy.
</span>
Also, keep this quote in mind
<span>"It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war"</span>
Communism is the type of Government that the Soviet Union had.
<span>According to Martin Luther's Thesis 43, it is better to give money to the poor or lend to those in need that trying to buy forgiveness. Forgiveness that is earned is preferable to forgiveness that is bought. Under the system of indulgences that existed in early sixteenth century Europe, Christians could obtain forgiveness for sin by confessing in church, but they still faced temporal punishment in the form of purgatory or by doing good deeds. Indulgences were sold to wipe their slate clean and ensure their swift entry to heaven, but the system became corrupt and abused in time.</span>
Answer:
i wish i can answer but i'm lagging
Explanation:
