PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of bmjThis ArticleThe BMJ
 
BMJ. 2007 March 31; 334(7595): 652.
PMCID: PMC1839213
Publisher Boycott

Editorial misses the point

Laurie R Davis, general practitioner

Clearly there is an unsavoury and unethical aspect to the sale of weapons,1 but there is a legitimate trade as well. Few would doubt that there are benefits from various “peacekeeping” forces in the world, though obviously there are controversial invasions. Only the most naive would argue that our own democracy was not protected during the cold war by our weaponry. We can pretend it is not happening and let other countries dominate the arms trade, but we will still buy weapons for our armies. If my son is to be sent to an area of conflict, I don't want him being armed with inferior weaponry because a non-combatant thought it unethical to seek the best technology.

Unpalatable as it is, there will always be an arms trade and dissociating ourselves from it will merely remove any possibility of influencing control. Landmines would not disappear if Reed Elsevier stopped organising exhibitions.

Notes

Competing interests: LRD owns shares in Qinetic, a British defence company.

References

1. Young C, Godlee F. Reed Elsevier's arms trade. BMJ 2007;334:547-8. (17 March.) [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from The BMJ are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group