Former Prime Minister Sir John Major, interviewed on The Today Programme this morning - http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9410000/9410302.stm - justified (at the end of his interview - 13:00 approx - weapons spending by saying that it creates jobs. Let's just be clear about this - more wars/fighting equals more weapons equals more jobs, so good - ?
So the stigma attached to not having a job is so great that even taking part in warmongering is better? This has got to be the nadir of the problem of coupling work to survival through the access to essential services. Recently, a commentator on the BBC expressed relief that British supplied tear gas hadn't been used against protesters in (I think) Bahrain. When we sell the tear gas, what is it we think they're going to do with it?
There are some jobs that society does regard with disdain. Drug dealing, for example. It is illegal and not generally classed as a job - society has expressed its highest disapproval.
Until we de-couple work from survival we are going to face this problem. How low will people stoop in doing futile or destructive jobs to win society's approbation and more crucially access to the essentials of life? Until as a planet we work out what we need as a planet to survive and thrive sustainably, work out how to do it most efficiently (ie by mechanising/computerising) and then see what's left that only humans can do, we are on a oath to destruction.
(I am not trying to argue that forceful intervention is always wrong. I know some people believe that, and I respect the view, but my point is that if more war = more jobs / money, it will always be in the interest of the arms trade to have more war - they can sell weapons to both sides.