argument top image

What are the positions on nuclear weapons?
Back to question

Funds allocated to nuclear weapons could be better spent elsewhere

With billions of dollars being spent worldwide every year on nuclear weapons programs, there is public outcry that other government programs that are more important to society are being ignored. Reallocating nuclear funds to social programs could create a more healthy and safe world.

The Argument

Billions of dollars is spent on nuclear weapons yearly. The United States alone spent 35.4 billion dollars on nuclear weapons last year, a 5.8 billion dollar increase from the year before[1]. These funds could be used to aid in public health programs, emergency management, or any other social program that could better society. In 2013, an NTI study found that the United States had spent over three times as much money on Nuclear weapons than on cancer research. That same study also found that the US was also spending almost three times the amount of FEMA’s entire budget on nuclear weapons that year as well[2]. If governments put less effort into the appearance of strength and more effort into bettering the lives of their people. Countries like the United States could be more prepared for emergencies and disasters, and could possibly be closer to curing fatal and prevalent diseases like cancer.

Counter arguments

Many people see the large global cost of nuclear weapons as important for their country. In February of 2020, President Donald Trump sought to increase nuclear weapons spending for the 2021 fiscal year[3]. Many people agree with President Trump that the country needs to be spending this money on nuclear weapons as it allows for better defense. These people would argue that they feel safe knowing that so much money is spent ensuring their countries safety.



Rejecting the premises


This page was last edited on Thursday, 29 Oct 2020 at 23:02 UTC

Explore related arguments