What are the positions on nuclear weapons?

Funds allocated to nuclear weapons could be better spent elsewhere

Question: What are the positions on nuclear weapons?
Position1 of 3›: Nuclear weapons should be banned
Argument‹2 of 2: 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 are spent on nuclear weapons yearly, and every one of those dollars is a choice made at the expense of something else. The United States alone spent 35.4 billion dollars on nuclear weapons last year, a 5.8 billion dollar increase on the year before — an increase, that is, at a time when the alternative uses of that money were neither scarce nor hypothetical. These funds could be used to aid public health programs, emergency management, or any other social program that could better society. The scale of the imbalance is what makes the comparison damning rather than merely rhetorical. In 2013, an NTI study found that the United States had spent over three times as much money on nuclear weapons as on cancer research. That same study found that the US was also spending almost three times the amount of FEMA's entire budget on nuclear weapons that year. Cancer research and disaster response are not marginal line items; they are the two things a state does when its citizens are dying in large numbers from causes that are actually killing them. To spend triple on a weapons system while those needs go underfunded is to declare that the appearance of strength outranks the substance of protection. The opportunity cost is therefore not an incidental objection to nuclear weapons but a decisive one. The benefit claimed for a deterrent cannot be measured against the hospitals not built and the research not funded, while its costs are certain, recurring, and rising. 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. A budget is a statement of priorities, and this one cannot be defended.

Premises

[P1]Governments spend enormous sums on nuclear weapons each year, often exceeding budgets for public health, disaster preparedness, and other social programs. [P2] These funds would produce greater benefit to society if redirected toward programs like cancer research, emergency management, and public welfare. [P3] A weapons system whose funding crowds out higher-value social investment cannot be justified. [C] Therefore, nuclear weapons should be banned so their funding can be redirected to better uses.

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. 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

[Rejecting P1] The comparison is selected: the figure is a small fraction of overall federal spending, and cancer research and emergency management are funded from separate appropriations that a weapons cut would not automatically increase. [Rejecting P2] Whether the money would produce greater benefit elsewhere depends on what deterrence is worth, which the premise sets at zero without argument — defenders hold that the spending buys a security social programmes cannot supply. [Rejecting C] Cost is an argument for spending less rather than for a ban: it would tell equally against any expensive defence capability, and disarmament is a different proposition from budgetary restraint.