ipl-logo

The Pros And Cons Of US Defense Budgeting

648 Words3 Pages

But, everything the military decides to do comes with a cost. This is a common concern when Americans are discussing nuclear weapons. They claim that the US simply cannot afford to be improving its nuclear program. But, the budget for maintaining the US nuclear systems is actually quite small. The US nuclear force is only about two to three percent of the defense budget (Costlow 1). Being that the US defense budget is so large, the nuclear weapons section is actually quite miniscule. “Since the number of nuclear weapons in the national stockpile has fallen over seventy-five percent since 1991, there is little margin left to cut” (Costlow 1). If the US were to increase this stockpile, the price would eventually also increase. But, even after modernization coming in 2020, it’s estimated that it won’t reach five percent of the budget (Costlow 2). …show more content…

Analysts think they can save one hundred and twenty billion dollars over the next thirty years but this will amount to less than one percent with the budget being five hundred billion annually (Costlow 1). This again shows that the United States defense budget is so large that advancing its nuclear program would not make a major difference in its spending. Even if this is not convincing enough, there are many other parts of the government that could be adjusted to save money. The US could save between 3.1 and 5.7 billion annually by switching non combat, military jobs to civilian jobs (Costlow 2). The US could adjust several parts of the government if it is in dire need of money. But, improving its nuclear program should prove to be a cheap

Show More
Related
565 Words | 3 Pages

More than $800 billion is spent every year on the Department of Defense in the United States, ranking the country as one of the largest military spenders in the world. In order to put this into perspective, the total military spending worldwide in 2022 was about 2 trillion U.S. dollars, while the U.S. by itself spent approximately $877 billion, which means that the U.S. alone contributed to nearly 40 percent of the total military spending worldwide that year. Due to the sheer amount of spending, there have been debates on whether or not it has a negative impact on the country’s economy and its peoples’ wellbeing. With the U.S. dealing with a growing national debt and the need for better infrastructure, reducing the military spending and allocating those funds to other areas could improve the lives of American citizens. This argument is relevant now because the U.S. is considering defense budget cuts in response to the economic impact caused by the COVID-19 pandemic along with needing to address social issues and the “first Ministry to see cuts was the Ministry of Defense” (Ortega, The Crisis

Read More
1660 Words | 7 Pages

The United States has one of the biggest militaries in the world with the latest technology known to mankind. Having such a powerful military, there budget alone is more surprising than their arsenals. The United States military budget is bloated and vast. Whats over looked by this budget is that half of its spent on outsourced service, not on the military. According to Think by Numbers “The final totals are $59 billion, 3 percent of the total federal budget, for regular welfare and $92 billion, 5 percent of the total federal budget, for corporations.

Read More
214 Words | 1 Pages

I believe wholly that nation should not only stop building Nuclear weapons, they should dismantle nuclear weapons too. Ever since the first nuclear bomb was created, they have became exceedingly powerful. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fifteen kilotons and twenty-two kilotons

Read More
2021 Words | 9 Pages

These nuclear weapons come with other benefits like deterring war and deterring other countries from developing nuclear weapons. So, in a way, having nuclear weapons in stock may actually help the world keep its peace. All in all, the US needs

Read More
1587 Words | 7 Pages

In 2016, Nuclear energy produced 94,748,858 kilowatts of electric power. This power by itself would be enough to fully power 77 million homes for over a year. Considering the puny American fleet of one hundred power plants, this is no small feat. Since 1979, the size of the American nuclear program has shrunk considerably, with the prospect of ordering new plants a far off concept to American bureaucrats and corporate officials. Yet, the industry was not always negative.

Read More
1316 Words | 6 Pages

A recent report done by the Union of Concerned Scientists (2009) reports that “between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit” (p. 2). These costs are so expensive that they require government assistance and incentives in order to get them financed and built. Koehler, David, Paine, and Cochran (2005) estimate that more than $65 billion in taxpayer subsidies are provided for the nuclear power industry. This is more than what any other industry out there receives, yet Koehler et al., point out that even with these substantial subsidies, nuclear power plants are still costly to construct. Rather than using this money that taxpayers pay for to fund nuclear plants, it should instead be redirect to other alternative sources that have a greater potential (Koehler, et al.,

Read More
607 Words | 3 Pages

Alternatives Journal’s article says that the Fukushima Daiichi power plant meltdown costed an estimated amount of $250-billion USD in damages and could end up doubling. This amount is placed upon Japanese taxpayers. Their power plant meltdown will sooner or later burn a hole through the taxpayers’ wallets. On top of this, nuclear power has never been a profitable method after all costs are included. In fact, the cost of Canada’s Darlington reactors went 4.5 times over the budget, and that price will have to be paid by taxpayers.

Read More
1172 Words | 5 Pages

It has a high initial cost, but the operating cost is low compared to major energy sources like coal, oil, and gas because the energy output of nuclear reactors is greater for the same amount of resources used and the operating efficiency is greatest at 91% compared to 63% for coal, 45% for natural gas, 28% for wind, and 24% for solar. In fact, energy generated from 1 gram of Uranium-235 is equal to the amount of energy generated from 3 tons of coal. Also, the cost of processed Uranium is one fifth of the cost of using coal to fuel a power plant and one third of a gas powered plant. So, the energy production cost, which includes all the costs of using an energy source, of nuclear power is only 2.4 cents/kWh, while for coal, gas, and oil it’s 3.27 cents/kWh, 3.4 cents/kWh, and 23 cents/kWh respectively. With low production costs, nuclear power contributes to the economy positively: nuclear reactors in the United States makes a revenue of 40- 50 billion every year also contribute $67 million of tax each year.

Read More
820 Words | 4 Pages

This rationale indicates that nuclear weapons should not be abolished, but the circumstances of how they are deployed should be scrutinised, either way, this counterpoint advocates nuclear deterrence and therefore could argue the point against them being an obsolete

Read More
548 Words | 3 Pages

I have chosen to write about this topic because it relates to a developing passion that I acquired as a child growing up, and watching the launch missions sending our astronauts into space. As a result, I grew up wanting to play a part in the United States government in furthering our cause for space exploration. While working at Peterson Air Force Base (21st Space Command Wing), I learned about a few concerns relating to our budgeting issue that seem

Read More
581 Words | 3 Pages

Moreover, weapons in the current stockpile are based on technology from the 1970s. In order to make sure that the weapons and delivery systems will perform exactly as intended, the US needs to resume nuclear testing. With the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the US is

Read More
1034 Words | 5 Pages

In this case, our nuclear power could strike fear to North Korean allies and make them reconsider nuclear

Read More
785 Words | 4 Pages

Currently there are $18.5 billion in nuclear loan guarantees and the industry is seeking over $100 billion in guarantees. While other energy alternatives are inexpensive because all they require are the sun and wind while nuclear energy plants require nukes which include expensive uranium. A study shows material costs have gone up by 185 percent which means construction of a power plant in 2000 would have cost $4 billion and in 2007 it would cost more than $11 billion (Nuclear Power, 2013). The nuclear advocates argue that we spend billions of dollars a year on space exploration at least nuclear energy helps America

Read More
1006 Words | 5 Pages

Nuclear power is doubtlessly one of the most potential growing energy in the world. As Professor Montgomery has stated in the nuclear power chapter, “the commercial nuclear power is a mature global industry, and growing, also by having supplying 15% of the world’s electricity to over 1 billion people, and the percentage reveals that nuclear power has expanded to keep pace with the worldwide rise in electricity use (Montgomery, pp. 129).” Nuclear power has multiple uses, as an energy-supplying source, it holds an important position in expanding its use to provide more electricity use world-widely; yet, nuclear power, particularly nuclear weapon, takes up a heavy responsibility to sustain the world security. Personally, I think that it is essential to have nuclear weapons held by several powerful countries to keep forces at bay from each other, and at the same time, it is necessary to assure the existence of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones in the ideas for peace and security. Article VII of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), affirms the right of countries or states to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) came into force by 1970.

Read More
997 Words | 4 Pages

A fundamental point of nuclear energy is fuel sourcing; no fuel means no energy. The radioactive materials necessary for reactor function are available at relatively low costs with little price fluctuation. Contrast that with oil - which can either be very cheap or very expensive depending on various variables. Additionally, the fuel comes from reliable allies, such as Canada and Australia. Current estimates place the supply of nuclear fuel as enough for another few centuries.

Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of US Defense Budgeting

Related Topics

Open Document