Wang 1

Thomas Wang
Mr. Campopiano
Government 1
23 October 2015
Funding of Nuclear Weapons
In the mid 1900s, the United States had begun the infamous arms race against the Soviet
Union, and Germany. The U.S. competed for nuclear supremacy and started the Manhattan
Project, a project focused on the development of an atomic bomb in order to challenge the Axis
powers. By being the first to develop the atom bomb, it would encourage both defense and
deterrence (Sagan & Waltz 1). During this period, the United States needed these weapons to
protect itself, but in todays world of new technology and other means of defense, the use for
nuclear weapons has faded. It has become a nuisance to continually fund nuclear weapons with
tax dollars and see no use for these weapons of mass destruction. Which is why removing the
funding for nuclear weapons would be the smart decision for the U.S to make. Public funding for
nuclear weapons should be eliminated because every hour taxpayers are paying approximately
two million dollars per year to fund weapon development, citizens could be prone to the nuclear
fallout, and the money could be better spent on other areas besides the military.
Every year tax revenue is gathered from the public to help support government resources.
The money goes toward medicare and health, education, food and agriculture, military and more.
However, a majority of that tax revenue goes toward the Department of Defense and funds
projects and developments such as weapons of mass destructions (Federal Spending: Where
Does the Money Go, Discretionary Spending). It is predicted that over the next ten years, the
United States will have spent about 355 billion dollars toward ballistic submarines, land based

Wang 2
intercontinental missiles, and long-range bombers ("Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2015 to 2024). As of today, the United States is in a debt totalling in at eighteen trillion dollars
(The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It). By eliminating the money that funds the
development of nuclear weapons that currently have no usage, the United States could use the
money to repay this debt and slowly pay it off. Things like mortgage rates and tax could be
reduced if this debt is repaid, however, it is only getting increasingly worse.
Nuclear weapons have not only made an impact on the United States economy but an
impact on the publics lives as well. When nuclear weapons are used in cases such as Hiroshima
or testing for effects, it can affect the health of people due to fallout. Nuclear fallout is the
particles of matter in the air made radioactive from a nuclear explosion. Some of these particles
fall in the immediate area and some get blown by upper winds many thousands of miles
(Nuclear Fallout, Fallout). The effects of nuclear fallout include severe diarrhea, intestinal
bleeding, loss of fluids, cancer and of course, death. Due to the many nuclear tests many of these
particles have traveled throughout the States. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Radioactive fallout was deposited all over the world, so many people were exposed
to it. Even today, radioactive fallout is present in all parts of the world in small amounts. People
that were alive in 1951 in the United States received some exposure to these particles and some
of these people may have an increased risk of cancer due to this. If the United States continues to
test nuclear weapons, than citizens today would be at this increased risk of cancer. Eliminating
funding for nuclear weapons could prevent any more nuclear fallout from occurring in the future
and guarantee our safety from the threats of nuclear fallout.
With as many casualties from nuclear weapons as there are, it would be in the United
States best interest to remove them. One way to reduce the drastic casualties is by removing the

Wang 3
source that funds them. As stated earlier, taxpayers pay approximately two million dollars a year
to fund these weapons as of 2015. A massive chunk of money is allocated to the militarys
Department of Defense and very little of it is allocated toward education, foods and agriculture,
medicare and health, energy and environment, or veterans benefits. In 2015, approximately
more than half a trillion dollars was given to the military and the other half was spread among
the other categories (Federal Spending: Where does the Money Go, Discretionary Spending). If
the United States were to eliminate the money funding the development of nuclear weapons, it
could help other areas that are in need of more money. For example medicare is one of the
categories that doesnt receive enough money. The United States is the only major nation in the
industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people, stated by Bernie
Sanders (On 50th Anniversary of Medicare, Sanders Proposes Medicare-for-All). With this
amount of money the United States could bring a fundamental change to the American health
care system. This is just one of many examples that could benefit from the money that comes
from eliminating the funding for nuclear weapons.
Some believe that eliminating the public funding for nuclear weapons would be removing
one of the United States defenses and would leave the United States vulnerable. However, there
have not been many incidents where America needs to retaliate with nuclear warfare. Should the
United States be threatened with nuclear weapons, the military has other ways of defending the
country such as army vehicles, navy submarines, and air force drones. Even if terrorists were to
obtain a nuclear weapon, they are not irrational and would just as unlikely use the weapon as
other weak countries or states (Sagan & Waltz 1). Terrorists are people too, and make rational
decisions, so it is unlikely that they would use these weapons once obtained. Others argue that
there are other private companies that can fund nuclear weapons despite taking away the fund

Wang 4
from taxes. 411 private and public financial institutions from around the world invested 402
billion dollars into twenty-eight companies involved in the production, maintenance and
modernization of nuclear weapons since January 2011 (Snyder, Who Invests). While this is only
the first step in the process, the United States has to start somewhere in order for it to progress
into something bigger. Once the elimination of public funding has been addressed, the money for
nuclear developments would not be enough for a single private company to fund. This will lead
to the end of the private funding because the companies would begin to lose money in these
investments. The United States should start small and work its way up to make a bigger impact.
The United States is one of the most powerful countries in the world. It has some of the
most advanced technological advances out of all the countries. However, advances in nuclear
warfare is not needed as the States have other ways to defend itself. It does not have to resort to
the death of many civilians. By being one of the first countries to eliminate the funding of
nuclear weapons, it could translate to a bigger picture of banning them completely. With this it
could encourage other countries to ban them as well and make them illegal. In order to create a
better and safer world, the United States must be the first to lead the charge in eliminating
funding for nuclear weapons.

Works Cited
" The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons." Nobelprize.org. Nobel Prize
Organization, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Wang 5
"Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go." National Priorities Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 23
Oct. 2015.
"The Manhattan Project." The Manhattan Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"Nuclear Fallout." Nuclear Fallout. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"Nuclear Weapons Timeline." ICAN. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"On 50th Anniversary of Medicare, Sanders Proposes Medicare-for-All." Sen. Bernie Sanders.
N.p., 30 July 2015. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
"Radioactive Fallout from Global Weapons Testing." Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Sagan, Scott D., and Kenneth N. Waltz. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate." Choice
Reviews Online 33.03 (1995): n. pag. 2002. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.
Snyder, Susi. "Don't Bank on the Bomb | Who Invests?" Dont Bank on the Bomb RSS2. N.p., 10
Oct. 201. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.