The nil effect of maintaining nuclear weapons.

According to the Congressional Budget Office from 2014-2024 we will have a cost of maintaining the current United States Nuclear arsenal at 355 BLN. That seems like a large number, correct? That's because it is. But simple division of 355 BLN / 10 = 35.5 BLN/y. Which is not even a notable fraction of the budget. So why is defense spending so big? The number of soldiers, airplanes, tanks etc.

There are 1,137,916 enlisted personal and 236,826 Officers in active duty. Also according to an unpublished DoD  (Source: http://www.ehow.com/info_7898723_average-salary-soldier.html) report, the average income per/y is 90,000. So lets do the math.. The total for the salaries are per/y: 102,412,440,000 which is a huge chunk of change.

The solution here is to close down unneeded bases [like those in Germany or Japan] thus relinquishing the need for as many soldiers and giving us the ability to get closer to the surplus. It will also give us a better international opinion as we're regarded as the "world's policemen".. Therefore we get a more balanced economy and score some international diplomatic points.

I think the wars and drone strikes are more a contributing factor to the negative perceptions of the US than the World War relic bases.

Yobobo wrote:I think the wars and drone strikes are more a contributing factor to the negative perceptions of the US than the World War relic bases.

Uh, no? You do realize that they must man and update these bases?

castration wrote:

Yobobo wrote:I think the wars and drone strikes are more a contributing factor to the negative perceptions of the US than the World War relic bases.

Uh, no? You do realize that they must man and update these bases?

The cost aspects are an entirely different factor that I wasn't talking about. Here. Now. In 2014, the problems with bases are localised issues by and large and not the international controversies of drone strikes.

Yobobo wrote:

castration wrote:

Yobobo wrote:I think the wars and drone strikes are more a contributing factor to the negative perceptions of the US than the World War relic bases.

Uh, no? You do realize that they must man and update these bases?

The cost aspects are an entirely different factor that I wasn't talking about. Here. Now. In 2014, the problems with bases are localised issues by and large and not the international controversies of drone strikes.

In international controversies obviously, more people are upset [by drone strikes]. But, by the same token it is one step at a time. But, the concept is to make progress. If we get rid of bases eventually we could stop being the world's police altogether. Stopping drone strikes is a minimal issue in the overall progression of things in my opinion.