Nuclear Arms Race Research Paper

My project is on the effect of the Nuclear Arms Race on the US economy. In this paper, I will be discussing the arms race’s direct effects on the economy as well as the indirect effects from innovations that came about as a result of the increased military spending.
Many sources agree that the large scale military in the arms race was not good for the economy as it stifled economic diversification and growth. John Kenneth Galbraith, a renowned economist of the time, stated, “The general effect of massive military expenditures has been a transfer of capital away from civilian industry over the years… Modern military spending concentrates on , and certainly benefits, the narrow range of industry and the highly specialized technology that serve missile, aircraft, and marine weaponry.” In short, he claimed that massive military spending draws resources from civilian industries necessary for economic growth. Every dollar spent on developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal was a dollar not spent to further the economy through the development of civil industries; they were sunk costs.
According to Dr. Weida, the amount of money spent on a nuclear arsenal was excessive. A estimate from the Nuclear Threat

During the 1970’s, many people moved from the Northeast and Northern Midwest to the Southwest, where there were lower taxes to be paid and defense industries to work in. The scope of this migration is best exemplified by the population loss in the states located in the rust belt. The states which lost the most people averaged at losing 482,750 people from 1970-1981, nearly half a million people. In contrast, the states which had the largest population gains averaged at a population gain of almost 800,000 people. The difference in averages is due to the number of immigrants who migrated to the sunbelt for the reasons stated