A Cutback in Defense Spending

Paper Summary:

This paper takes a look at global defense companies and the adaptations they have been forced to make over the years, in order to survive. According to the paper, defense spending has resulted in increased production of goods and services needed to satisfy the increased demand, a process that contributes to higher income and employment in the economy. The paper discusses how cutbacks influence the general economy.

Outline:
Chapter One: Introduction
Chapter Two: What are the Research and Development (R&D) Options for Companies such as NGC?
Chapter Three: What Options will be Most Beneficial to the Employees and the General Public of the U.S.?
Chapter Four: Can the U.S. Remain a Superpower and Protect Its People from Terrorism while Reducing Its Military?
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"In spite of these changes in the nature of the threats being arrayed against the U.S. at home and its interests and allies abroad and despite President Bush's articulation of specific campaign promises to "skip a generation" in weapons procurement, all three of the Pentagon's advanced fighter plane programs continued to receive funding; in fact, in 2002 alone, almost $12 billion was allocated to the Air Force's F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter/F-35, and the Navy's F-18E/F fighter plane (Ciarroco, 2002). According to Ciarroco, "The F-22 has been described as a costly cold war relic designed for an enemy that no longer exists. The Super Hornet, as the F-18E/F is known, has not been able to meet key performance goals that were used to justify its development" (2002, p. 2). The JSF (also known as the F-35) was considered one of the more likely programs to be cut or scaled back; within weeks of September 11, 2001, though, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $19 billion development contract, and international partners formally joined (Ciarroco, 2002). "

Sample of Sources Used:

• Bradshaw, T. K. (1999). Communities not fazed; why military base closures may not be catastrophic. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(2), 193.
• Brasher, B. (2000). Implosion: Downsizing the U.S. military, 1987-2015. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Chalk, P. (2000). Grave new world. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 15(1), 13.
• Ciarrocca, M. (2002, September 2). Problems with current U.S. policy. Foreign Policy in Focus, 7(10), 2.
• Coulomb, F. (2004). Economic theories of peace and war. New York: Routledge.

More papers on A Cutback in Defense Spending:

• Research Paper # 106526 : "Financial Implications to Global Defense Companies"
• Dissertation or Thesis # 106590 : "The Global Defense Industry"
• Research Paper # 34417 : "The Major Defense Spending Policy"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: