• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • 25 Years Since September 11
    • Fact Sheets
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Countries
    • Pentagon and Weapons Spending
    • No First Use
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Nuclear Testing
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Missile Defense
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Front and Center / Frank Talks Defense Spending Reductions

May 4, 2011

Frank Talks Defense Spending Reductions

Yesterday, Representative Barney Frank delivered a speech at the Center for American Progress on defense spending priorities.  Though (only hours after the president’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed) the issue may not have been the first on everyone’s minds, Frank made the case that it is all the more relevant in light of the US’ recent success.

Calling for a reduction of $200 billion a year from the current Pentagon spending amount of roughly $700 billion per year, Frank said that the United States should reevaluate its commitment to foreign military bases and large deployments of troops overseas, as well as the structure of NATO.  In addition, Frank would like to see a large chunk of that $200 billion reduction come from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who want us to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat,” said Frank, noting that this was a major victory for the president, who might want to “call President Bush and ask if he can borrow the ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner.”

Though the threat of terrorism is still very real, Frank argued that it is not exactly the type of threat that is fought using the most costly weapons.  “I wish you could defeat terrorists with nuclear submarines,” said Frank, “because we have a lot of nuclear submarines and they don’t have any nuclear submarines.”

Other lawmakers were less quick to seize on the Afghanistan angle.  “The urgency of finding those savings will remain there and won’t be affected by this,” said Senator Carl Levin, saying that the deficit would need to be reduced whether bin Laden was dead or alive.

Posted in: Front and Center, Nukes of Hazard blog

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • A Costly Silence: The Choice Is Ours October 29, 2026
  • A Costly Silence: Eisenhower’s Warning October 29, 2026
  • Why aren’t your policymakers talking about the trillion-dollar Pentagon budget? October 29, 2026
  • You can destroy a facility. What about knowledge? October 20, 2026
  • BONUS Episode: The True Costs of War – Moderated Question and Answer Session October 16, 2026

Footer

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • 25 Years Since September 11
  • Fact Sheets
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Countries
  • Pentagon and Weapons Spending
  • No First Use
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Nuclear Testing
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Missile Defense

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2026 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency