Cancer cure? Rather an atomic bomb!

Since I am pro-democracy, I am completely aware that the time’s need (in the 1940s) was really more useful to create an atomic bomb to deter totalitarian enemies than to find a cure for cancer. But what about allocating the costly resources and the best brains now to cure cancer? No! Cancer cure? Rather an atomic bomb!

The point is that the world’s military expenditures are immense, meanwhile, disease research cannot be more underfunded.

While some research is for-profit, the majority of the research is government-funded. This describes the sad situation of the super-rich not caring. Even though they may be affected by some diseases.

I wrote an article about perverted multinational companies’ profits versus cancer cures the last time. This is mainly about military spending versus real good intentions.

More difficult to develop an atomic bomb or cancer cure?

Developing a nuclear weapon before the discovery of nuclear fission required a complete change in how scientists understood atomic structure. The idea of releasing energy from atoms was speculative until breakthroughs by figures like Einstein and Rutherford made it possible. Theoretical physics laid the groundwork, but building the bomb demanded huge technological advancements. It also required resources, like uranium enrichment and reactor creation. Once the principles of fission were clear, building the first atomic bomb took just a few years, especially during the Manhattan Project in World War II.

Finding a cure for cancer is much more complex. Cancer isn’t a single disease. It involves hundreds of variations with different causes. Some cancers resist treatment, and they evolve over time, making them harder to defeat. The biological complexity and variability make curing cancer a multi-layered challenge. Even with today’s technology, many aspects of cancer remain mysterious. Research has been ongoing for decades, and although treatments have improved, a universal cure is far from reach.

In summary, after the discovery of nuclear fission, building a bomb was a major challenge but followed a more direct path. By contrast, curing cancer involves an ongoing struggle with its many forms and complex biological nature. While both tasks are difficult, the cancer cure remains elusive and far more complex.

How much did the cost?

Los Alamos, New Mexico, was the main city for developing the first nuclear bomb. Before the Manhattan Project, it was a remote and quiet area with very few residents, mostly ranchers and Native Americans. When the project started in 1943, the U.S. government turned Los Alamos into a secret, highly controlled facility. The population quickly grew to around 6,000 people, mostly scientists, engineers, and military personnel. By the peak of the project, the population reached over 10,000.

The total cost of the Manhattan Project was about $2 billion at the time, which is roughly $30 billion today. This amount covered not only Los Alamos but also other key locations like Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington. Most of the funding went into scientific research, building the infrastructure, and obtaining materials for the bomb. Los Alamos was the center of the project, where top scientists like J. Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi worked to make the bomb a reality. The isolated location helped keep the project secret, making the small town one of the most important sites in modern history.

Cancer cure? Rather an atomic bomb! World’s military spending

Global military spending in 2023 reached over $2 trillion, which accounts for about 2.2% of the world’s GDP. The United States leads with around $877 billion in defense spending, which is roughly 3.5% of its GDP. This spending covers everything from personnel costs to advanced technology and research. The U.S. alone accounts for about 40% of the world’s total military budget.

China, the second-highest spender, allocated around $292 billion to defense in 2023, which represents about 1.7% of its GDP. China has been steadily increasing its military investment as it modernizes its forces and expands its global influence.

Russia spent approximately $86 billion in 2023, driven by its involvement in conflicts like the war in Ukraine. This figure represents around 4.1% of its GDP, showing the heavy burden of military expenditure on its economy despite broader financial challenges.

Other major spenders include India, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, with military budgets ranging between $50 billion and $80 billion. These countries’ defense spending typically accounts for around 2% to 4% of their GDP, as they focus on modernizing their armed forces and investing in new defense technologies.

Global military spending shows no sign of slowing, as nations continue to allocate significant portions of their GDP to defense, driven by both traditional military needs and emerging areas like cybersecurity and space defense.

The highest spending for a disease? Cancer, but it is so low

Spending on cancer research, while significant (the most speding of any diseases goes to cancer), is much smaller compared to global military spending. In the United States, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had a budget of around $7 billion in 2023. This is part of a broader federal research effort, but when private contributions from organizations like the American Cancer Society and pharmaceutical companies are included, total U.S. spending on cancer research likely exceeds $10 billion annually. Compared to the $877 billion spent on defense by the U.S., cancer research receives only a small fraction of the national budget.

The global research

Globally, cancer research spending is also considerable, but it remains far less than military spending. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan invest heavily in cancer research. For example, the UK spends about $1 billion per year, combining government and charitable funding. However, these figures pale in comparison to the $2 trillion spent globally on military forces. Private companies, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, invest billions more in cancer drug development, which helps close the gap somewhat, but even then, global cancer research spending is estimated to be around $30 billion annually, far less than military budgets worldwide.

In contrast to the massive sums spent on military defense, cancer research represents a more focused, but critical, investment in human health. Despite the smaller budget, cancer research has made significant strides in developing treatments, even though a universal cure remains out of reach. In both fields, the spending reflects the global priorities of nations, but the disparity in scale is clear. Military spending vastly outweighs cancer research, even though both aim to address critical threats to human life, albeit in different ways.

Beyond cancer cure: Other diseases have little attention

Many diseases receive far less funding and attention compared to cancer. Research funding often focuses on cancer because it affects millions and has high public visibility. Other diseases, despite being serious, get much less money for research. These conditions often struggle to attract the same level of attention from governments and private donors.

Take neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s. These diseases affect millions, especially the elderly, yet the funding for research is small compared to cancer. In the U.S., Alzheimer’s research receives around $3 billion annually, which is much lower than the over $10 billion spent on cancer research. This is despite the fact that Alzheimer’s is one of the leading causes of death in older populations. The slow progress in finding effective treatments reflects this lack of investment.

Rare diseases face even bigger challenges. There are more than 7,000 rare diseases, but since each affects a small number of people, they don’t get the funding needed to research treatments or cures. For instance, rare disease research in the U.S. receives only about $1 billion annually, a fraction of what goes into cancer research. Pharmaceutical companies often avoid investing in these diseases because developing treatments isn’t profitable. Governments and non-profits provide some support, but it’s nowhere near what cancer research receives.

Chronic illnesses like diabetes and heart disease also receive less attention. While these conditions affect huge numbers of people, especially in developed countries, their research funding pales in comparison to cancer. In 2022, diabetes research received only about $1 billion, despite it being a global health crisis affecting more than 400 million people. The public doesn’t always view these diseases with the same urgency, even though they cause significant disability and death worldwide.

HIV/AIDS and mental diseases

Another overlooked area is infectious diseases. Diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS still affect millions, particularly in developing nations. Despite this, funding has decreased in recent years. Tuberculosis, which kills more than 1.5 million people a year, receives only around $500 million annually for research. Malaria research funding is similarly low, at about $600 million per year. The rise of cancer research and other high-profile health issues in wealthy countries diverts attention and money away from these infectious diseases. This leaves millions in poorer countries without the medical advancements that could save lives.

Mental health disorders also don’t receive the attention they deserve. Conditions like depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia are often underfunded in research. For instance, research on mental health conditions in the U.S. gets around $3 billion annually, much less than cancer. The stigma surrounding mental health plays a role in this. People tend to overlook mental illness or downplay its seriousness. As a result, funding for new treatments lags far behind other diseases, even though mental health issues cause significant suffering and disability worldwide.

The imbalance in funding is clear. Cancer research dominates public health discussions and receives the most money. Meanwhile, other diseases, despite their impact, struggle to secure the necessary resources for advancements. The lack of attention and funding leaves many conditions under-researched and many people without the care they need. As long as this gap persists, progress in these other areas will remain slow.

Sadly, the research is mainly governmental. No money making

Many diseases receive uneven funding from both government and commercial sources. Cancer remains at the top, with other conditions struggling to get similar attention and resources. Government research focuses heavily on cancer, while other diseases get significantly less support. Commercial research, driven by profitability, also prioritizes cancer, but leaves many conditions underfunded.

In the U.S., cancer research receives around $10 billion annually. About $6.5 billion comes from government sources, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Private companies and commercial research contribute about $3.5 billion. This combined effort has led to significant advancements in cancer treatments, making it a priority for both public and private sectors.

For Alzheimer’s, the U.S. government spends around $3 billion per year. The private sector, however, invests far less, with only about $500 million coming from commercial research. This imbalance slows down progress. While Alzheimer’s affects millions and has a massive societal impact, commercial investment is lacking because treatments are harder to develop and less immediately profitable.

Parkinson’s disease and diabetes

Parkinson’s disease faces a similar issue. Government funding for Parkinson’s research is about $250 million annually, while private sector investment adds only about $100 million. The smaller financial commitment from commercial research reflects the challenges in developing treatments and the limited market for profitable drugs.

Diabetes research in the U.S. receives about $1 billion each year. The government provides roughly $600 million, while private companies contribute about $400 million. Despite diabetes affecting over 400 million people worldwide, it still receives much less funding than cancer. This gap leaves researchers with fewer resources to develop new treatments, even though diabetes poses a global health crisis.

Heart diseases and rare diseases

For heart disease, the situation is similar. Government funding for heart disease research in the U.S. is around $2 billion per year, with about $1 billion coming from commercial research. Despite being the leading cause of death globally, heart disease still gets less attention than cancer, both from governments and private companies. This underfunding limits the development of new treatments and slows progress in reducing mortality rates.

Rare diseases are perhaps the most underfunded. The U.S. government allocates about $1 billion annually to rare disease research. Commercial research adds only about $500 million. Since each rare disease affects only a small number of people, private companies often don’t see the potential for profit. This lack of commercial interest leaves these diseases with minimal resources, despite the fact that there are over 7,000 rare diseases affecting millions collectively.

Infectious diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS still affect millions, but they receive limited funding. For tuberculosis, government funding is around $400 million annually, while the private sector contributes just $100 million. Malaria receives about $500 million from governments and $100 million from commercial research. HIV/AIDS research gets more attention, with governments spending about $2 billion annually, and the private sector contributing another $1 billion. Despite this, the focus on cancer and other non-infectious diseases diverts resources that could help fight these deadly conditions, particularly in developing nations.

Psychiatric disorders

Mental health disorders also suffer from underfunding. The U.S. government invests about $3 billion annually in mental health research, with private companies adding about $1 billion. This funding is much lower compared to cancer, despite mental health issues affecting millions of people globally. The stigma surrounding mental health and the difficulty in developing profitable treatments make it less attractive for commercial investment.

In summary, the majority of research funding, both governmental and commercial, goes to cancer. Other diseases, like Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and infectious diseases, receive far less. Governments provide the bulk of funding for most diseases, but commercial research, driven by potential profits, often overlooks conditions that are harder to treat or less profitable. The result is a significant imbalance in funding, which leaves many conditions under-researched and with fewer resources for developing treatments. This lack of investment slows progress and limits the advancement of care for millions of people worldwide.

No atomic bomb? All of the military spending going to medical research

If all the world’s military budgets were redirected toward medical research, the impact would be enormous. Global military spending exceeds $2 trillion annually. Imagine if that money went into finding cures for diseases, improving healthcare systems, and advancing medical technology. The scale of what could be achieved would be unprecedented.

First, consider cancer research. If even a fraction of that military budget were redirected, cancer research would receive a huge boost. Instead of $10 billion, imagine $100 billion going toward cancer treatments, prevention, and potential cures. Researchers could accelerate clinical trials, develop new therapies, and explore treatments for rare cancers that currently receive little attention. The chance of finding a universal cure for cancer would increase significantly.

Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases

Neurological diseases like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s could see similar advancements. Currently, Alzheimer’s research receives about $3 billion per year. With the redirection of military budgets, that could grow to $50 billion or more. This would allow scientists to fast-track the development of treatments that slow or even reverse cognitive decline. Parkinson’s research, which currently struggles with limited funding, could finally receive the resources it needs to explore new treatments and possibly find a cure.

Rare diseases, which often go ignored due to the small number of people affected, would no longer be neglected. With more funding available, researchers could develop treatments and cures for diseases that were once considered too rare to invest in. This would transform the lives of millions of people worldwide who currently have few or no treatment options.

Infectious diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, and HIV/AIDS, which still plague developing nations, could be eradicated. Right now, diseases like tuberculosis receive only about $500 million in research funding. Redirecting military budgets could push that number into the tens of billions. This would provide the resources to develop vaccines, improve treatments, and fund public health initiatives that could wipe out these diseases for good.

Healthcare infrastructure

Beyond just diseases, healthcare infrastructure would see massive improvements. The $2 trillion could build hospitals, train doctors and nurses, and provide better healthcare to people in low-income countries. Instead of spending on defense, nations could focus on universal healthcare access. Rural and underserved areas would no longer suffer from a lack of medical facilities. Everyone would have access to modern healthcare.

Technology in healthcare would also advance at a faster rate. With military budgets being used for medical innovation, new technologies like AI in diagnostics, robotic surgery, and advanced telemedicine could become widely available. These innovations would improve outcomes, reduce costs, and make healthcare more efficient.

Mental health, which often goes underfunded, could receive the attention it desperately needs. Instead of the current $3 billion, imagine $50 billion or more going toward research and treatment for depression, anxiety, schizophrenia, and other mental health disorders. This would lead to breakthroughs in understanding these conditions and developing effective treatments.

Of course, this kind of shift in spending wouldn’t happen overnight. Governments and military leaders would have to prioritize health over defense. But the benefits would be undeniable. Instead of investing in weapons and military technology, countries could invest in saving lives, improving global health, and ensuring a brighter future for all.

In summary, redirecting all military budgets toward medical research would revolutionize healthcare. Diseases that have plagued humanity for centuries could be eradicated. Cures could be found for conditions that currently have none. Healthcare systems worldwide could be improved, and everyone would have access to modern medical care. The possibilities are endless, and the impact would be profound.

Cancer cure versus an atomic bomb. What about our beloved super-rich?

I acknowledge that even the deeply flawed democratic world must have armies because otherwise, we would live in totalitarianism. But the amount is somehow elevated because the main purpose of those armies is to serve the super-rich.

But if every citizen was so aware, peaceful, and pacifistic, all of the money could go to medical research.

Not only the super-rich ruling the world cannot eat 50 times because their stomachs would be full, but they can get ill.

Sitting on hundreds of trillions of dollars, their greed prevents disease research and they are affected by some illness.

If Homo sapiens weren’t Homo sapiens, they wouldn’t lust for money and power, but they would make significant medical research.

But their body is composed like the bodies of normal individuals. And they get sick, they die.