Join
Search

U.S. Planning a Nuclear Weapons Spending Spree

Bookmark and Share

In December 2013, the Congressional Budget Office released an authoritative estimate of how much the United States will spend over the next decade to maintain and upgrade its nuclear arsenal: $355 billion—for an average of $35 billion per year.

This covers nuclear weapons themselves; their delivery systems; nuclear weapons research and development; and nuclear command, control, communications, and early-warning systems. (For comparison, the budget deal President Obama just signed will increase federal spending by $63 billion over the next two fiscal years—for an average of $32 billion per year.)

Nuclear-armed submarine

A nuclear-armed submarine, with its missile launch tubes visible.

And then the money will really start flowing. The $355 billion is just the down-payment on what will be even larger expenditures over the following two decades. During that time the United States plans to build new delivery systems for these weapons: a fleet of 12 new nuclear-armed submarines, as well as new land-based missiles, long-range bombers, and cruise missiles. Delivery systems are more expensive than the warheads themselves. For example, estimates place the cost of these submarines at over $7 billion each.

What do we get for all this money? Massive overkill and outdated weapons. The U.S. nuclear arsenal includes over 4,600 weapons—with roughly 2,150 deployed and another 2,500 in reserve. (Another 3,000 exist, but are in storage awaiting dismantlement). Each is enough to devastate a city. It is simply irrational to maintain an arsenal of this size. And these weapons do nothing to address today’s security threats, including the threat of terrorism.

Tremendous savings are available if the United States reduces its arsenal to be commensurate with its stated policy of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in its security policy.

As Richard Garwin and I argued in an op-ed last year, the United States could easily cut its arsenal to a total of 1,000 nuclear weapons—including deployed and stored, long-range and short-range—while maintaining an effective deterrent. Taking this modest step would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next several decades. And by helping to move the world to lower numbers of nuclear weapons, it will make us safer to boot.

Posted in: Nuclear Weapons Tags:

About the author: Lisbeth Gronlund is a physicist and co-director of the Global Security Program. She is an expert on technical issues related to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, and new nuclear weapons, space weapons, and ballistic missile defenses. See Lisbeth's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Comments are closed. Comments are automatically closed after two weeks.

3 Responses

  1. This is insane. Remember Eisenhower’s warning about the military industrial complex. What happened to the concept of REDUCING our nuclear stockpile? Instead, we should spend those sums on expanding nuclear power, which has never killed ANYONE in western Europe or the western Hemisphere, while simultaneously funding a crash program to put coal “out of business” by developing Small Modular Reactors and Molten Salt Reactors for power production – and yes, for consuming uranium “waste” as well as those decommissioned bombs.

  2. Jon says:

    We could move to 1,000 total warheads by reducing our arsenal to 800 W76-1 warheads and 200 B61-12 gravity bombs. We could keep our Ohio submarines and B-2As and retire the Minuteman III icbms and convert all B-52Hs and alcms to conventional only. We could also move away from the posture of forward deployment of B61-12s and not make the F-35 nuclear capable.

  3. Thom says:

    Why not spend it on healthcare och education?