U.S. Nuclear-Arms Cost Estimate Jumps Up $27 Billion


Technicians perform maintenance on a W-76 nuclear warhead. An 18-year cost estimate for U.S. nuclear-arms operations has jumped up more than $27 billion, the congressional Government Accountability Office said.
National Journal
Diane Barnes
See more stories about...
Diane Barnes
Dec. 13, 2013, 6:02 a.m.

An 18-year spend­ing out­look for U.S. nuc­le­ar arms has shot up by $27.1 bil­lion, and costs could rise fur­ther still, con­gres­sion­al aud­it­ors said this week.

In­vest­ig­at­ors found the in­crease by com­par­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s latest cost es­tim­ate for main­tain­ing and up­dat­ing U.S. nuc­le­ar weapons over a set peri­od — fisc­al years 2014 through 2031 — to the U.S. es­tim­ate from two years ago for the same time­frame, ac­cord­ing to a Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice re­port re­leased Wed­nes­day.

The Na­tion­al Nuc­le­ar Se­cur­ity Ad­min­is­tra­tion blamed the up­tick from in part on a change in its cal­cu­la­tion meth­od. The agency — a semi­autonom­ous arm of the En­ergy De­part­ment — noted that its pro­jec­tion from fisc­al 2012 re­lied on out-of-date data based on the now-de­funct Re­li­able Re­place­ment War­head pro­gram, aud­it­ors wrote in the as­sess­ment.

GAO aud­it­ors said a sched­ule ad­just­ment also con­trib­uted to the cost jump, which boos­ted an­ti­cip­ated stock­pile ex­pendit­ures for the 18-year peri­od from $46 bil­lion to $73.1 bil­lion. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion moved up plans to be­gin mod­ern­iz­ing nuc­le­ar war­heads for the Air Launched Cruise Mis­sile sev­en years soon­er — in 2024 in­stead of 2031 — bring­ing more of the as­so­ci­ated costs in­to the time range un­der scru­tiny.

The es­tim­ate for over­all NNSA spend­ing dur­ing the same peri­od in­creased by just $19 bil­lion, ac­cord­ing to GAO aud­it­ors. They vari­ation, they wrote, is due to de­creases in the agency’s pro­jec­ted spend­ing on oth­er agency activ­it­ies, such as main­ten­ance of the nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al’s sup­port­ing in­fra­struc­ture.

They noted, though, that the agency’s es­tim­ate leaves out “most of the budget es­tim­ates” for two pricey ini­ti­at­ives: con­struct­ing a new en­riched-urani­um pro­cessing plant in Ten­ness­ee, and sus­tain­ing plutoni­um cap­ab­il­it­ies long tied to a pro­posed fa­cil­ity that now faces can­cel­la­tion.

“NNSA plans to con­struct these fa­cil­it­ies or al­tern­at­ives to the fa­cil­it­ies and, as a res­ult, NNSA’s budget es­tim­ates for the in­fra­struc­ture area are not fully aligned with its mod­ern­iz­a­tion plans and likely un­der­es­tim­ate the amount of fund­ing that will be needed in fu­ture years.

The re­port notes sev­er­al factors that could fur­ther shift NNSA cost es­tim­ates in com­ing years, in­clud­ing the agency’s fail­ure to ac­count in its pro­jec­tions to date for budget cuts man­dated un­der the 2011 Budget Con­trol Act. Those “se­quest­ra­tion” re­duc­tions would crimp nuc­le­ar-weapons spend­ing if they re­main in place, the doc­u­ment says.

Its au­thors noted two oth­er vari­ables that could in­crease spend­ing: a pos­sible rise in ex­penses from con­tract­or re­tire­ment funds, and “cost sav­ings” built in­to budget es­tim­ates without full as­sess­ments of how to achieve them.

This art­icle was pub­lished in Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire, which is pro­duced in­de­pend­ently by Na­tion­al Journ­al Group un­der con­tract with the Nuc­le­ar Threat Ini­ti­at­ive. NTI is a non­profit, non­par­tis­an group work­ing to re­duce glob­al threats from nuc­le­ar, bio­lo­gic­al, and chem­ic­al weapons.

What We're Following See More »
GOP Budget Chiefs Won’t Invite Administration to Testify
1 days ago

The administration will release its 2017 budget blueprint tomorrow, but the House and Senate budget committees won’t be inviting anyone from the White House to come talk about it. “The chairmen of the House and Senate Budget committees released a joint statement saying it simply wasn’t worth their time” to hear from OMB Director Shaun Donovan. Accusing the members of pulling a “Donald Trump,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the move “raises some questions about how confident they are about the kinds of arguments that they could make.”

Snowstorm Could Impact Primary Turnout
21 hours ago

A snowstorm is supposed to hit New Hampshire today and “linger into Primary Tuesday.” GOP consultant Ron Kaufman said lower turnout should help candidates who have spent a lot of time in the state tending to retail politicking. Donald Trump “has acknowledged that he needs to step up his ground-game, and a heavy snowfall could depress his figures relative to more organized candidates.”

A Shake-Up in the Offing in the Clinton Camp?
16 hours ago

Anticipating a primary loss in New Hampshire on Tuesday, Hillary and Bill Clinton “are considering staffing and strategy changes” to their campaign. Sources tell Politico that the Clintons are likely to layer over top officials with experienced talent, rather than fire their staff en masse.

Trump Is Still Ahead, but Who’s in Second?
4 hours ago

We may not be talking about New Hampshire primary polls for another three-and-a-half years, so here goes:

  • American Research Group’s tracking poll has Donald Trump in the lead with 30% support, followed by Marco Rubio and John Kasich tying for second place at 16%. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders leads Hillary Clinton 53%-41%.
  • The 7 News/UMass Lowell tracking poll has Trump way out front with 34%, followed by Rubio and Ted Cruz with 13% apiece. Among the Democrats, Sanders is in front 56%-40%.
  • A Gravis poll puts Trump ahead with 28%, followed by Kasich with 17% and Rubio with 15%.