U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Plan Is So Expensive, It Can’t Be Implemented

A new study says the strategy to update the U.S. triad of nuclear-armed aircraft, submarines and missiles would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years, even under conservative assumptions.

A nuclear-capable B-2 aircraft drops 500-pound bombs during a U.S. Air Force exercise at a Nevada test range in 2007. Two nuclear-weapon analysts assert that today's $1 trillion plans to modernize U.S. bombers, missiles and submarines are unaffordable.
National Journal
Douglas P. Guarino
Jan. 8, 2014, 11:15 a.m.

The U.S. plan for mod­ern­iz­ing the na­tion’s nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al is so ex­pens­ive that it can­not be im­ple­men­ted, the au­thors of a new study con­tend.

“It’s just not real,” Jef­frey Lewis, one of the re­port’s co-au­thors, said in ref­er­ence to the cur­rent U.S. mod­ern­iz­a­tion blue­print. “It’s in­con­ceiv­able to me that we will ex­ecute any­thing like the plan that they say they’re go­ing to do.”

The ana­lys­is, re­leased on Tues­day by the James Mar­tin Cen­ter for Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Stud­ies, says the strategy to up­date the U.S. tri­ad of nuc­le­ar-armed bomber air­craft, sub­mar­ines and ground-based mis­siles would cost $1 tril­lion over the next 30 years, even un­der con­ser­vat­ive as­sump­tions.

The es­tim­ate re­lies largely on of­fi­cial gov­ern­ment fig­ures, the au­thors say, and does not in­clude costs as­so­ci­ated mis­sile de­fense, non­pro­lif­er­a­tion ef­forts and re­lated in­tel­li­gence pro­grams.

In­stead, it in­cludes only the cost of main­tain­ing the cur­rent U.S. nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al, buy­ing re­place­ment sys­tems and up­grad­ing bombs and war­heads, as called for by the cur­rent plan. Ma­jor cost drivers of the $1 tril­lion plan in­clude a new Long-Range Strike bomber, which the re­port pro­jects will cost $55-100 bil­lion, and Ohio-class re­place­ment sub­mar­ines, which the study says could cost $77-102 bil­lion.

Among the more con­tro­ver­sial items on the mod­ern­iz­a­tion agenda are plans to up­grade B-61 grav­ity bombs sta­tioned in Europe, cre­ate a new Long-Range Stan­doff Cruise mis­sile, and de­vel­op a series of new, in­ter­op­er­able war­heads cap­able of re­pla­cing mul­tiple weapons now in the U.S. nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al.

Giv­en cur­rent budget con­straints, im­ple­ment­ing all of these plans sim­ul­tan­eously is so un­real­ist­ic that at­tempt­ing it would likely back­fire and cause ma­jor pro­jects to be can­celed mid­stream, said Lewis, speak­ing dur­ing the study’s Tues­day pub­lic roll-out. Do­ing noth­ing to in­ject real­ism in­to the plans in the near term could ul­ti­mately leave aging weapons without re­place­ments, Lewis fore­cas­ted.

“I do not sup­port uni­lat­er­al nuc­le­ar dis­arm­a­ment, but if I did, [I’d re­com­mend that we] just keep do­ing ex­actly what we’re do­ing,” Lewis said. “We might really end up with this tiny little de­nuded force that was de­veloped with no par­tic­u­lar stra­tegic thought in mind.

“The ex­ample I think of is — we’re talk­ing about spend­ing $10-12 bil­lion on the B-61 [bomb] at this mo­ment, at the very time the Air Force is mak­ing all kinds of sig­nals that it will not make nuc­le­ar-cap­able the F-35” Joint Strike Fight­er or nuc­le­ar-cer­ti­fy from the out­set the planned new Long-Range Strike bomber, Lewis ad­ded. “So, we’ll spend $12 bil­lion on a bomb that won’t have an air­plane to drop it.”

Lewis and co-au­thor Jon Wolf­sth­al, both CNS is­sue ex­perts, said the pur­pose of the study was to en­cour­age poli­cy­makers to con­sider the full cost of the cur­rent plan, so that it can be ul­ti­mately amended based on stra­tegic goals that fit with­in real­ist­ic fin­an­cial con­straints.

The re­port’s sole re­com­mend­a­tion is that Con­gress re­quire the White House Of­fice of Man­age­ment and Budget — along with the En­ergy and De­fense de­part­ments — “to an­nu­ally pro­duce an in­teg­rated nuc­le­ar de­terrence budget” that pro­jects the full cost of each sys­tem in the U.S. nuc­le­ar ar­sen­al over its op­er­a­tion­al life­time.

The non­par­tis­an Gov­ern­ment Ac­count­ab­il­ity Of­fice has is­sued find­ings that sup­port the idea that Con­gress and the ex­ec­ut­ive branch do not fully un­der­stand the life­time costs of the cur­rent mod­ern­iz­a­tion plan, ac­cord­ing to the CNS re­port.

A 2005 GAO as­sess­ment demon­strated that “the United States does not know with any ac­cur­acy how much it spends an­nu­ally on its nuc­le­ar de­terrent, or how much it will cost to re­place the cur­rent tri­ad,” the CNS re­port notes.

“The longest-range es­tim­ates for the nuc­le­ar mis­sion pro­duced by the ad­min­is­tra­tion were in 2010 and con­tained about $214 bil­lion in spend­ing over the fisc­al 2011-20 peri­od, but the re­port omit­ted sig­ni­fic­ant costs, and the es­tim­ate peri­od ends just be­fore the sub­stan­tial pro­cure­ment bills come due,” the new study con­tends.

Con­gres­sion­al sources have sug­ges­ted that budget real­it­ies might be caus­ing the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion to back away from cer­tain as­pects of the mod­ern­iz­a­tion plan, po­ten­tially to in­clude con­cepts for de­vel­op­ing in­ter­op­er­able war­heads.

Of­fi­cially, however, the White House has stood by the plan, ob­ject­ing to a pro­vi­sion in the fisc­al 2014 de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion law that re­quires a study on wheth­er it would be cheap­er to simply re­fur­bish ex­ist­ing war­heads.

Oth­er is­sues — such as wheth­er ground-based bal­list­ic mis­siles are as im­port­ant in the post-Cold War era as harder-to-de­tect mis­sile-car­ry­ing sub­mar­ines — should also be dis­cussed, Lewis and Wolf­sth­al sug­ges­ted.

They ac­know­ledged, however, that elim­in­at­ing ICBMs en­tirely would be polit­ic­ally dif­fi­cult, giv­en the staunch sup­port they re­ceive from law­makers rep­res­ent­ing the West­ern states where they are based.

“The prob­lem,” ac­cord­ing to Lewis, “is that at this par­tic­u­lar mo­ment there is a lack of cour­age on the part of the White House and ex­cess­ive par­tis­an­ship in Con­gress. The pres­id­ent stands up in Ber­lin and talks about ne­go­ti­at­ing an ad­di­tion­al re­duc­tion with the Rus­si­ans to go down to 1,000 de­ployed war­heads and he’s im­me­di­ately con­demned for sup­port­ing what amounts to uni­lat­er­al dis­arm­a­ment.

“What strikes me as one of the cent­ral find­ings of this re­port is we will be lucky to be at 1,000 war­heads by 2030,” Lewis con­ten­ded. “What we’re try­ing to do is to get people to look real­ist­ic­ally at what the levels of budget­ary au­thor­ity are go­ing to be and then have this con­ver­sa­tion.”

What We're Following See More »
LAST PLACE
Trump Still Struggling for Endorsements
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE
AT ISSUE: VENEZUELA SANCTIONS
Deal Struck to Confirm Ambassador to Mexico
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The United States is finally about to get an ambassador to Mexico. Senate Republicans who have been negotiating a way to confirm Roberta Jacobson as the nation’s top diplomat to Mexico have reached the contours of an agreement that would allow Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)—Jacobson’s chief obstacle—to secure renewed sanctions against Venezuela in exchange for lifting his objections."

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Much Is Cleveland Paying for ‘Protest Insurance’ for the GOP Convention?
3 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Ten million dollars, plus another $1.5 million for the broker who will "develop and obtain" the policy. The concern: mass protests could lead to mass arrests, which could then lead to civil rights claims against the city.

Source:
MORE INDEPENDENTS, FEWER SUPERDELEGATES
Sanders Could Force Changes to Nominating Process
4 hours ago
THE LATEST

There are not "ongoing, direct conversations between" the Bernie Sanders camp and the Hillary Clinton camp regarding "the platform or rules changes," but Sanders "is already making his opening arguments" about those issues on the stump. Sanders is putting "complaints about closed primaries" atop his stump speeches lately, and figures to start a "conversation about the role of superdelegates in the nominating process." He said, “Our goal, whether we win or we do not win, is to transform the Democratic Party."

Source:
‘LUCIFER IN THE FLESH’
Boehner Says He Wouldn’t Vote for Cruz
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Well, this is unsubtle. Former Speaker John Boehner called Ted Cruz "lucifer in the flesh," adding that he "never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life." Boehner has endorsed John Kasich, but he said he'd vote for Donald Trump over Cruz. He also praised Bernie Sanders, calling him the most honest politician in the race, and predicted that Joe Biden may yet have a role to play in the Democratic contest, especially if Hillary Clinton runs into legal trouble over her emails.

Source:
×