Updating the United States' nuclear arsenal so that it could stay viable well into the 21st century would cost $40 billion per year over ten years, according to a new government report. The report, Projected Costs of U.S. Nuclear Forces 2017 to 2026, was produced by the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that produces reports on projected costs of government programs.
Roughly half of the $400 billion would go towards modernizing strategic forces, including new intercontinental ballistic missiles, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile submarines. Another $9 billion would go toward tactical nuclear weapons, particularly certifying the new B61-12 tactical nuclear gravity bomb to work with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Billions more would go toward updating nuclear weapons labs and command and control for nuclear forces.
U.S. nuclear forces are, generally speaking, still using legacy weapons left over from the Cold War, and many of these are becoming obsolete. The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and their Trident D-5 ballistic missiles will need replacing within ten years by the new Columbia-class submarines, at a cost of about $5 billion each. The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is set to be replaced by the Ground Based Strategic Deterrrent missile, at an unknown cost, and many of the U.S. Air Force's B-1 and B-52 heavy strategic bombers will be replaced by the new B-21 Raider bomber.
All of this is going to be very, very expensive. Anything involving nuclear weapons is expensive, but the challenge is compounded by the fact that the U.S. has taken a decades-long holiday from producing nukes. The U.S. hasn't built a ballistic missile submarine in 20 years, a heavy bomber in 16 years, and a ICBM in nearly 30 years. While warhead and weapon designs are sound and may even be recycled, the new submarines, planes, and missiles will need to be developed, tested, and produced—often by new factories.
All of this would require at least an eight percent increase over the current defense budget and a major commitment by both the President and Congress to fund this and the anticipated conventional defense increases. Even $400 billion number is tentative, barring cost overruns. In fact, the estimate includes $56 billion just to cover any unanticipated increases.
This bout of sticker shock from the CBO might be a good time to revisit American nuclear strategy and consider what, if anything, we could reduce or do without. Do we really need a force of hundreds of ICBMs waiting in silos in the Midwest, ready to destroy Russian or Chinese nuclear forces? Do we still want nuclear-armed bombers in the mix, which are the most flexible of American nuclear forces but could send the wrong message when sent on conventional missions against a nuclear-armed enemy?
Source: DefenseNews
Kyle Mizokami is a writer on defense and security issues and has been at Popular Mechanics since 2015. If it involves explosions or projectiles, he's generally in favor of it. Kyle’s articles have appeared at The Daily Beast, U.S. Naval Institute News, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Combat Aircraft Monthly, VICE News, and others. He lives in San Francisco.
