Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:29 PM Aug 2015

United States to Spend Nearly $1 Trillion Updating Nuclear Arsenal

Updating America’s behemoth nuclear arsenal could cost nearly one trillion dollars, according to a new report from independent researchers at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Though previous Pentagon assessments claimed that updating the United States’ nuclear weapons could cost $270 billion, the price now appears to be much higher. This week’s daunting projections coincide with the 70th anniversary of the United States deadly detonation of two atomic bombs over Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
In 2013, President Obama announced plans to update the military’s nuclear weapons program over a period of 30 years. More specifically, the White House intended to update the “nuclear triad”—the intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and aircraft responsible for delivering nuclear warheads.

However, Obama failed to provide full data on projected costs. As Al Jazeera noted, the White House “has to date only released a $73 billion estimate that covers fiscal years 2016 to 2020 — years before the program’s costs are projected to spike.”

The new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment—which works closely with the Pentagon— says that between 2014 and 2043, the total could be as high as $963 billion. Further, researchers Todd Harrison and Evan Montgomery noted that “Ultimately, this report finds that the Pentagon will…require as much as $12 to 13 billion per year in additional funding to support nuclear maintenance and modernization during the 2020s, when spending on U.S. nuclear forces will peak.”

The figure itself may be suspect considering the tendency of war mongers to underestimate the costs of war and the Pentagon’s fiscal ineptitude.
The new report’s findings are consistent with a widely-cited study released last year that projected a similar figure, but the cost to maintain one of the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals is chronically high.

The Manhattan Project—which spawned the bombs dropped on Japan in August of 1945, cost $20 billion (adjusted for current inflation). From 1957 to 1964 alone, the U.S. spent the equivalent $14 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile launch pads and silos, as well as support facilities.
With 7,300 total nuclear warheads as of 2014, the United States leads the world in nuclear stockpiles. It is followed by Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The United States is the first and only nation to openly and unabashedly drop a nuclear bomb on civilian populations. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed 70 years ago in an attack military commanders—including General Dwight D. Eisenhower—deemed wholly unnecessary.


Though some might argue that $1 trillion over 30 years to maintain a nuclear stockpile is “only” a fraction of the United States’ presumed military budget over the same time period, that fact alone is alarming. It reveals disturbingly misplaced priorities within one of the world’s wealthiest nations.


http://csbaonline.org/2015/08/05/new-estimates-put-cost-of-us-nuclear-weapons-upgrade-at-963-billion/

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/06/25/pentagon-says-it-needs-270-billion-to-upgrade-nuclear-arsenal.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/8/4/us-nuclear-modernization-could-cost-963-billion.html

http://theantimedia.org/united-states-to-spend-nearly-1-trillion-updating-nuclear-arsenal/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
2. We need someone like Bernie Sanders to wake the idiots up. A trillion? Stupid Americans.
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 02:35 PM
Aug 2015

I have every right in the world to be pissed about this. When I was just a child eating my Cheerios, my dad would profess his beliefs on our military spending. I remember he used to say that if we just dropped appliances on these countries, we could save the world a lot of grief, and keep our money for things that are productive.

What the fuck is wrong with people that think we need a big military? I would rather live in fear, and have health care, good education, etc...

Bernie Sanders is the only candidate who is going to rock the boat.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
5. A trillion here, a trillion there and pretty soon you are talking a lot of money
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:11 PM
Aug 2015

(maybe even enough for people to start caring).

-none

(1,884 posts)
6. How much to scrap the whole thing?
Fri Aug 7, 2015, 03:13 PM
Aug 2015

Find peaceful uses for the hot stuff. And while we are at it, get rid of the paranoid fucks in our government and military, that think we need all that death and destruction.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»United States to Spend Ne...