Pentagon wants a big boost in funding for modernization of nuclear weapons systems

(February 29) PentaEach year the US spends tens of billions of dollars on nuclear weapon modernization schemes. Yet every year the Pentagon insists that funding is insufficient.

	1 of 2

This year, the complaints continued with US Strategic Command's head Admiral Charles Richard warning that the US is "almost on a path to disarmament."

US even now outspends all other nuclear powers

This shows that there is no tendency at all towards disarmament. If anything US spending could be provoking a nuclear arms race. While the Admiral suggested that the US must invest smartly and not waste money it was clear he was asking for an increase in funding.

The argument for more funds

The argument is that even at the high level of spending of the US at present as the system ages they will need to rebuild virtually the entire infrastructure or no longer be a nuclear power.

Admiral Richard said: “If we do not invest smartly in our nuclear enterprise now, we may begin to reach points of no return. I predict [that will] start in the nuclear weapons complex, next in the nuclear command and control, and finally in the triad delivery systems. When we talk about the modernization of the triad, what we leave out is the ‘or else.’ The other choice is not to keep what we have. The entire triad is reaching the end of its useful life. Either we replace what we have now, or start to divest, almost on a path to disarmament, in the face of this growing threat.”

The triad referred to is defined by Wikipedia: "A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence."

The huge costs of nuclear modernization

For fiscal year 2021 the Trump administration has asked for roughly $46 billion in funding for nuclear programs. That amount includes about $28.9 billion for the Dept. of Defense to develop delivery system such as the B-21 bomber and the new replacement for ICBMs. The rest of the funding for development of nuclear warheads comes from the National Nuclear Security Administration a semi-autonomous branch of the Dept. of Energy.

Looking to the future from fiscal year 21 to 25 the Pentagon projects it will spend at least $87 billion on nuclear modernization efforts. If the US spends such sums on modernization there will be pressure upon Russia, and China to do the same.

A modest proposal

The MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) policy may have worked so far but it is very expensive and without some controls does not avoid a nuclear arms race. This partly explains why Russia and the US have a new START treaty that is still in force until February of next year. Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism.

Nuclear modernization is used mainly for nothing but deterrence. However, it does provide defense contractors with profits. Both Russia and the US could use funds not used for nuclear modernization for expenditures on health, education, more useful job creation and numerous other purposes. Instead of asking for more funds what the Pentagon should be seeking are more arms reduction negotiations and funds for negotiations. This alternative is never considered. Why is that?

A recent Forbes article last December notes: " Last week, however, in a rare display of constructiveness, Vladimir Putin suddenly offered to immediately extend the New START treaty “without any preconditions.” And Trump added: “We are looking at doing a new agreement with Russia, and we’re looking at doing a new agreement with China. And maybe the three of us will do it together…We may do it with Russia first and then go to China, or we may do it altogether…” Instead of modernizing their nuclear armor, Russia, the US and China need a treaty that will render their nuclear arsenal obsolete.

Previously published in the Digital Journal