nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry

USA’s nuclear weapons cost is $355 billion, not the planned $214 billion!

missile-moneyObama Administration Underestimated Cost of Maintaining Nuclear Weapons by $140 Billion, AllGov, 27 Dec 13 Defense officials in the Obama administration were more than a little off when they told Congress the cost of maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal over the next 10 years.

They missed the mark by at least $140 billion.

Two years ago, the Pentagon informed lawmakers that they would need to allocate $214 billion over the coming decade to operate and upgrade the stockpile of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

But the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) looked at the Defense Department’s future plans and found that nuclear weapons-related costs were more likely to reach $355 billion by 2023.

That’s 66% higher than the 2011 estimate.

The $355 billion includes $136 billion to modernize and operate submarines, bombers and missiles that deliver warheads, $105 billion to run weapons labs, weapons and naval reactors, $56 billion for command and control systems, and $59 billion for unforeseen technical problems or mismanagement.

And that’s just the direct costs related to the nuclear arsenal.

CBO officials point out there are other, very costly programs that exist because of the nuclear weapons program, such as cleaning up shuttered nuclear fuel facilities or the nation’s missile defense systems for shooting down other nation’s nuclear missiles.

These other costs will likely cost the government another $215 billion over the next decade…..http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/obama-administration-underestimated-cost-of-maintaining-nuclear-weapons-by-140-billion-dollars?news=852020

About these ads

December 28, 2013 - Posted by | weapons and war

6 Comments »

  1. What a dichotomy USA hilds regarding its national security and also for the global security. At one hand it talks about “global zero” and global disarmament to promote peace while on the other hand it is allocating a large amount of money to carry out the business of nuclear warheads. Obama in his prague speech said that for maintaining global peace it is necessay to abolish all types of nuclear warheads. disarmament is though a idealistic [henomenon but is achievabl for that purpose major powers have to take practical step so that other states can follow them, but their policy towards maintaining global peace must be transparent and should not be holding double standards.

    Comment by Jasica | December 30, 2013 | Reply

  2. This is a dichotomy of humanity that we made preparations of war, bloodshed, treachery and sufferings from our own hands. It is very much reflected in the American case. It is a sole super power what left to be worried or threatened? But it is kept on increasing its nuclear arsenals which grows beyond the decisive amount. War is inherent in human nature despite of treacherous trait.

    Comment by Sunita | December 30, 2013 | Reply

  3. We need to invest in a strategy now that focuses on the threats of today and the threats of the future, not the Cold War threats of the past. America can guarantee its security and that of its allies in a more fiscally sustainable manner by spending less on nuclear weapons programs.

    Comment by Robert | December 30, 2013 | Reply

  4. So much for the Obama’s dream of nuclear zero, it seems to be limited only to get a noble prize. The US itself has become the violator of nuclear non-proliferation regime. Current establishment is running many illegal programs and corruption incidents over the tax payer’s money. If the US wants to the nuclear disarmament or nuclear arms control the first step it should take is to minimize the budget and reduce the stockpile.

    Comment by Nick Holding | December 30, 2013 | Reply

  5. The U.S. always wanted a nuclear weapons free world but the practical road to achieving this goal will never be realised until they make a strong commitment to further cuts and give a mutually agreed timeline towards disarmament. Ironically, the U.S. advocates Global Zero but maintains 5,113 warheads that are operationally deployed, or in active reserve, or are held in inactive storage. Their vague diplomatic antics often undermine their ability to achieve their objectives.

    Comment by hellen | December 30, 2013 | Reply

  6. Why Obama administration wants to keep the congress in dark regarding the weapons cost? On one hand Obama talks about global zero on other hand Its Nukes going green. US double standards have put International community in confusion. When critiques ask about massive number of US nukes, the answer for them is global security. It is really funny comment other state may follow the same pattern which will lead to the global proliferation. Obama should walk on his talks.

    Comment by Aazar Kund | December 30, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 829 other followers

%d bloggers like this: