nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Britain can’t afford its nuclear weapons, nor can USA

To preserve vital conventional military forces, the [USA] service chiefs will likely have to cut into the $54 billion spent each year on nuclear weapons-related programs.

British Budget Collapse Foreshadows Cuts to Come in U.S. Defense Budget, THE HUFFINGTON POST, Joe Cirincione, 21 Oct 10, Great Britain’s cuts, particularly to its nuclear forces, are the canary in the defense budget mine. Just as massive deficits forced the conservative UK government to cut deep into its military programs, the United States will soon have to choose: update its force structure or cling to obsolete Cold War posture?….the plan to delay a decision on building a new generation of nuclear-armed submarines to replace the four existing Trident subs, each armed with 16 missiles carrying a total of 48 hydrogen bombs per sub.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair decided to replace the fleet with new subs. But the cost — 28 billion pounds (or 44 billion U.S. dollars) — has made this a very unpopular decision. The British delay in deciding the fate of the Trident replacement may just delay the inevitable cancelation of the program. Paul Ingram, executive director of the British American Security Information Council, says the new nuclear sub would “be easily the most expensive defense procurement project for the decade from 2015/6, sucking the finances out of other major projects.”

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is going through his own budget pain, now choosing which weapons to cut in an effort to save some $100 billion over the next five years. The Pentagon budget has doubled since 2001, rising an average of seven percent a year. This budget growth is expected to slow to only 1 percent in the near future, and even that may be unsupportable. Something’s got to give. To preserve vital conventional military forces, the service chiefs will likely have to cut into the $54 billion spent each year on nuclear weapons-related programs.

The Navy currently has 14 Ohio class ballistic missile submarines. Each boat can carry 24 missiles with four nuclear warheads each — up to 1344 nuclear bombs carried by the entire fleet. Over the next 30 years, the Navy plans to buy 12 new subs, starting in 2019. In 2007, the Navy estimated that each sub would cost about $4 billion a piece. Now, the costs have skyrocket to over $7 billion each. The Navy says that the first sub of twelve would cost $9 billion — with a total program cost of $86 billion. But that may be low-balling it. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the total sub replacement program would run to $99 billion with another $15 billion in research and development.

But will we need hundreds of sub-based nuclear missiles in 2040? ….Gates would do well to learn from the British budget disaster: Delay a decision on a new U.S. nuclear sub until we know if this sub is really necessary.

Joe Cirincione: British Budget Collapse Foreshadows Cuts to Come in U.S. Defense Budget

October 21, 2010 - Posted by | USA, weapons and war | , , ,

2 Comments »

  1. As our nuclear weapons’ only purpose since 1945 has been to serve as a deterrent, I am suggesting to scrap them but at the same time to maintain the impression that we still have them. For a deterring function, you don’t need the real stuff.

    See for examples, both from history and recent, that underline my argument: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/nuclear-codes/

    Comment by Andreas Moser | October 24, 2010 | Reply

  2. That sounds good. But, gee, what a bit of bad luck it would be, if some country decided to get in first, and nuclear bomb your country, because they thought you had the nuclear bomb – so you got nuked anyway, precisely because you were bluffing about having the bomb.
    Gee, that wouldn’t be much of a deterrent, would it?

    Comment by Christina MacPherson | October 24, 2010 | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: