The multi $billion cost of USA “modernising” its nuclear weaponry

US to spend billions ‘modernizing’ nuclear arsenal By AFP | 6 Nov, 2013, WASHINGTON: The United States plans to spend billions to upgrade a decades-oldatomic bomb designed to stop a Soviet invasion of Europe, as part of a controversial project to modernize its nuclear arsenal.

Economic Times,
Some lawmakers and experts dismiss the effort as a colossal waste of money that could derail arms control talks with Russia. ……. Some members of Congress are wary of the price tag, as the estimated cost for modernizing the B61 bomb keeps rising, from an initial $4 billion to $8.1 billion. And a Pentagon panel has projected the cost could reach $10 to $12 billion.

“The case against the B61 life extension is simple: it is unaffordable, unworkable and unnecessary,” said Kingston Reif of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

For skeptics, the project looks overly ambitious at a time of budget austerity, when the Air Force is already planning major spending on the new F-35 fighter jet, a new long-range bomber and a new cruise missile.

The cost of the program is coming under particular scrutiny because Obama himself is pushing to scrap tactical weapons in Europe, prompting criticism that the whole undertaking is unneccessary.

“To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to spend billions of dollars to extend the life of weapons that the president has already said he wants to get rid of,” said Tom Collina, director of research at the Arms Control Association.

In an editorial, the New York Times denounced the effort as a “Faustian bargain” Obama made with Senate Republicans in 2010, promising modernization of the nuclear arsenal to secure approval of the New Start arms reduction agreement with Russia. Obama has touted fresh arms control negotiations with Russia as a priority but making improvements to the B61 bomb could undermine prospects for any deal with Moscow, Collina and other experts said.

“Certainly, if the United States puts upgraded B61 bombs that are more accurate in Europe, Russia will probably have a response,” Collina said.
“I don’t know what that would be, but it certainly won’t be very positive.” http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/us-to-spend-billions-modernizing-nuclear-arsenal/articleshow/25333663.cms

November 7, 2013 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | USA, weapons and war

2 Comments »

The US is going to spend trillions ,if not zillions,to maintain nuclear primacy.It can be no 1 but it won’t spare the US from nuclear retaliation shd the Pentagon decide to attack China with nw.
The PLA won’t sit still and watch its nuclear deterrent be nullified.It will add more numbers of offensive nw to ensure if China were ever hit with nw by the US,the CONUS wont be spared.
Btw,trying to attack the PLA nw with conventional weapons wont work. It will only force the PLA to go nuclear and help it acquire more nw which will mean less security for the US.
Get real.China 2014 aint the China of Mao’s time when the US could intimidate with the 7 th fleet.As one Chinese official put it,more security for the US means less security for China.That is why it is critical for China to have a significant retaliatory n strike force: secure and invulnerable.Then and only will the US respect it.
As for Obama’s pledge to rid the world of nw,it looks like it will backfire.Indeed the Nobel Prize Committee shd strip him of the Peace prize.

Comment by Chinama | January 28, 2014 | Reply
The US has an overkill in nw, It has 20000 nw which is more than adequate for self defence. But heck no. IT aint satisfied. In any nuclear war it wants to be immune from nuclear retaliation.
It maybe possible once upon a time but not in this present day and age.
Hence the nuclear upgrade which will probably feature anti missile defence. The problem is China aint going to stand still and watch its nuclear deterrent degraded, For all you know they may develop more nw to ensure the PLA nuclear deterrent stays relevant and can defend China from US nuclear blackmail.

Comment by Mike ChinaChinama | January 31, 2014 | Reply