I have blogged recently about plans to update the U.S. nuclear arsenal. We have B-52 bombers that first flew in the middle of the last century. The missile silos containing our Minuteman fleet of intercontinental ballistic missiles are so out of date that their computers use eight inch floppy disks. They constitute the oldest and most vulnerable part of the U.S. nuclear triad.
President Obama called for expending a trillion dollars over the next thirty years on that goal. Although Obama once called for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons, his plans for our arsenal were actually the biggest call for spending on nuclear weapons since the Cold War administration of President Reagan in the 1980s. The Obama Department of Defense was eager to develop a new long-range nuclear-armed missile. The B-52s and B-1 were to be replaced with a new advanced stealth nuclear bomber. Our fleet of nuclear-armed submarines were to be retired and a new fleet of stealth submarines built and deployed. One of the biggest problems was the need to bring the Minuteman missile installations up to twenty first century computer security standards to prevent cyberattacks that could cripple that leg of our nuclear triad.
Critics of the modernization plans asked whether or not we really needed over fifteen hundred nuclear warheads to protect us. Considering the very expensive project to modernize our Minuteman fleet, some critics suggested that perhaps it is time to retire our ICBMs. They say that the other two legs of the triad, bombers and submarines are more than enough to keep us safe. Some analysts were concerned that the new cruise missile project was unnecessary and could be destabilizing for the nuclear balance between Russia and the U.S.
Unfortunately, the cooling relationship between Russia and the U.S. in the past few years made it unlikely that there could be a new round of negotiations to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both countries. Both countries have made public statements to the effect that they are going to spend a great deal of money to upgrade their nuclear arsenals. Both countries have also accused the other country of violating the existing nuclear arms treaties.
President Trump who has just taken office said, following his election, that the U.S. “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.” Accusations that his election was aided by the Russians have made the U.S. and Russian relationship even more difficult and arms-reduction talks unlikely.
The Congressional Budget Office has just released a new estimate for the changes planned to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The estimate for the whole project is now one trillion two hundred billion dollars. This is twenty percent above the estimate from the Obama administration. The question now is, in spite of forceful calls by Trump for upgrading our nuclear arsenal, will the Trump administration really have the fortitude to seek such expenditures in the next defense budget?
It may be difficult for Trump to overcome the resistance and backlash that are inevitable in light of the increased cost estimates for modernizing our nuclear arsenal. Currently, the modernization program is primarily in the development stages. The higher cost of producing and deploying the upgraded weapons and delivery systems will not arrive until after 2020.
Supporters of the modernization project claim that failing to follow through with the complete upgrade envisioned would severely increase the risks to our national security. They say that we really do need the new weapons to maintain the effectiveness the nuclear triad that now exists.
