From the end of World War II until the late 1980s, the Soviet threat was the primary driver for the U.S. nuclear weapons program. U.S. policy focused on building a strong nuclear arsenal both in terms of the latest technology and large numbers. According to Atomic Audit, a 1998 study focused on nuclear weapons costs published by the Brookings Institution, the U.S. has spent $5.5 trillion on the research and development, testing, construction, and maintenance of nuclear weapons since the dawn of the atomic age.
The end of the Cold War has eliminated the primary rationale for maintaining high levels of nuclear weapons. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has lost its main competitor in the nuclear weapons arms race. The U.S. is in a position to reduce drastically its massive nuclear stockpile. However, while there has been some progress in U.S.-Russian warhead elimination, the U.S. still maintains an excessive and costly nuclear arsenal. While Russia deploys many thousands of nuclear weapons, they pose a different threat than they did during the Cold War: accidental launch and diversion or theft of nuclear weapons and material. Russia's economic problems are forcing reductions of its operational nuclear forces. The new situation makes massive nuclear buildup even less prudent and rapid reductions of these dangerous weapons even more logical. These developments provide the U.S. the need and the opportunity to take bold steps to deactivate and eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons.
WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO?
At a time when the U.S. has the opportunity to save money by streamlining its nuclear arsenal, the Brookings Institution's U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project estimates that the U.S. is still spending up to $35 billion annually on nuclear weapons and related programs-- 14% of all U.S. military spending. The Department of Defense and Department of Energy are spending $19.2 billion and $5.6 billion respectively on the operation of nuclear forces. Annual costs for environmental restoration and waste management resulting from nuclear weapons research, development, and production total $5.9 billion. Taxpayers also support related programs such as storage, elimination of fissile materials and arms reduction.
Besides these expenditures, there are many less obvious costs. For example, the
Department of Energy spent $97 million between 1990 and 1997 fending off lawsuits filed by
workers and citizens relating to irresponsible nuclear weapons production activities, and the
Department of Justice has settled claims totaling $225 million as of January 1998, under the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990.
| US Spending on Nuclear Weapons and Programs | ||
|---|---|---|
|
FY 1998 (Estimated) In Billions |
||
| Department of Defense
Strategic Nuclear Forces $7.5 Tactical Nuclear and Dual-Capable Forces $1 Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence $6 Operation/Maintenance $4 Research/Development $0.4 Defense Special Weapons Agency $0.3 Defense Environmental Restoration Account $0.5 National and Theater Missile Defense $3.8 Cooperative Threat Reduction $0.4 On-Site Inspection Agency $0.04
Total- $23.94 |
Department of Energy
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program $4.3 Defense Programs $0.968 Naval Nuclear Propulsion $0.335 Environmental Restoration/Waste Management $5.4 Total-$11 |
Additional Sources
Department of Justice (Radiation Exposure Compensation Act) $0.03 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency $0.035 Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board $0.02 International Atomic Energy Agency (U.S. Payments) $0.05 Congressional Oversight $0.05 Total-$0.19 |
WHAT IS IN THE NUCLEAR STOCKPILE?
Despite the progress resulting from the START I treaty, the U.S. still maintains an excessive nuclear arsenal. Currently, the United States has approximately 12,500 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, both strategic (long range) and short range weapons. When START II goes into force, the number of active strategic warheads will be reduced to 3,500, and the START III negotiations could bring those levels down to between 2,000 and 2,500 strategic warheads.
There are three primary classifications of nuclear weapons in the U.S. stockpile: active warheads, contingency warheads, and weapons awaiting dismantlement. The U.S. currently has approximately 8,500 active warheads in its nuclear arsenal along with 2,500 contingency or backup warheads. As of mid-1998, there were about 1,500 warheads that were retired and awaiting dismantlement.
The weapons are spread across 14 states. Seventy percent of the weapons are deployed or stored in New Mexico, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, and North Dakota. Other states with nuclear weapons are Wyoming, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, California, Virginia, and Colorado.
|
|
|---|---|
| Warhead (Weapon) | Number in Stockpile |
| Bombs | |
|
B61-7 |
300 |
| B61-11 | 50 |
| B83 | 480 |
| Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles | |
|
W62 (Minuteman III)
|
610 |
| W78 (Minuteman III) | 915 |
| W87-0 (MX) |
525 |
| Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles | |
|
W76 (Trident I C4) |
3,200 |
| W88 (Trident II D5) | 400 |
| Air-Launched Cruise Missiles | |
|
W80-1 (ALCM) |
400 |
| W80-1 (ACM) | 400 |
|
Non-Strategic Forces |
|
| B61- Tactical Bomb | 750 |
| W80-0 (SLCM) |
320 |
| TOTAL - 8,350 | |
|
*Source: Natural Resources Defence Council
|
|
COLD WAR SPENDING
According to Atomic Audit,there has not been a dramatic decrease in federal spending on
nuclear weapons research and development, production, and operation since the end of the Cold
War. At the peak of the nuclear weapons stockpile in 1966, the U.S. maintained 32,200 active
warheads at a cost of $4.2 billion*. At the height of the Cold War, the Reagan Administration
jacked up spending on all military forces, including nuclear weapons, so in 1985, the U.S. spent
$5.8 billion on its nuclear weapons stockpiles. In recent times, spending on nuclear weapons
research and development, production, and operation has been named Stockpile Stewardship and
Stockpile Management, and in 1998, the U.S. spent $4.3 billion on these programs.
*all figures in 1998 dollars
Comparative US Nuclear Spending |
|---|
|
Atomic Energy
Commission |
 |
*Data Source: The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project |
IS RUSSIA STILL A THREAT?
Due to its large number of nuclear weapons, Russia remains the other main nuclear power, but it does not present a military threat to the U.S. because of its current economic situation. Russia is suffering from a rapid devaluation of the ruble, and the country is defaulting on its loans. The Russian government is using its limited resources to bail out its failing banks. In addition to these problems, Russian industrial production has declined dramatically, so about 50% of its consumer goods and services are imported.
A country faced with these economic problems has neither the time nor money to invest in maintaining its nuclear arsenals or building new weapons. According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, last year Russia had 70 strategic bombers, but due to a lack of funding, many were not operational. Furthermore, Russian submarines cannot go to sea. Due to the severity of the financial situation, the U.S. is assisting former republics of the Soviet Union to destroy nuclear weapons and safeguard its nuclear materials under the Cooperative Threat Reduction program.
As for other threats, no other nation has an arsenal that compares to the size of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenal. United Kingdom, France, and China maintain fewer than 500 warheads, and therefore do not justify maintaining U.S. stockpiles at the current 12,500 warhead level.
CUMULATIVE COSTS
Since World War II, the cumulative amount of money that the U.S. has spent on nuclear weapons is extremely high. According to the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project, the U.S. spent $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and related programs between 1940 and 1996. In comparison to other governmental obligations during that time period, that expense rated third behind general national defense costs, which were $13.2 trillion, and Social Security costs, which totaled $7.9 trillion. Cumulative spending for other government programs fell far short of nuclear spending. For example, $2.3 trillion was spent on Medicare, $1.8 trillion was spent on veterans' benefits and services, and $1.7 trillion was spent on health services.
From 1940 until 1996, the U.S. spared no expense in building up an arsenal that would ensure its place in the front of the arms race. The avowed purpose of pursuing such an extensive nuclear arsenal during the Cold War was deterrence; possessing the nuclear capabilities to destroy a country that threatened U.S. security with nuclear warfare.
Despite the end of the Cold War, U.S. nuclear policy still remains geared towards deterrence. Edward L. Warner, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of 1998 that "nuclear deterrence remains an essential element to deal with the gravest threats... we believe that the knowledge that the United States has a powerful and ready nuclear capability poses a significant deterrent to proliferators."
> It is time for the U.S. to rethink this policy of deterrence which was the cause of the massive build up of nuclear weapons. Outside of Russia, no country threatens U.S. security, so deterrence cannot be justified. In a February 2, 1998 speech, retired General Lee Butler, who formerly commanded the U.S. nuclear forces, warned of the risks of deterrence stating "Only now are the dimensions, costs and risks of these nuclear nether worlds coming to light. What must now be better- understood are the root causes, the mindsets and the belief systems that brought them into existence. They must be challenged, they must be refuted, but most importantly, they must be let go."
On November 17, 1998 in his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) proposed U.S. unilateral nuclear weapons reductions. He argued that as we maintain our current arsenal, Russia struggles to do the same. If we reduce our nuclear warheads, they may do so as well. The Pentagon has also reportedly proposed that the U.S. should reduce its number of nuclear warheads below the 6,000 strategic warhead START I level.
CONCLUSION
In this post-Cold War world, it is time to re-evaluate the level of nuclear stockpiles and the money spent on nuclear weapons. The U.S. is still spending $35 billion dollars on its nuclear arsenal despite the fact that its major threat has disintegrated. This amount is difficult to justify in light of both the current threat and other needs both domestically and in the Pentagon.
From The Council for a Livable World: The contents of this page may be reproduced in whole or in part without further permission with proper credit given.