Login/Logout

*
*  

ACA’s journal, Arms Control Today, remains the best in the market. Well focused. Solidly researched. Prudent.

– Hans Blix,
former IAEA Director-General

Official Nuclear Weapons Costs Too Low, Arms Control Today Article Finds
Share this

For Immediate Release: June 4, 2012

Media Contacts: Russell Rumbaugh, Stimson Center (202-478-3422)

(Washington, D.C.) As Congress debates defense spending and deficit reduction, observers have pointed to U.S. nuclear weapons as a target for budget cuts. Yet, there has been disagreement about the actual costs of nuclear weapons, and estimates vary. Now, using a new methodology, an article in the June issue of Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, finds that the United States spends about $31 billion on nuclear weapons annually, or about 50 percent more than official estimates.

The article, "Resolving the Ambiguity of Nuclear Weapons Costs," by Russell Rumbaugh and Nathan Cohn of the Stimson Center, finds that the differences between previous cost estimates can be explained by two factors: a tendency to count different things, and a Pentagon budget that is hard to fathom. "Once these two issues are addressed," the authors find, "there is little disagreement about the cost of nuclear weapons."

Using a bottom-up approach, the authors' estimate of $31 billion includes $22.7 billion from the Defense Department (delivery systems, command and control, research, and related costs) and $8.2 billion from the Energy Department (nuclear warheads, naval reactors, and related costs). This is $11 billion higher than the official estimate ($20 billion) but significantly lower than some outside estimates. According to Rumbaugh and Cohn, "At the very least, this study should clarify that official estimates relying on a narrow definition of nuclear weapons understate the actual amounts the United States spends on nuclear weapons."

The article finds that it is reasonable to include, as some higher estimates do, the budgets for missile defense, environmental cleanup and nonproliferation under costs of nuclear weapons, but it is also reasonable to leave them out. According to the authors, "the study has demonstrated that nuclear weapons do incur costs greater than the ones the official estimates describe, no matter how narrowly nuclear weapons spending is defined."

Members and subscribers who have a digital account, click here for access to the June issue. If not, click here to establish your account.

Journalists who are not ACT subscribers and would like the text of the article may contact Russell Rumbaugh, [email protected]

###

 

The Arms Control Association is an independent, membership-based organization dedicated to providing authoritative information and practical policy solutions to address the threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons.

<strong>NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS</a></strong><br/><br/>

Posted: June 4, 2012