The cost to build the infrastructure to produce plutonium cores for U.S. nuclear warheads could be as much as $18 billion, more than twice earlier projections.
The United States will spend $634 billion over the next 10 years to sustain and modernize its nuclear arsenal, up 28 percent over the last estimate, the Congressional Budget Office says.
Experts Available for Comment on Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request
Current U.S. nuclear weapons policies exceed what is necessary to deter a nuclear attack from any U.S. adversary, and the financial and opportunity costs of the current nuclear modernization plan are rising fast. Here are responses to several common arguments advanced by the supporters of the nuclear weapons status quo against proposals for adjusting the current U.S. nuclear modernization plan so that it is less costly and more conducive to efforts to reduce nuclear weapons risks.
Support for a new ICBM is tied closely to the money to be made developing, building, deploying and maintaining it. Yet the American public would eliminate the weapon altogether, a recent poll shows.
While President Joe Biden faces an array of complex foreign and domestic challenges, early proactive outreach to North Korea must be a priority.
Under evaluation are lower-yield nuclear weapons, and select command, control and communications.
Existing plans call for a 29 percent increase in funds to sustain and modernize U.S. nuclear warheads.
The history of the nuclear age shows that public pressure for saner nuclear weapons policies are essential for progress. Join us to learn what opportunities exist to finally eliminate these weapons and what you can do to help. (Organized by the Back from the Brink campaign)
President Joe Biden entered office with a deep knowledge of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the arms race. During the campaign, he said the United States “does not need new nuclear weapons” and “will work to maintain a strong, credible deterrent while reducing our reliance and excessive expenditure on nuclear weapons.”