U.S. to spend $1 trillion on nuclear weapons over next decade
It's going to cost nearly $1 trillion to operate, maintain and upgrade America's nuclear arsenal over the next decade — more per year ($95 billion) than what's spent on many federal agencies.
Why it matters: That eye-popping estimate from the Congressional Budget Office is catnip for critics, who argue Washington is spending blindly or that portions of the triad are vestigial.
Driving the news: The combined 2025-34 nuke plans of the Defense and Energy departments amount to $946 billion.
In what have been a few wild days for the nuke-watching world — including India-Pakistan clashes and the U.S. Air Force saying it needs new silos for its already delayed and over-budget Sentinel missiles — the dollar figures jump out.
What they're saying: "The huge expenses tallied in this report were not anticipated at the outset of the nuclear modernization program," said Greg Mello, the director of Los Alamos Study Group, which monitors National Nuclear Security Administration sites and activities.
"There will be no return to the 'heroic mode of production' for nuclear weapons," he added.
"Even if Congress dumped $100 or $200 billion more on nuclear weapons, the system that produces them would not 'jump to the task' for years, if at all."
Our thought bubble: There's a lot on the table, even if you ignore requisite infrastructure upgrades at places like the Savannah River Site. Sentinel. B-21 Raider. Long-Range Standoff Weapon. Columbia-class submarines.
What we're watching: Where today's obsession with cheap mass (drones and artillery shells, for example) clashes with revered and rarely used stockpiles.
Nuclear acquisition programs represent almost 12% of the Defense Department's planned buying costs over the next decade, according to the CBO. That means DOD will have to make "difficult choices about which programs to pursue."
Arms Control Association executive director Daryl Kimball in a piece this month said "skyrocketing" prices siphon resources from "other more pressing human needs and national security priorities."
Yes, but: There are businesspeople who think it can be done more effectively.
"What we see here is the really strong need for the U.S. government, specifically on the topic of nuclear deterrence, to look at opportunities to work with" the private sector, JC Btaiche, the founder of Fuse, told Axios.
Fuse seeks to be the "new nuclear-security prime," as Btaiche put it. Its advisers include Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, the former NNSA boss, and retired Adm. Charles Richard, once the head of Strategic Command.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
19 minutes ago
- USA Today
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts
4 Social Security changes Washington could make to prevent benefit cuts Show Caption Hide Caption Biden criticizes Trump administration's handling of Social Security Social Security overhaul sparks criticism from Biden over service disruptions, layoffs and automation as Trump defends changes as efficiency. Straight Arrow News Social Security is an important source of income for millions of Americans, but the program has a serious financial problem. Costs have increased faster than revenues in recent years because the aging population is growing more quickly than the working population. As a result, the trust fund, the financial account that pays benefits, is on track to be depleted within a decade. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the trust fund will be exhausted in 2034. That would eliminate one source of revenue (i.e., interest earned on trust fund reserves), and the remaining tax revenues would only cover 77% of scheduled payments. That means a 23% benefit cut would be necessary in 2035. Fortunately, the lawmakers in Washington have several years to find a better solution. Here are four Social Security changes that could prevent deep, across-the-board benefit cuts. 1. Apply the Social Security payroll tax to income above $400,000 Social Security is primarily funded by a dedicated payroll tax, which takes 6.2% of wages from workers and employers. But some income is exempt from the payroll tax. Specifically, the maximum taxable earnings limit is $176,100 in 2025. Income above that threshold is not taxed by Social Security. Importantly, the Social Security program is projected to run a $23 trillion deficit over the next 75 years as it's strained by shifting demographics. But the deficit could be slashed by applying the payroll tax to more income. For instance, including income above $400,000 would eliminate 60% of the 75-year funding shortfall, says the University of Maryland. 2. Gradually increase the Social Security payroll tax rate to 6.5% over six years Under current law, the Social Security payroll tax rate is 6.2% for workers and their employers. But gradually raising that figure would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit. For example, increasing thetax rate by 0.05% annually over a six-year period would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. Now that I've discussed two possible changes, let's step back and look at the big picture. There are basically three ways to resolve Social Security's financial problems: (1) increase revenue, (2) reduce costs or (3) some combination of the first two options. The changes discussed so far would increase revenue, but the next two changes would cut benefits. However, they are more subtle cuts than the 23% across-the-board reduction that would follow trust fund depletion. 3. Gradually increase full retirement age to 68 by 2033 Workers are eligible for retirement benefits at age 62, but they are not entitled to their full benefit — also called the primary insurance amount (PIA) — until full retirement age (FRA). Anyone that claims before full retirement age receives a smaller payout, meaning they get less than 100% of their PIA. FRA is currently defined as 67 years old for workers born in 1960 or later, but raising the figure would reduce the long-term deficit. For instance, increasing FRA to 68 years old by 2033, meaning it would apply to workers born in 1965 or later, would eliminate 15% of the 75-year funding shortfall, according to the University of Maryland. 4. Reduce benefits for retired workers with income in the top 20% Social Security benefits are determined as percentages of two bend points. Specifically, income from the 35 highest-paid years of work is adjusted for inflation and converted to a monthly figure called the average indexed monthly earnings (AIME) amount. The AIME is then run through a formula that uses two bend points to determine the PIA for each worker. Modifying the second (highest) bend point would eliminate a portion of the long-term deficit by reducing benefits for high earners. For instance, the University of Maryland estimates that reducing benefits for individuals with income in the top 20% could reduce the 75-year funding deficit by 11%. Here's the big picture: The four changes I've discussed would eliminate 101% of Social Security's $23 trillion funding shortfall, which would prevent across-the-board benefit cuts in 2035. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
UPI
3 hours ago
- UPI
DOD is investigating Hegseth's staffers over Houthi-strikes chats
The Defense Department Inspector General is investigating two instances when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in March discussed military strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen while using Signal group chats that included civilians. Photo by Chris Kleponis/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The Defense Department's Inspector General is investigating Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's March 13 Signal chat ahead of the U.S. military's extended aerial strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. The IG's office initiated the investigation weeks ago and has interviewed current and former Hegseth staffers to learn how the chat and one other that occurred on the Signal encrypted mobile messaging app included civilians, ABC News reported. A DOD IG spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation because it is ongoing. Signal supports encrypted group messaging chats, but at least two chats discussed the onset of U.S. military action against the Houthis that started on March 15. The first erroneously included The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, while a second Signal chat included Hegseth's wife and brother. Hegseth in April blamed "disgruntled" former employees and media for the controversy over the Signalchat mishaps that many have dubbed "Signalgate." "This is what media does," Hegseth told media during the annual Easter Egg Roll event at the White House on April 21. "They take anonymous sources from disgruntled former employees and they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations," he said. "We're changing the Defense Department and putting the Pentagon back in the hands of warfighters," Hegseth said. "Anonymous smears from disgruntled former employees on old news don't matter." The aerial attacks continued from March 15 until May 6, when President Donald Trump announced the Houthis agreed to stop attacking U.S.-flagged vessels. The Houthis did not stop attacking Israel or commercial shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.
Buzz Feed
6 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Dan Rather's Defense Of A Gay Rights Icon Against Pete Hegseth Is Going Viral
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told the Navy to rename a ship named after iconic civil rights leader Harvey Milk. For those who don't know, Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in US history and a pioneering gay rights activist. In 1977, he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, where he promoted anti-discrimination laws/LGBTQ rights before being assassinated in 1978. Harvey served as an officer in the US Navy during the Korean War before being forced to leave the military because of suspicions about his sexual orientation. A ship was named after him in 2016. Now, ABC news reports an official told them the renaming of the ship during Pride Month was intentional. Veteran journalist Dan Rather posted a response on Facebook, and it's going mega viral. Here it is: The comments are one of the rare areas online lately not full of garbage: "Kind of a backhanded compliment! Now I know who he is and why the Navy honored him in the first place," one person commented. "They say they want to promote a 'warrior culture.' Milk was most definitely a warrior, as well as a decorated Navy veteran," another person said. And this person joked, "Could we then rename the Titanic the Hegseth?" Then there are a bunch of people who said the post caused them to look up Harvey Milk for the first time. "I never knew of Harvey Milk. Thank you, Hegseth for educating me about this great American hero," one person wrote. "I didn't know that the U.S. Navy had a ship named after Milk. Now I do," another person commented. And this person said, "I didn't even know that Mr. Milk was a veteran, but now I do!" I guess it's working!
