5 ms·
America's nuclear arsenal to cost $946B over next decade
- ziofill 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 2y agoThat's actually pretty cheap.
- genjo 2y agoI thought the same. So we are still not gonna see any of the good stuff, ey?
- topspin 2y ago$94.6B/y, as compared to the $824B 2024 DOD budget. 11.4% of DOD to sustain the most important weapon system in existence. I wouldn't use the word "cheap," but it doesn't look all that unreasonable, given what we're dealing with here.
- Coffeewine 2y agoWe could probably drive the cost down a bit by specializing in a delivery system (say, submarines) but I’m not a strategist and maybe those that are think it’s too risky. Certainly if we were to keep only one thing about the military it would be nuclear missiles.
- topspin 2y agoI think the diversity of platforms is a small factor in the cost: nearly all of the equipment and people involved in the various delivery modes would still exist if there were no nukes at all, and possibly in far greater quantity. Further, I don't believe the figure cited here is actually meaningful: the net cost of nuclear weapons isn't calculable thing. There are far too many indirections involved, and the depth of the thinking and planning and interrelationships can't actually be reflected in a ledger, never mind thinking about what the cost of not funding this arsenal might be. But, to the extent that the bean counters can, somehow, draw a bunch of arbitrary lines in the sand and directly attribute some 11% of the US military budget to the nukes keeping the peace on behalf of the entire Western world, it doesn't appear excessive.
- pfdietz 2y agoThe goal of the US nuclear unbrella isn't just to defend the western world, it's to inhibit the rest of the western world from building nuclear weapons. At some point there may be a phase change where the US abandons this goal. In that world, the rational strategy becomes one of strategic disengagement, so that if nuclear war breaks out (or a conventional war that risks going nuclear) the US is not drawn in. The lesson becomes that of WW1, not WW2.
- topspin 2y ago"The goal of the US nuclear unbrella..." So say you. This is a discussion about costs, as opposed "goals." Were I to stipulate the claim you make, then it's all be a terrible failure: at least three US allies have built and currently operate a nuclear arsenal.
- TMWNN 2y agoCorrect. Similarly, part of the reason the UK has repeatedly decided to retain its remaining nuclear weapons (Trident submarines) is that nukes were and are, pound for pound, very inexpensive compared to other weapons.
- deadbabe 2y agoThat’s alarmingly cheap when spread over a decade. Feels like it doesn’t cost much to become a United States level nuclear superpower.
- parrit 2y agoSounds like mostly maintenance, warheads etc. though rather than refinement of new materials?
- nradov 2y agoWe aren't expanding the weapons stockpile so there's not a of refinement needed, just enough for maintenance.
- rbanffy 2y ago> Feels like it doesn’t cost much to become a United States level nuclear superpower Any country attempting to build a military nuclear capability will need to invest in manufacturing fuel from mining to highly enriched forms suitable for weapons. This is not something easy to hide, as Iran found out the hard way a couple times. OTOH, nobody is going to invade North Korea now.
- hdivider 2y agoSadly, we need it. And yet we should build and struggle toward the conditions which would allow a massive reduction of the nucelar arsenal. This would require a level of strategy and clear-mindedness as well as strengthening the US Alliance system so we can push against the autocracy superpowers in a united front, by nonviolent means. Instead we get high school age kids with flash drives stealing the most sensitive federal government data and potentially injecting unknown code. So the best bet is this $946B will flow down to other innovations and market translation through the small business set-aside laws. One can always hope.
- karlgkk 2y agoWe don’t need it. We have about 3500 warheads and another 1500 awaiting dismantlement I’m not going to say that a country doesn’t need nuclear weapons in the modern era. As disappointing as that is. But I really do not see why we need 3500 Surely, 1500 nuclear bombs is an effective deterrent
- exabrial 2y agoThere's 'x' number that is effective and practical. You have to have x1 number of submarines deployed at any time, x2 in ICBM silos, x3 on carriers, x4 on destroyers, x5 stationed at air bases. Of that pool, probably 50% have to be rotated off for maintenance, etc. Whatever that number is, the 31,000+ we used to have was stupid. 3,500 in a historical context is a relief. The real conundrum these days is that you can't test more. You want to be 100% certain it goes off when needed, but it's pretty hard to test that theory without... testing one. If all that could be done with 1,500 I'm all in. Just a lot of 'practical' considerations that go into whatever 'x' number is.
- dreamcompiler 2y ago> The real conundrum these days is that you can't test more. This is why the DOE has the most powerful supercomputers in the world. They have to simulate nuclear explosions because they can't test them.
- ta20240528 2y agoNo mention of the moral obligation to the other 100+ compliant nations in the non-proliferation treaty to disarm?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- threeseed 2y agoNo one is talking about disarming the US. But everyone including the US acknowledges that they don’t need the ridiculous number of nuclear weapons any longer. Especially given that as Trump said Europe is responsible for itself now.
- rbanffy 2y agoSo, every European country should acquire nuclear weapons and develop MIRVs that can overwhelm Trump’s Golden Shower so they can dissuade the US from invading. You can only lose trust once.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 2y agoIf Europe didn't already have top secret "Break in case the US goes rogue" plans then they were being negligent and I can assure you they are making those plans now.
- rbanffy 2y agoI’m sure the plans are there. I’m unsure if they were adequately funded. You see, for instance, a lot of high tech weapons come from the US and, presumably, have all sorts of kill switches. We, at least, need to stop buying those.
- ujkhsjkdhf234 2y agoTrump has talked about disarming the US. [0] https://apnews.com/article/trump-china-russia-nuclear-bbc1c75920297f1e5ba5556d084da4de https://apnews.com/article/trump-china-russia-nuclear-bbc1c7...
- TrexArms 2y agoAsk Ukraine how much it cost them to get rid of theirs.
- KingOfCoders 2y agoAnd trusting Russia and the US that they would protect Ukraine's sovereignty and "refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine".
- cyberpunk2066 2y ago[flagged]
- api 2y agoI am deeply saddened to say that I agree. Keep the nukes. Creating a world that results in that conclusion may go down as one of the greatest policy failures in history, and if we do in the end have an atomic war I think that's where the responsibility lay. Ultimately we have failed as a species to rise morally above "might makes right" and I think we are going to pay for that.
- rbanffy 2y ago> Ultimately we have failed as a species to rise morally above "might makes right" We really need to get out of the economy of scarcity. Without that, war and aggression are unavoidable.
- ponector 2y agoBut Ukrainian invasion is not caused by scarcity.
- Jensson 2y agoSome believe it was triggered by lack of water in Crimea after Ukraine blocked the canal that brought water there. So you can argue it was caused by scarcity. You can see evidence for this as one of the first things Russia did was reopen those canals so water started flowing to Crimea again. That might not have been the only goal, but it was certainly one of the bigger reasons for the attack.
- tonetheman 2y ago[dead]
- 7e 2y agoThe total net worth of all U.S. households is close to $160 trillion. A trillion dollars over a decade (100B a year) as an insurance policy is a very good deal.
- rbanffy 2y agoYou are assuming it’ll actually work. Will the US nuke countries that move away from the dollar as a reserve currency?
- 7e 2y agoI believe this budget includes supercomputer based simulations for reliability without testing. But even if it's not 100% reliable, it still works as a deterrent. Why would the US start a nuclear war over reserve currency? You are an idiot.
- TrexArms 2y agoWe're undermining it ourselves with allowing crypto to be legal & traded in the manner it is.
- rbanffy 2y agoI’m confused. Why is this being flagged? The discussion is civil and this is a topic that’s usually interesting to the crowd here.
- wiseowise 2y ago[flagged]