 |
The U.S. plan for modernizing the nation's nuclear arsenal is so expensive that it cannot be implemented, the authors of a new study contend.
"It's just not real," Jeffrey Lewis, one of the report's co-authors, said in reference to the current U.S. modernization blueprint. "It's inconceivable to me that we will execute anything like the plan that they say they're going to do."
The analysis, released on Tuesday by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, says the strategy to update the U.S. triad of nuclear-armed bomber aircraft, submarines and ground-based missiles would cost $1 trillion over the next 30 years, even under conservative assumptions.
The estimate relies largely on official government figures, the authors say, and does not include costs associated missile defense, nonproliferation efforts and related intelligence programs.
Instead, it includes only the cost of maintaining the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, buying replacement systems and upgrading bombs and warheads, as called for by the current plan. Major cost drivers of the $1 trillion plan include a new Long-Range Strike bomber, which the report projects will cost $55-100 billion, and Ohio-class replacement submarines, which the study says could cost $77-102 billion.
Among the more controversial items on the modernization agenda are plans to upgrade B-61 gravity bombs stationed in Europe, create a new Long-Range Standoff Cruise missile, and develop a series of new, interoperable warheads capable of replacing multiple weapons now in the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
Given current budget constraints, implementing all of these plans simultaneously is so unrealistic that attempting it would likely backfire and cause major projects to be canceled midstream, said Lewis, speaking during the study's Tuesday public roll-out. Doing nothing to inject realism into the plans in the near term could ultimately leave aging weapons without replacements, Lewis forecasted.
"I do not support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but if I did, [I'd recommend that we] just keep doing exactly what we're doing," Lewis said. "We might really end up with this tiny little denuded force that was developed with no particular strategic thought in mind.
"The example I think of is -- we're talking about spending $10-12 billion on the B-61 [bomb] at this moment, at the very time the Air Force is making all kinds of signals that it will not make nuclear-capable the F-35" Joint Strike Fighter or nuclear-certify from the outset the planned new Long-Range Strike bomber, Lewis added. "So, we'll spend $12 billion on a bomb that won't have an airplane to drop it."....
I surely would applaud, if the US continue on this course. LOL! It is like shop till you drop in extreme, coming home with all those unnecessary items which were 50% off... (no offense meant of course). But I would propose to go instead for Zero. Those Nuclear Weapons are useless anyway !
Ak Malten, Pro Peaceful Energy Use
Analysts: $1 Trillion U.S. Nuclear-Weapons Plan Too Costly To Implement
Related:
New Mexico policy group: new study is correct; conclusions widely understood already in government; new study's scope does not include other serious problems; conservatism of study's basic conclusions underscored
New study of nuclear deterrent costs: current plans to cost $1 trillion over 30 years, therefore impossible
Omnibus spending bill invests heavily in nuclear warheads but falls short of funds requested, signaling shifts and uncertainties as troubles mount,
Big money behind war: the military-industrial complex
More than 50 years after President Eisenhower's warning, Americans find themselves in perpetual war.
And then a via the UNODA spread document:
Contrasting Perspectives On Tactical Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Understanding the Current Debates - pdf
shows that Tactical Nuclear Weapon Disarmament in Europe could be just around the corner...
| |
No comments:
Post a Comment