The United States is preparing to spend almost $704 billion over the next several decades on its nuclear arsenal. This astronomically high cost to modernize the US nuclear force comes despite the shifting nature of war and an ever growing budgetary problem. In light of this, can the United States afford such an expensive overhaul?
Author Archives: Matt Price
Six years ago, President Obama stood in Hradcany Square in Prague, Czech Republic and announced “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” The President outlined a broad and bold strategy that focused on stopping rogue nuclear states, securing nuclear materials, and lowering weapon stockpiles.
On July 20, a flag raising ceremony drew hundreds of spectators and marked the reopening of the Cuban embassy in the United States. The short ceremony paled in comparison to the monumental shift in US foreign policy that the embassy opening represents. After years of estrangement, Cuba and the United States officially normalized diplomatic relations, ending a generation long stand-off.
Seemingly overnight, the terrorist organization ISIS established an illegitimate state spanning the borders of Iraq and Syria. Systematic human rights abuses and dramatic executions have drawn the world’s attention to the group; however, ISIS does not pose an immediate existential threat to the United States, begging the question: are there options other than putting US put boots on the ground to combat this problem?
A forthcoming study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) serves as a reminder that the US must evaluate the worthiness of investing billions of dollars into its nuclear arsenal. The study addresses affordability and concludes that “U.S. nuclear forces are affordable because their projected costs account for a small percentage of the overall defense budget.”
The Cold War is over. But some hardliners in Congress would have you believe it is 1980. In order to avoid problems in the future, the US must focus on three key areas in its relationship with Russia: the conflict in Ukraine, nuclear non-proliferation treaty compliance, and Russian national security needs.