Alissa Tabirian
NS&D Monitor
6/26/2015
The modernization of U.S. nuclear forces will require an increase in defense spending that surpasses Budget Control Act limits but will drop to current levels after the execution of certain modernization programs, according to a report preview released this week by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The CSBA estimates that “annual costs should grow by 56 percent (adjusting for inflation) and peak around [Fiscal Year] 2027 before declining to near current levels in the late 2030s,” based on a study it will release next month examining near-, mid- and long-term modernization costs. The defense budget must increase “by less than two percent above the BCA budget caps over the next decade” to fund nuclear modernization programs, the report finds.
Breakdown of Maintenance and Modernization Costs
The report examines the costs projected by various entities, including the Department of Defense, the Congressional Budget Office, and think tanks. Differences in their projections, ranging “from $73 billion over five years to more than a trillion dollars over 30 years” stem from variations in time periods and types of weapons systems included in their calculations, the report says. Despite these variations, projected costs are expected to stay within five percent of the total defense budget, the report notes. This figure was cited by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tex.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee, in a hearing yesterday on nuclear deterrence. The hearing’s witnesses shared differing estimates, however. Robert Work, deputy secretary of defense, said that three percent of the budget is currently being spent on the program, but that if the report had included all systems necessary for the entire program, “it would take seven percent of our budget” to sustain nuclear forces. Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in the hearing that it would take “about three to four percent to maintain what we have,” and approximately seven percent to maintain and modernize the force.
Study Challenges Nuclear Force Reductions
Modernization will be among the costliest components of the defense budget, particularly due to warhead modernization and Ohio-class submarine replacement programs, the CSBA report says. The study challenges nuclear force reductions, concluding that the resulting savings would be “considerably less than the costs due to these forces.” As a point of comparison, it introduces U.S. military spending on healthcare, which is “more than twice as much” annually as nuclear forces spending. As a result, it argues that “the search for savings in nuclear forces continues to be a ‘hunt for small potatoes.’” The study says that ultimately, “U.S. nuclear forces are affordable because their projected costs account for a small percentage of the overall defense budget,” and therefore nuclear modernization funding “is a matter of prioritization.” Leaving the answer to architects of national security strategy, the report asks, “Should nuclear forces, and by extension their modernization programs, be given higher priority in the budget than other forces?”
