Energy Dep’t Wants $175 Billion For Weapons Complex

Fewer Nukes, More Cash

By Spencer Ackerman

July 13, 2010 | 5:00 pm

Courtesy Of "Wired's Danger Room"

President Obama says he wants a “world without nuclear weapons.” But his Department of Energy may not be so persuaded. It’s prepping for a future where the U.S. keeps double the amount of nuclear weapons a new treaty permits — and at higher cost-per-nuke than it currently spends to maintain its arsenal. We’re talking $175 billion over two decades.

According to a leaked Energy Department plan submitted to Congress in May that the Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists obtained and published, the department’s National Nuclear Security Administration proposes to slash the 5,000-warhead nuclear arsenal down to “approximately 3,000 to 3,500″ warheads. So far, so clear. Nukes going down. President Obama’s plan for a nuke-free world going up.

But then the hedges come in. The Federation points out that the nuclear-arms reduction treaty with Russia making its way through the Senate, known as New START, would create a substantially smaller arsenal, allowing the U.S. to maintain up to 1550 deployed warheads. When not speaking for attribution, administration officials express hope that before the Obama leaves office, they’ll be able to conclude another treaty with Russia that cuts the arsenal even further.

Maybe the Energy Department is just trying to be prudent about having the facilities, technology and personnel in place to maintain a bigger arsenal should national strategy change. (And the Department has long pushed to refresh the stockpile with new, more “reliable” parts and warheads.) But its plan appears out of sync with the strategy as it stands.

Well, sort of. “If you look at what the Obama administration has been saying, it’s committed the nation to making concrete steps for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, and also to maintaining a safe, reliable and effective deterrent,” Hans Kristensen, the director of the Federation’s nuclear information project, tells Danger Room. “This is what the NNSA are picking up on. In essence, they’re saying ‘Here’s what we think that means.’ Of course, they are only focused on the second part of what the administration’s said.”

Then there’s the cost. Crunching the plan’s numbers, the Federation finds that the Energy Department will go from spending over $6 billion now to maintain a stockpile of 5,000 warheads to spending about $8 billion (using the same inflationary models for all figures) in 2016 and then $9 billion by 2017 — for maintaining an envisioned stockpile of only up to 3,500 warheads. (And remember: none of that counts the funding costs for the missiles and subs and bombers that the Defense Department maintains to get the nukes from Point A to, God forbid, Point B.)

But that’s not all! Add to that $175 billion-with-a-B over 20 years to build new weapons factories, simulation facilities and modernization equipment. Even outside of that cost, the plan estimates that modernization annually will cost somewhat over $1 billion before 2021 before stabilizing at $1 billion out forever more. Feel the savings.

All of which strikes the Federation’s Kristensen as “miscalculation and overreach” by the Energy Department. He expressed hope that Congress will “look more closely at how they reach these numbers,” since ”I don’t think there are merits to spending more money on fewer weapons.”  Yes, because Congress proves itself every day as a faithful steward of the taxpayer’s national-security dollar.

See Also:

• 7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs
• Bombs Away on Administration’s Nuclear Review
• TED 2010: Nuclear Proliferation Is This Year’s Inconvenient Truth …
• New Nuke Treaty: Trust, but Verify