Actual modernization of warhead/ordnance = more accuracy / efficiency against bunker / hardened targets - effectively adds ~500-1000 deployed warheads since less will be needed to hit (current) ~800 silo based nukes in RU/PRC, the latter probably going to add 2000-3000 warheads to reach parity with US in next 25 years.
Lazy napkin numbers: 70B per year (all inclusive) over 25 years, or ~$400 per tax paying American per year, ~$10000 over 25 years. Which TBH, will likely definitely go over budget since it includes so many different porkbarrel projects across many states, on the otherhand the hardware will probably be kept going for more than 25 years. Maybe B21 is going to see 100 years of service like B52s.
I'm curious how much people would pay per year for nuclear deterrence, including those from non nuke countries. $400 bucks a year seems pretty steep. SSBN/sub costs have doubled per boat over last generation. Land based ICBMs are somehow also stupid, stupid, expensive per silo @350m per. I feel like PLA rocket force can probably get 5-10 TELs+DF4X for that cost. B21s surprisingly good value. How many would "unsubscribe" from legs of the triad when each triad works out to 10bux per month?
To paraphrase the late senator Everett Dirksen, "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."
We might not need to overhaul them, but in order to keep their deterrence, we need everybody to know we've overhauled them.
If we actually do want to overhaul them, it's useful to do so relatively frequently so the knowledge and practices aren't totally lost.
Since in the current environment it’s impossible to imagine decision makers in other world capitals wouldn’t respond and enact countermeasures accordingly.
Also, I bet the Times is including the cost of the B-22, which is technically part of the US strategic arsenal in that it can carry nukes, but if you could ask Pentagon leaders why they want it, they'd reply mainly with non-nuclear missions.
The only reason South Korea, Japan, Germany, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands, etc, don't have nukes is that they have felt safe enough in the security guarantees made to them by the US, but if the US's strategic arsenal continues to age while Russia and China modernize theirs, how long will they feel safe enough?
Well, if they were well beyond their anticipated lifetime, then the number was down and things were fine.
But since those in other world capitals aren’t mind readers nor can they inspect every department and facility to verify these claims, then it’s practically certain they will assume negative intentions to some degree…?
Not sure that it's relevant but Russia stopped participating in the current US-Russia treaty (New START) in 2023 and it would expire in 2026 regardless.
Edited to add a missed word.
[1] https://www.kidney.org/federal-investment [2] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66 [3] https://www.thenationalliteracyinstitute.com/post/literacy-s...
This seemed implausible and indeed the linked page doesn't say that. It says that 24% of Medicare spending goes to patients with kidney disease. Medicare is 14% of the Federal budget: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-does-the-government-s...
That's about 3.3% of the Federal budget going to patients with kidney disease. Since kidney disease is comorbid with other health problems it's not clear how much of that spending is for dialysis, though it is still a lot of spending on people with kidney disease.
-Wpedantic -Werror