Slashing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal is one option to save billions of dollars in the coming decade for efforts to reduce the growing federal deficit, the Congressional Budget Office said Thursday.
The CBO’s latest analysis of deficit-cutting opportunities covers the 2017 to 2026 fiscal years and encompasses 115 options to decrease spending or increase revenue across the breadth of the federal government, from Social Security to NASA to the Department of Defense. The options are not presented as recommendations, and the report identifies benefits and drawbacks to each.
The program to modernize all three legs of the Pentagon’s nuclear triad is currently projected to cost $1 trillion over 30 years.
Under the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, the existing triad as of 2018 is expected to encompass 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, with 12 deployed, that in total carry 1,090 warheads on 240 missiles; 454 Minuteman III ICBMS, with 400 deployed, each loaded with one warhead; and 66 strategic bombers, with 60 deployed, each counted as one warhead. The treaty limits both nations to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon today intends to develop and procure 12 new ballistic missile submarines, 642 new ICBMs, and 80 to 100 B-21 strategic bombers, according to the CBO analysis. “Through the mid-2030s, modernization is expected to roughly double annual spending on nuclear forces (currently about $20 billion).”
A smaller nuclear triad encompassing 10 submarines, 300 ICBMs, and 1,550 warheads would reduce outlays by $9.2 billion from 2017 to 2026, the analysis says. Savings would increase after that period as the Pentagon procures and operates fewer systems.
“Under this alternative, the Navy would retire 4 Ohio class SSBNs at a rate of one per year starting in 2018; delay by one year the purchases of new SSBNs included in its current shipbuilding plan, starting with the second submarine, which is slated to be procured in 2024; and cancel orders for the last 2 SSBNs scheduled to be purchased under the current plan,” the CBO said. “In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) would retire 150 ICBMs—50 each year for three years starting in 2018—and procure 482 new ICBMs instead of the 640 that are in the current plan.
A total of $13 billion in outlays could be avoided by cutting the nuclear arsenal down to eight submarines, 150 ICBMs, and 1,000 warheads. “As with the first alternative, the majority of savings would occur after 10 years, when DoD would purchase and operate fewer modernized systems,” the CBO said.
The report notes that the Obama administration’s 2013 Nuclear Weapons Employment Strategy of the United States determined the nation’s strategic nuclear deterrent could remain “strong and credible” even if 33 percent smaller than allowed under New START. The CBO acknowledged, though, that in the absence of a new arms reduction treaty, cutting the nuclear arsenal unilaterally “could be politically untenable domestically.” There would also be concerns about reduced nuclear capabilities.
Meanwhile, canceling the Long-Range Standoff Weapon, the replacement for the Air Force’s current air-launched nuclear cruise missile, would save $8.3 billion in outlays from fiscal 2017 to 2026, the report says. The federal government could save another $5.9 billion by halting the life-extension program for the B61 nuclear gravity bomb.
“Under the first alternative, the Air Force would stop equipping bombers with cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads after the current ALCMs reached the end of their service life around 2030. Specifically, DoD would cancel development and production of the LRSO, and DOE would cancel the development and production of the associated warhead,” according to the report. “Under the second alternative, the United States would cancel the B61-12 program and the associated program that is developing improved guidance kits for the bombs. Strategic bombers (and tactical fighters) would no longer be equipped with nuclear gravity bombs after current models reach the end of their service life.”
The greatest savings – outlays totaling $26.7 billion – would develop from deferring development of the Air Force B-21 strategic bomber until after fiscal 2026.
On the upside, the CBO said, this move would cut expenses as the Air Force moves to procure and develop other aircraft; a bomber developed later could also benefit from even more sophisticated technology or even become unnecessary if other weapons are developed.
On the downside, the report says, current bombers might need to be retired before a postponed successor is ready. “By 2035, the B-52Hs will be almost 75 years old, the B-1Bs about 50 years old, and the B-2As about 40 years old. Expecting those aircraft to perform reliably at such advanced ages may prove to be overly optimistic,” the CBO noted.
This article was originally published in our sister publication Exchange Monitor.