| | Revealed: US spends more than $52 billion a year on nukes
The United States spends more than $52 billion a year maintaining, upgrading and operating its nuclear weapons arsenal each year, a little-heralded study revealed Monday.
Outside of the hefty price tag, equally significant is the way the money is spent. The US devoted just 1.3 percent -- or $700 million -- to preparing for the consequences of a nuclear attack.
The amount of money spent on America's nuclear programs dwarfs the amount spent on diplomacy and foreign assistance (combined), effectively leaving US diplomatic efforts abroad in the long shadow of America's ballistic missiles.
"Nuclear security consumes $13 billion more than international diplomacy and foreign assistance; nearly double what the United States allots for general science, space, and technology; and 14 times what the Department of Energy (DOE) budgets for all energy-related research and development," the Carnegie Institute for Peace noted in a study posted to the Federation for American Scientists' Secrecy News blog Monday.
Nuclear weapons or related programs account for 67 percent of the Department of Energy's Budget. They also account for 8.5 percent of the FBI budget, 7.1 percent of the Pentagon budget and 1.7 percent of the budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
Most US spending on nuclear weapons programs is unclassified, Secrecy News editor Steven Afternood notes. But the amount spent is masked by the number of budgets that contain provisions for such programs, making a composite total difficult to ascertain.
Speaking of the $52 billion figure, Carnegie author Stephen Schwartz was quoted as saying, “That’s a floor, not a ceiling,” noting that it doesn't take into account classified nuclear weapons programs or nuclear related intelligence programs.
Most of the money doled out to America's nuclear weapons is spent on upgrading and maintaining the country's aging arsenal. According to estimates, the United States has a stockpile of about 9,600 nuclear missiles, including those kept in non active service.
“The disparity [in spending] suggests that preserving and enhancing nuclear forces is far more important than preventing nuclear proliferation,” Schwartz said.
The Carnegie Institute offered a series of recommendations as a result of their study. Among them:
* Require the executive branch to submit both an unclassified and a classified annual accounting of all nuclear weapons-related spending. Without an accurate understanding of the costs of nuclear spending, Congress and the executive branch cannot conduct essential oversight or devise the most effective policy.
* Place greater emphasis on programs that secure and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons material, technology, and expertise.
* Develop better measures to explain and quantify nuclear weapons-related intelligence expenditures. Greater transparency and insight could lead to a more effective allocation of intelligence assets.
* Release an accurate accounting of the number of veterans who have received or been denied compensation and care for radiation exposure during atmospheric nuclear tests between the 1946 and 1962, along with the total cost of such compensation and care.
To read the full report, "Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities," by Stephen I. Schwartz and Deepti Choubey, click here.
|
