Nuclear weapons are expensive. So are the bombers, missiles, andsubmarines used to deliver them. But in the context of total defense spending, budget guruTodd Harrison argues, they’re a relatively affordable — and strategically critical — part of our armed forces.
Even a package of radical cuts to nuclear forces — reducing submarines and ICBMs and largely eliminating air-dropped weapons — “would save you about $20 billion dollars over the next five years,” Harrison said this afternoon, discussing the latest study from the independent Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. For comparison, he said, implementing just one proposal from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission — an adjustment to TRICARE health benefits for military dependents and retirees — would save $26 billion over the same period.
The difference over those same five years between what the Pentagon’s budget request says it needs and what the Budget Control Act would allow: $140 billion.