CSBA in the News

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.

President Barack Obama’s plans to modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years could cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion, according to a new study that suggests the project’s long-term price tag will far outpace available Pentagon estimates.

In a few weeks, the Pentagon will announce the companies picked to develop America’s next bomber jet, sparking a budget war that will last for years and reshape the defense industry, experts say.

The Defense Department's nuclear forces arsenal is getting a close look for affordability. Think tanks like the Government Accountability Office and even the Pentagon itself are all looking at how much money the agency should spend on nuclear stock. Todd Harrison is senior fellow for defense budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He tells In Depth with Francis Rose why he thinks it's important to look at nuclear forces in the context of the whole weapons inventory.

WASHINGTON — A rare gap in the presence of a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf this fall could hinder military capabilities in the war against the Islamic State, the Obama administration’s nominee to lead the Navy told the Senate Thursday.

The Navy is pursuing a multi-pronged approach to fielding energy weapons by the end of the decade, with the hopes of upgrading its 30 kilowatt laser gun to 100 kw or more, and giving its electromagnetic railgun a higher repetition rate.