Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

  • Policy Issues
    • Fact Sheets
    • Countries
    • Nuclear Weapons
    • Non-Proliferation
    • Nuclear Security
    • Biological & Chemical Weapons
    • Defense Spending
    • Missile Defense
    • No First Use
  • Nukes of Hazard
    • Podcast
    • Blog
      • Next Up In Arms Control
    • Videos
  • Join Us
  • Press
  • About
    • Staff
    • Boards & Experts
    • Jobs & Internships
    • Financials and Annual Reports
    • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Search
You are here: Home / Nukes of Hazard blog / Blown Opportunity: The Folly of Exempting Nuclear Weapons from Sequestration

August 15, 2013

Blown Opportunity: The Folly of Exempting Nuclear Weapons from Sequestration

Are nuclear weapons expensive? Should they be exempt from sequestration? According to the Pentagon, the answers to these questions are “No” and “Yes”.

Over on the mothership, I have a new piece addressing the folly of exempting nuclear weapons from sequestration. It is the continuation of a conversation that began in the online pages of Defense One.

Here’s how I begin:

While there is widespread agreement that sequestration is not a wise way to manage reductions in military spending, it is the law of the land. Unless Congress changes the legislation, the Pentagon will be forced to find $500 billion in spending reductions over the next decade beyond what is has already planned.

Given this austere budget scenario, the Pentagon should be prioritizing military programs that are the most critical to combatting the current threats we face, since every dollar spent on lower priority programs is a dollar than can’t be spent on more important needs.

When it comes to nuclear weapons, however, the Pentagon is doing exactly the opposite – to the detriment of American national and fiscal security. Our military leadership has recently stated that nuclear weapons are off limits to budget cuts – even though they have already determined that the United States can reduce the number of strategic warheads it deploys by up to one third below the New START levels. Meanwhile, top Pentagon priorities such as troop training and readiness and conventional air and sea power projection capabilities are being put under the sequester knife.

The Pentagon’s case for protecting nuclear weapons is that they are cheap and that there are few savings to be found within the nuclear enterprise. But the reality is that nuclear weapons aren’t cheap. And while the Department of Defense’s budget dilemma cannot be solved on the back of nuclear weapons, there are significant savings to be found by trimming the arsenal and scaling back planned modernization programs.

Read the whole thing here.

I should add that while the Pentagon has decided to exempt nuclear weapons from sequestration, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is not exempt – though its request for weapons activities continue to rise at a meteoric rate. All the more reason, then, to prioritize NNSA’s most important activities, such as nuclear and radiological material security programs, over less pressing and more dubious needs, such as the proposed B61 life extension program.

Posted in: Nukes of Hazard blog, Pentagon Budget, Security Spending

Tweets by Nukes of Hazard

Recent Posts

  • Thwarting nuclear terrorism through data-sharing June 6, 2023
  • A book, nuclear weapons, means and ends May 31, 2023
  • Wie Japan das G7-Treffen für die nukleare Abrüstung nutzen will May 19, 2023
  • Fact Sheet: Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) May 19, 2023
  • Biden is going to Hiroshima at a moment when nuclear tensions are on the rise May 15, 2023
Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

820 1st Street NE, Suite LL-180
Washington, D.C. 20002
Phone: 202.546.0795

Issues

  • Fact Sheets
  • Countries
  • Nuclear Weapons
  • Non-Proliferation
  • Nuclear Security
  • Defense Spending
  • Biological and Chemical Weapons
  • Missile Defense
  • No First Use

Countries

  • China
  • France
  • India and Pakistan
  • Iran
  • Israel
  • North Korea
  • Russia
  • United Kingdom

Explore

  • Nukes of Hazard blog
  • Nukes of Hazard podcast
  • Nukes of Hazard videos
  • Front and Center
  • Fact Sheets

About

  • About
  • Meet the Staff
  • Boards & Experts
  • Press
  • Jobs & Internships
  • Financials and Annual Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Council for a Livable World
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Facebook

© 2023 Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Privacy Policy

Charity Navigator GuideStar Seal of Transparency