Debate Desk
Is Modernizing America's Nuclear Arsenal a Waste of Money?
The land, sea and air systems were built decades ago and must be replaced to keep deterrence credible; the cost is a small share of the defense budget.
The claim
Critics say that America already has far more nuclear weapons than it could ever need, that new systems cost hundreds of billions and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. Modernization, they argue, fuels an arms race.
The answer in three points
- The systems are old. The Minuteman III missile entered service in 1970, the B-52 bomber was last built in the early 1960s and the Ohio-class submarines were designed in the 1970s. Aging systems cannot be maintained forever, and a deterrent that might not work does not deter.
- The nuclear forces are the foundation of national defense. They deter attacks on America and its allies and make it unnecessary for allies to build their own weapons, which limits proliferation. They cost only a fraction of the defense budget, and they prevent the greater cost of a war between nuclear powers.
- Other powers are modernizing. Russia has been building new systems, and China is expanding its arsenal rapidly. Neglecting ours while rivals improve theirs invites miscalculation. Arms control works best when America negotiates with a modern force behind it.
Deterrence works only when potential enemies believe the weapons will work. That belief requires maintenance and renewal, which is a cost, and the cost is small compared with the price of failure.
The numbers
- The Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile was first deployed in 1970, according to the Air Force.
- The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that plans for nuclear forces would cost several hundred billion dollars over a decade, a small share of the total defense budget, according to its 2023 report.
- The Department of Defense's China Military Power Report assessed that China's nuclear stockpile was growing rapidly, according to its 2023 edition.
What they will say next
"We have enough to destroy the world many times." The number is not the point. The weapons must be able to survive an attack and still respond, so that no adversary could expect to win.
"Modernization starts an arms race." One is already underway, driven by others. Matching it prevents one-sided advantage that would tempt aggression.
"The cost is too high." The cost is large in dollars and small as a share of the budget compared with the programs that dominate spending.
"Disarmament is the moral course." The aim of reducing nuclear weapons is a worthy one, and it is best pursued through verified agreements with strength to back them.
Deterrence is the art of making war unthinkable, and it requires weapons that work.
"Missile defense and conventional forces matter more." All three matter and they do different jobs. Only nuclear forces deter another nuclear power from attacking with its own, and no other system can substitute. Spending on one does not remove the need for the others, and the nuclear share of the budget is modest by comparison.