Military Review

The modernization of the US nuclear arsenal is estimated at two annual Russian military budgets

29

The American media, citing sources in the Pentagon, report that the United States is increasing its funding for the renewal of its nuclear arsenal. We are talking about a program to modernize the arsenal of nuclear weapons - with the replacement of Minuteman-3 missiles.


According to this data, the cost estimate for upgrading the nuclear weapons USA is $ 95,8 billion. For comparison, these are two annual military budgets of the Russian Federation.

The United States drew attention to the following fact: when a financial assessment of the modernization of nuclear weapons was made 4 years ago, the "price tag" was completely different. It featured an amount of about $ 10 billion less.

The total cost of US nuclear weapons available to date is also named. This is a whopping $ 1,2 trillion.

Earlier it was reported that the Pentagon was considering a version of reducing the number of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Former US Secretary of Defense Will Perry was a supporter of this idea. But the current American administration believes that the number of land-based ICBMs, like any other ICBM, cannot be reduced. A recent Pentagon review says that "the forces that have ICBMs in their arsenal are highly survivable against a large-scale nuclear strike."

From the review:

To destroy American intercontinental ballistic missiles on the ground, the enemy will need to launch a coordinated attack using hundreds of high-performance and accurate warheads. Today it is an insurmountable task for any potential adversary, with the exception of Russia.

To date, mine-based ICBMs are deployed in the states of Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Nebraska. Their number is regulated by the START-3 Treaty, which expires in February 2021.
29 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hunter 2
    Hunter 2 20 October 2020 14: 21 New
    0
    Unfortunately, there is no data for how long they are going to spend this $ 98 billion. Expensive.
    And the idea of ​​the total cost of nuclear weapons is interesting, that's all they just have, except money!
    1. Shurik70
      Shurik70 20 October 2020 14: 41 New
      10
      And what for the modernization of the United States to assess in the budgets of Russia?
      It's like saying "painting an oligarch's Mercedes cost three annual locksmith's salaries."
      1. VORON538
        VORON538 20 October 2020 14: 46 New
        -2
        I think for them this money is a drop in the ocean
        Yes, and "ours" from the Ministry of Finance will help, if anything, they will buy more government bonds in the USA! am
    2. An64
      An64 20 October 2020 14: 41 New
      +3
      In 2027, they plan to start replacing, in 2029, the first 50 units are to be commissioned. If they continue to go at this rate, then 400 pcs. will replace in 16 years. That is, somewhere around 6 billion greens per year, about 20% of our annual defense budget. Not so much. We probably spend so much ourselves on maintaining the Strategic Missile Forces.
      1. ZEMCH
        ZEMCH 20 October 2020 15: 46 New
        +3
        Quote: An64
        In 2027, they plan to start replacing, in 2029, the first 50 units are to be commissioned.

        In the United States, even R&D on a new rocket has not yet begun, and knowing how much they usually cost to pile something (sawn off), I think the timing and budgets can be safely moved to the right laughing
        1. orionvitt
          orionvitt 20 October 2020 23: 37 New
          0
          Quote: ZEMCH
          In the United States, even research and development on a new rocket has not yet begun

          In the states, on the issue of less than a billion, no one even moves. laughing What can you do, used to live well at someone else's expense. Let's see what they do.
    3. Civil
      Civil 20 October 2020 14: 58 New
      +2
      At this point, the RF Ministry of Finance decided to cut every 10 servicemen.
      1. Xscorpion
        Xscorpion 20 October 2020 18: 04 New
        +2
        He decides every year, but the decider hasn't grown.

        The Ministry of Defense has analyzed the proposals of the Ministry of Finance to reduce the size of the Armed Forces (AF) and change certain provisions of the system of social guarantees for servicemen and considers them unacceptable. This is stated in a statement by the Ministry of Defense published on October 20 in the newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda.

        “A motivated position has been sent to the Security Council of the Russian Federation on the inadmissibility of these proposals and the lack of their support from the leadership of the military department,” the statement says.

        Earlier, the media reported that the Ministry of Finance proposed to the Ministry of Defense to reduce 10 percent of the military personnel (100 thousand people) and transfer them to civilian positions. First of all, we are talking about doctors, teachers and financial and legal workers.

        The Ministry of Defense intends to continue working on expanding social protection measures for servicemen and their families. The department indicated that now the number and structure of the Armed Forces have been established by the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Russia and determined based on the entire complex of tasks in the field of effectively ensuring the security of the state. “A stable recruiting system has been formed, which is balanced in terms of the number of posts filled by military personnel and civilian specialists,” the ministry said.

        It is noted that the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to reduce positions will have a zero effect on the country's economy, since funds for the payment of monetary allowances are allocated for the actual number.

        As for the proposals for the transfer of certain positions of military personnel to the civilian service, the reform carried out in 2007-2012 showed its ineffectiveness and led to "numerous problematic issues affecting the combat capability of the Armed Forces," the military department recalled.

        In addition, the legal norms of pension provision are enshrined in current legislation and serve as the basis for social support measures for servicemen and their families, the Ministry of Defense added, noting that the proposal of the Ministry of Finance to establish the maximum amount of monetary allowance taken into account when calculating military pensions does not exceed 80 percent, says about misunderstanding of the procedure for calculating military pensions.

        "The size of military pensions depends on the length of service and ranges from 50 percent of the pay for 20 years of service, up to 85 percent for 32 or more years of service," the ministry said.

        “Taking into account the increase in the military department for various categories of military personnel of the maximum military service life by five years, the Russian Ministry of Defense, together with other federal executive and state authorities, previously worked out in detail the question of the possibility of increasing the minimum length of service, which gives the right to retire, with 20 to 25 years, subject to the implementation of compensatory norms and mechanisms that increase the overall level of social security of servicemen and military pensioners, ”the statement says.

        The document notes that the Ministry of Finance did not support this initiative, "thus, discussion of the issue of increasing the length of service for retirement by military personnel without compensation measures is meaningless."

        The military department drew attention to the fact that "proposals to increase by five years the period for the emergence of grounds for including officers, soldiers and sergeants in the accumulative mortgage system have not been worked out and are not supported." The implementation of this proposal will only increase the cost of providing service housing and paying compensation to servicemen, the Defense Ministry noted.

        "The implementation of the proposals of the Ministry of Finance of Russia will not lead to any economic effect, but at the same time it will significantly worsen the material well-being and social status of servicemen," the Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

        The defense department recalled that military service is a special type of civil service, the nature of which involves the performance of tasks associated with danger to life and health, as well as other specific conditions of passage
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 20 October 2020 14: 26 New
    0
    The modernization of the US nuclear arsenal is estimated at two annual Russian military budgets
    This is a spray for them. But how many years will this round dance last, 10-20 or all 30? And maybe even more. fool
  3. lucul
    lucul 20 October 2020 14: 27 New
    +1
    We are talking about a program to modernize the arsenal of nuclear weapons - with the replacement of Minuteman-3 missiles

    I'm wondering - where will they find so much weapon-grade Plutonium? )))
    1. An64
      An64 20 October 2020 14: 47 New
      0
      "The Megatons to Megawatts Program. The agreement was designed for 20 years and expired in 2013. In total, under the program from Russia to the United States was exported 14 446 tons low enriched uranium ... "
      Recycled back to the armory ...
    2. Blackmokona
      Blackmokona 20 October 2020 14: 56 New
      -2
      The United States has the largest number of nuclear power plants in the world.
      They will find them on them.
      USA (805,3 billion Wh / year), 99 nuclear reactors are operating (19,3% of the generated electricity).
      France (395,9 billion Wh / year), 58 reactors (71,7% of generated electricity).
      China (277,1 billion Wh / year), 46 reactors (4,2% of generated electricity).
      Russia (191,3 billion Wh / year), 37 reactors (17,9% of generated electricity).
      Republic of Korea (127,1 billion Wh / year), 24 reactors (23,7% of generated electricity).
      1. Split
        Split 20 October 2020 22: 04 New
        0
        So what? For the production of 239 special reactors are required in order to receive in acceptable quantities. In ordinary ones, it is also naturally formed by the capture of uranium by the nucleus 238. But ... it burns out very quickly, forming 240-242 isotopes of plutonium. Nobody will pull the fuel rods out of the reactor to decant 239 plutonium. Officially, the United States does not have such reactors ... all are closed ... and we, imnip, were all closed. I don’t think that nasa would beg us for plutonium for the ritegs, so they can only by budding, separating the decay products. But we must remember that plutonium is only an initiator for thermonuclear charges w78-87
        1. Blackmokona
          Blackmokona 20 October 2020 23: 39 New
          -3
          NASA has already launched plutonium production for the Ritegs, they have not begged anyone.
          The United States has set up production of plutonium-238 in sufficient volumes for interplanetary missions, said NASA Planetary Exploration Director Jim Green at the 49th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. This was announced on Twitter by SpaceNews journalist Jeff Foust.

          They will easily establish a separation or deploy new reactors, but they regularly build reactors for nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers
          1. Split
            Split 21 October 2020 01: 02 New
            0
            Quote: BlackMokona
            they regularly build reactors for nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers

            Well, yes, they put operating reactors there lol ... Do you even know what fuel is used there and in terms of enrichment level and in what modes? It's like comparing with a conventional thermal reactor - like a fire with a blast furnace.
            Quote: BlackMokona
            Set up a department without any problems

            And mekhalych did not even know that it was so easy to remove the rods from the core of a thermal reactor and separate according to isotopes. I think this is a wildly high-paying job ... for a couple of minutes, you won't need money anymore, in the next world. I think that it makes no sense to tell how from the roof of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in half a minute it was required to throw off 1 piece of graphite (not a fuel rod!) With a shovel and what doses did they receive? And that even the robots incapacitated what on Fukushima, what on the hour after the impact? Not to mention how much time is required to shut down and cool the reactor zone and fuel elements. Generally
            1. Blackmokona
              Blackmokona 21 October 2020 09: 28 New
              -3
              1) The reactor was invented earlier than the reactors for generating electricity.
              2) Nothing is fair laughing
              1. Split
                Split 21 October 2020 21: 59 New
                -1
                1) The overwhelming number of technologies appeared not because they were smart, but because of and for wars. Technology, even promising, which does not have military potential, even indirectly, is put on the back burner and does not receive support even in our time.
                2) Well, help pull the TVs out ... from the beginning with friends, then wash the dishes or as a loader in the store, rent an apartment ... And where the curve of the American dream will lead (c) Brother 2
    3. ZEMCH
      ZEMCH 20 October 2020 15: 31 New
      0
      Quote: lucul
      I'm wondering - where will they find so much weapon-grade Plutonium? )))

      There only rockets change, charges remain the same, new tests are needed, but they are "kind of" prohibited)))
      1. Simargl
        Simargl 21 October 2020 10: 16 New
        0
        Quote: ZEMCH
        There only rockets change, charges remain the same
        And what, the charges do not have an expiration date?
        1. ZEMCH
          ZEMCH 21 October 2020 12: 02 New
          0
          They also have 450-500 tons of weapons-grade plutonium, according to various estimates.
          1. Simargl
            Simargl 21 October 2020 14: 54 New
            +1
            It needs to be re-enriched with some frequency. It "burns out"
            1. ZEMCH
              ZEMCH 21 October 2020 14: 55 New
              +1
              I know they have problems with the production of nuclear weapons, they ran out of personnel and the technologies are outdated
  4. venik
    venik 20 October 2020 14: 29 New
    +1
    "... that the United States is increasing its funding for upgrading its nuclear arsenal. We are talking about a program to modernize the nuclear arsenal - with the replacement of Minuteman-3 missiles ..."
    "... Today, mine-based ICBMs are deployed in the states of Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska. Their number is regulated by the START-3 Treaty, which expires in February 2021. ..."

    =========
    Well now it has become obvious - WHY USES DO NOT NEED START !!!
  5. Senka naughty
    Senka naughty 20 October 2020 14: 52 New
    -2
    I would sing the anthem of the USA to the accompaniment of this article, sorry I don’t know the words ..
    1. Volodin
      Volodin 20 October 2020 15: 14 New
      0
      Quote: Senka Mad
      I would sing the anthem of the USA to the accompaniment of this article, sorry I don’t know the words ..

      Then tighten the "puppy"))
  6. Old26
    Old26 20 October 2020 19: 54 New
    +2
    Quote: lucul
    I'm wondering - where will they find so much weapon-grade Plutonium? )))

    In-1 they have BG W-87 / Mk 21 and W78 / Mk12A. On 200 "Minutemans" 12 W-87s are deployed. Another 200 Minutemans deployed 200 W-78s.
    Not deployed stock W-87 - 325 units, and W-78 - from 300 to 600 units.
    In addition, the Americans have about 50 tons of weapons-grade plutonium
    They are going to deploy 400 to 500 new ICBMs. you think not enough ???

    Quote: An64
    "The Megatons to Megawatts Program. The agreement was designed for 20 years and expired in 2013. In total, under the program from Russia to the United States was exported 14 446 tons low enriched uranium ... "
    Recycled back to the armory ...

    No. The technology of "unwinding" uranium is such that it is very difficult to do it back and it will cost a lot of money. And why should they process uranium into weapons-grade if their stocks of weapons-grade uranium are estimated at about 450-500 tons?

    Quote: ZEMCH
    There only rockets change, charges remain the same, new tests are needed, but they "kind of" prohibited

    Which contract?
    1. Split
      Split 21 October 2020 01: 26 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Which contract?

      https://www.mid.ru/adernoe-nerasprostranenie/-/asset_publisher/JrcRGi5UdnBO/content/id/609152
      ---------------------
      +
      Underground nuclear testing banned under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 1996

      True, it was violated by all sorts of Indopakistanis, Kndarez and others, but emnip, neither we, nor the states with France and small Britain - no. Yes, and to the point of underground, if the explosion is important in the atmosphere (combat use involves a call at an altitude of about 500 m, as the most destructive for the infrastructure). And underground, statistics have long been accumulated. Well, except perhaps to check whether it will hit or not wassat
    2. Split
      Split 21 October 2020 01: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Old26
      No. The technology of "unwinding" uranium is such that it is very difficult to do it back and it will cost a lot of money. And why should they process uranium into weapons-grade if their stocks of weapons-grade uranium are estimated at about 450-500 tons?

      They still have a way of getting rid of them, which is used in shells.

      Now highly enriched uranium is used only in reactors with long-term refueling of nuclear submarines, etc., no one makes any charges, except for the DPRK and other Indopakestans, and for a long time no one remembers or uses about boosting. Those. he has no military use, in terms of babakh

      For the production of weapons-grade plutonium, it is just natural 238 uranium with the lowest possible 235 content that is used. otherwise, 238 plutonium is produced, which has a shorter period and heats up decently, no one will be forced to cool the charges in the mines. It is also used in ritegs. Therefore, the tasks are diametrically opposite ... and these 450 + tons are only for Aviks, and even for retailers
  7. Old26
    Old26 21 October 2020 17: 04 New
    +1
    Quote: Split
    https://www.mid.ru/adernoe-nerasprostranenie/-/asset_publisher/JrcRGi5UdnBO/content/id/609152

    No. This 1963 treaty prohibited only tests in three environments: atmosphere, space, water and water

    Quote: Split
    + Underground nuclear testing banned under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 1996

    No. This agreement has not come into effect. In order for it to come into effect, it is necessary that it be ratified by 44 states from the list in Appendix No. 2 to this treaty. 8 countries have not ratified it, incl. 6 nuclear. Therefore it did not come into effect
    It's another matter that a moratorium on nuclear tests is in effect between us and the Americans. It is valid but does not have the force of a treaty, and the United States, and Russia at any moment can withdraw from this moratorium ...
    Yes, in principle, testing new BGs is not so necessary. The design has been worked out, if the design is new, then its performance can be checked using hydro-nuclear (subcritical) tests.

    Quote: Split
    Yes, and to the point of underground, if the explosion is important in the atmosphere (combat use involves a call at an altitude of about 500 m, as the most destructive for the infrastructure). And underground, statistics have long been accumulated. Well, except perhaps to check whether it will hit or not wassat

    Why did the explosion in the atmosphere suddenly become important? For more than a quarter of a century, the impossibility of testing in the atmosphere did not prevent the creation of new warheads, and then suddenly ... Why would?