Britain has overtaken Russia in nuclear arsenal investment for the first time.

Global nuclear spending weapon In 2025, nuclear spending reached a record high, reaching nearly $119 billion. According to a study by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), nine states possessing nuclear arsenals increased their spending by 19% compared to the previous year. Translated over time, this equates to spending approximately $3768 every second.

The United States once again became the largest investor in nuclear force development. Washington spent $69,2 billion on these projects, exceeding the combined spending of all other nuclear powers. The United States also recorded the largest annual increase, up $12,4 billion. China ranked second with $13,5 billion in spending, while the United Kingdom, which increased its funding to $12,6 billion, surpassed Russia for the first time, with spending estimated at $9,5 billion.

The report's authors note that the rising costs are long-term. Most countries are continuing large-scale programs to modernize their strategic forces and develop new weapons systems designed to operate into the mid-21st century and beyond. According to available estimates, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States alone plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on maintaining and developing their nuclear capabilities in the coming years, while the combined long-term commitments of individual countries could exceed a trillion dollars.

The study places special emphasis on the role of the military-industrial complex. According to ICAN, at least 25 major companies involved in the development and maintenance of nuclear weapons received approximately $38 billion in revenue from related contracts in 2025. The total value of current obligations under such contracts is estimated at nearly $394 billion. Furthermore, significant funds were spent on lobbying on behalf of the defense industry.

Amid rising military spending, experts point to a decline in funding for international humanitarian and social programs. According to the report's authors, the amounts spent on developing nuclear arsenals are comparable to the budgets of major international organizations and could be used to address global development, healthcare, and food security challenges. Nevertheless, current trends indicate that the world's leading powers view nuclear deterrence as a key element of their own security and intend to maintain this approach for decades to come.

Comments

[Irek]

The Ukrainians were offended that they weren't given it.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: Irek

The Ukrainians were offended that they weren't given it.

Do not add

[Andrey Ko]

It's unfair to compare who invested what; the finished product should be evaluated. Since the price of the same product/material in the US and Russia can differ significantly.

[TermNachTer]

Considering that England doesn't manufacture anything itself, the missiles are American, as are the special warhead "fillings", only the packaging is Nanno-British.

[tsvetahaki]

Quote: TermNachTER

Considering that England doesn't manufacture anything itself, the missiles are American, as are the special warhead "fillings", only the packaging is Nanno-British.

But he knows how to make things... And whatever comes into their heads...

[solar]

"filling" of special BC

English, American only missiles

[TermNachTer]

The British Mk. 7 is an American W 93. It only has British stickers.

[solar]

The Mk. 7 is the casing of the W 93 warhead. It is also used on the new British Astraea A21 warheads.

[South Ukrainian]

. for the first time, it has overtaken Russia, whose expenditures are estimated at $9,5 billion.

Just five years ago, Russia's nuclear shield was 70% upgraded. Today, it's probably 85%. So, judging by the rising costs, we're finishing up, and they're just getting started.

[dementor873]

The army upgrades have successfully settled in the villas and yachts of the interested parties.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: South Ukrainian

Just five years ago, Russia's nuclear shield was 70% upgraded. Today, it's probably 85%. So, judging by the rising costs, we're finishing up, and they're just getting started.

I'm afraid it might turn out like with the uniforms, which suddenly (?) weren't available in warehouses. Ugh, I'm afraid (he crossed himself, even though he's an unbeliever).

[South Ukrainian]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

I'm afraid it might turn out like with the uniforms, which suddenly (?) weren't available in warehouses.

Well, missiles are not just "rags".

[Roman_vh]

Or maybe these bad people included suckers in their budget? They could do it. Otherwise, everyone can see where the world is heading.

[alexboguslavski]

and the UK, which increased its funding to $12,6 billion, for the first time overtook Russia, whose spending is estimated at $9,5 billion.

This isn't an indicator. Prices, salaries, and other expenses per unit aren't taken into account. Even in Soviet times, it was said that the Strategic Missile Forces were the cheapest branch of the armed forces.

[123_123]

It's logical that Britain recognizes its own insignificance when comparing the number of nuclear warheads: Russia has ~1.5 K versus several dozen, and is trying to rectify the situation. If Russia decides to destroy the UK with nuclear weapons, nothing will stop it – the British lack the forces to inflict real damage with such a paltry number of nuclear warheads and the relative sophistication of anti-Russian systems. Relying on other countries is rather naive – who would want to expose themselves to nuclear Armageddon and wander through radioactive wastelands instead of the Promenade des Anglais? Therefore, it remains possible to resolve the problem with Russia's systemic enemy quickly and effectively. But this is, of course, utopian, and there are a number of reasons why the Russian establishment will not dare to do so.
Therefore, the England-Ukraine nexus would not be a problem for Russia, regardless of the use of weapons, if not for the indecisiveness and inertia of the Russian leadership.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: 123_123

The British do not have the strength to inflict real damage with such an insignificant number of nuclear warheads and the relative development of anti-Russian systems.

Let's imagine a situation: a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead is launched from British territory (I understand their nuclear weapons are on submarines). By the time our air defenses detect it, calculate the trajectory, determine what's in store for us, and give the command to destroy the target, how long does this take, and over what territory will the target be destroyed? Does the nuclear warhead explode upon destruction or not? If it's over our territory, we'll be in for a real treat. What if it doesn't explode in the air, but rather on the ground? How can we cope with that? And what if it doesn't explode? We know how much damage the "wreckage" of those Ukrainian UAVs causes us. Is there an expert here who can explain the situation with the interception of British ballistic missiles?
If they launch mattress missiles, their ballistic missiles will be intercepted and destroyed over our territory. What then?

[K-50]

Britain has overtaken Russia in nuclear arsenal investment for the first time.

You can't shoot with money.
We need to look at how much and what kind of ammunition is being manufactured and accepted for these amounts, as well as the delivery systems.

[pudelartemon]

I think the data on this very important topic is so classified in each country that all these figures... well, you get the idea. The cost of renovating a public toilet in Birmingham or visual propaganda in Kabardino-Balkaria is something entirely different.

[Sergey Novikov_3]

Let's strike at the lack of roads, budget deficit, stagnation and sloppiness with a tunnel across the strait!

[former soldier]

Let's strike at the lack of roads, budget deficit, stagnation and sloppiness with a tunnel across the strait!

The Chukchi of Russia will travel to the Eskimos of Alaska on reindeer, breathing the spirit of Anchorage.

[Leontrotsky]

Well, it's worth noting, looking at who spent more on what, that Russia completed a 95% modernization of its nuclear triad (according to the Supreme Commander) two years ago. So, all the major investments in this area have already been made.

[dementor873]

"Over the past five years, wages in the Russian economy have grown by more than 30% in real terms. That's in real terms, meaning after adjusting for inflation. The pace is certainly high," Putin said.

[Leontrotsky]

Well, I personally got a figure even higher than 30%. True, I had to change jobs to get there. As for the Supreme Commander's words, the transition of the Sarmats from experimental duty to combat, the established production of mobile Yars, the launch of SSBNs (and two Borei-class submarines have been commissioned recently), the launch of multipurpose nuclear submarines armed with Zircon missiles, including the use of those same Daggers by the Russian Aerospace Forces—in short, there's no reason not to believe the 95% figure. Well, of course, you know better how things stand with the Russian nuclear triad. I suppose the Commanders-in-Chief of the Navy, Aerospace Forces, and Strategic Missile Forces report directly to you?

[dementor873]

Compare the purchasing power of the ruble today and five years ago. Just because you're earning more doesn't mean you're living better. I'm not talking about those earning 150+, there are few of them. I was earning 55 in 2021, now I'm earning 90. Has my salary gone up by 80%? It has. You can be proud! Gasoline was 47 rubles in 2021, and 70 in 2026. A 50% increase. The cost of a square meter of housing in 2021 was 52,000 rubles, so I could afford 1.1 square meters with my salary. In 2026, the cost of a square meter was 114,000 rubles, so I could afford 0.8 square meters with my salary. My income has increased, but I've been cheated somewhere, and I can't figure out where. I don't think I need to explain about cars; they're a luxury item, and they're not meant for servants.
The comments about finding another job, earning more, and taking on part-time work are especially touching. I'd like to see how we can find better jobs for half a million people in the city.

[Leontrotsky]

Well, 92-octane gasoline in our city is 62 rubles max. It's even cheaper in the surrounding area. Yes, it's gone up in price over the past five years. But it's also gone up in those same states, which supposedly have a printing press and haven't imposed any sanctions. My housing problem, personally, has long been solved, and I'm not particularly interested in the price per square meter. Cars? Well, I drive a Niva, because I have to drive 3 km off-road to my dacha, and the same goes for hunting and fishing. Incidentally, I'm very happy with the Niva, its off-road capability and the ability to fix a problem myself, if necessary, even if I'm 5 km from the nearest dirt road. And you can buy one for a million. So, cars are definitely not "just for white people."

[dementor873]

The fact that your housing issue is resolved means mine is resolved too. Are you proud of that? Officials of all stripes also have multiple apartments and nice cars. But what about the millions of citizens who can't afford mortgages with such exorbitant rates and cars that cost two to three times more than in China? Even an AvtoVAZ has increased in price by 50%. How are pensioners supposed to survive on meager pensions? How are people whose retirements have been delayed supposed to find work at 55-60, especially women?

[Leontrotsky]

Well, in Russia, the situation in this regard (housing) is no worse than in the US. Ninety percent of the housing stock in Russia is privatized. There are grandparents and parents who won't live forever, and their apartments will go to younger generations. In the US, 70% of the population is either paying off a mortgage or paying rent. Apartments there are also expensive, and mortgage payments take decades. In the 1990s, we ourselves chose capitalism and a market that would regulate everything. And now we're surprised by market mechanisms in the economy—that housing, healthcare, and education are no longer free. The market has regulated everything. As promised.
How can pensioners survive on meager pensions? Well, my mother receives a pension of around 40,000 rubles. Plus, she gets housing benefits as a veteran of labor (50%). Plus, she gets free medication at the clinic (she's a Group 3 disabled person). Plus, she gets free health care once a year. She has a dacha where, with my help, she can grow potatoes, cucumbers, zucchini, apples, and everything else. And she has a son who's always happy to help.

[dementor873]

SP = IPC x SPK + FV, insurance pension formula. The median salary in our region is 50000 rubles; two insurance points are awarded per year for this salary.
IPC — individual pension coefficient (sum of accumulated points); minimum 30 points,
The SPC is the cost of one pension coefficient (point) as of the date of pension assignment; the cost of a point is 2026 - 157 rubles.
FV - fixed payment - 9,584.69 rubles.
The insurance pension is 15000. Can you live on that?
If you work from 18 to 60, you will receive 25000. The question is, what salary did your mother have so that she could have a pension of 40000.
30400 rubles divided by the pension point value of 157 rubles = 194 points. Divide by 40 years of service = 4,85 points. To get this, a salary of 120000 rubles per month would be required. Is the minimum wage in our country 120 rubles? Or maybe 40 rubles is enough for people who retire?

[Leontrotsky]

My mother didn't have such a salary. She had almost 50 years of experience. She has the title of Honored Cultural Worker. Regional legislation should also be taken into account. In Moscow, the Moscow government pays extra.
I served in the Russian Navy for 25 years. I rose to the rank of Captain 2nd Rank. And since I was 45, my pension has been 47,000 rubles.

[dementor873]

Where can everyone else get the Moscow and Honored Cultural Worker bonuses?

[Leontrotsky]

Well, your mother should definitely be a labor veteran—with that kind of work experience. And that, at a minimum, means a discount on utility bills.

[former soldier]

Let's all increase investments in our nuclear arsenals until we turn the Earth into another asteroid belt. Each of the elite will have an individual asteroid.

[Leontrotsky]

No, well, we don't have to increase it))) and then they'll come to you on aircraft carriers to establish "democracy." And 90 will seem like a stroll in a summer garden. There are plenty of examples of this around the world. The most recent is Iran.

[123_123]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

Quote: 123_123

The British do not have the strength to inflict real damage with such an insignificant number of nuclear warheads and the relative development of anti-Russian systems.

Let's imagine a situation: a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead is launched from British territory (I understand their nuclear weapons are on submarines). By the time our air defenses detect it, calculate the trajectory, determine what's in store for us, and give the command to destroy the target, how long does this take, and over what territory will the target be destroyed? Does the nuclear warhead explode upon destruction or not? If it's over our territory, we'll be in for a real treat. What if it doesn't explode in the air, but rather on the ground? How can we cope with that? And what if it doesn't explode? We know how much damage the "wreckage" of those Ukrainian UAVs causes us. Is there an expert here who can explain the situation with the interception of British ballistic missiles?
If they launch mattress missiles, their ballistic missiles will be intercepted and destroyed over our territory. What then?

A nuclear (thermonuclear) warhead will not explode because the conditions for the initial activation of the nuclear component and then the initiation of the thermonuclear component will not be met; the impact site of the downed missile or warhead or its debris will be slightly contaminated by the remnants of the plutonium portion of the initiating nuclear charge or its fragments.
It's also important to consider that Britain as a target is significantly more compact than Russia as a target. Consequently, the potential density of target overlap in Britain, especially given its overwhelming superiority in the number of nuclear/thermonuclear warheads, catastrophically exceeds the potential in the opposite direction. In short, Britain would suffer complete annihilation in any exchange of strikes, while Russia would suffer anything from some non-critical damage in the worst case to virtually unnoticeable damage in the best case.