Spending Billions on B-61 Nuclear Bomb Upgrades Doesn't Make Sense

By MIA STEINLE

We’ve told this story dozens of times before: as experts and the public urge the government to reign in nuclear weapons spending, the cost of nuclear weapons projects skyrockets by hundreds of millions—or billions—of dollars.

As the Washington Post editorial board wrote this weekend, it’s the same old story with the government’s planned refurbishment of the B-61 gravity bomb. The “life extension program” of this nuclear weapon was estimated to cost $4 billion a couple of years ago. Now the price is a staggering $10 billion, the Post reported.

The Project On Government Oversight sent a letter to the Department of Defense in February questioning why U.S. taxpayers are spending billions of dollars to refurbish the 200 or so B-61 bombs that the United States deploys in Europe as part of NATO’s nuclear deterrent. As the Post noted, the justification for this deterrent is shrinking:

These forward-based tactical nuclear bombs were intended to deter a Soviet land invasion of Europe. That threat has gone, and so has the military mission for the bombs. If a nuclear deterrent is needed on the continent, the United States has other options. The sole remaining value of stationing the gravity bombs in Europe is political, to demonstrate that non-nuclear members are sharing in the alliance defense burden. Even that is being debated within the alliance.

Under the New START agreement, the United States and Russia are currently reducing their arsenals of deployed nuclear weapons. And the tactical B-61 bombs and Russia’s tactical weapons could be next on the chopping block, as the Post points out. It questions:

Who will be deterred by the refurbished B-61? Is the symbolism of deploying the nuclear gravity bomb in Europe worth the billions of dollars? Does it make sense to embark on a $10 billion program to refurbish a weapon that could be put on the table in negotiations with Russia a few years from now?

Simply put, the B-61 refurbishment could end up being a colossal waste of money, and it shouldn’t fall squarely on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers—as we argued in our “Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter” recommendations to Congress, if B-61 refurbishment happens at all, it should be a shared NATO responsibility. Now more than ever, these “exploding costs” are not something the United States can afford.

Mia Steinle is an investigator with the Project On Government Oversight. Image of production technicians with B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs by Flickr user NNSA News.

Follow @miasteinle

Comments

[Skyhawkmaintainer]

Forgot to mention, whenever you see a reason during the loading evolution to report a discrepancy, you are taught to call out, "STOP THE LOAD!" This was something we all felt obligated to do during training. "STOP THE LOAD!" should become the rallying cry of this movement, as anybody who has ever loaded a nuclear weapon will understand.

[Skyhawkmaintainer]

I was trained to load the B-61 on the A-4F Skyhawk back in 1972. Here we are trying to cut back on nuclear ordnance (should also include depleted uranium, as you get the fallout without the real big bang) and our silly government wants to keep the old bombs going until forever. It's insane to believe nuclear is a deterrent any more, since nations are developing their own with delivery systems. Now nuclear is seen as a threat which must be countered by a preemptive strike, like Israel wants to do with Iran. Iran has good reason to be worried, as Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear facility several decades ago. Reason, sanity and logic have all but successfully countered by chaos, havoc and confusion.

[Evelyn McMullen]

Doesn't anybody oversee these stupid wasteful ideas? And isn't there anybody who can ditch these ideas? Hooray for POGO

[Nina Diamante]

Not 1 more cent of taxpayers money for bombs. Stop stealing money from the American People and making our deficit huge, kill the bomb makers. Not 1 cent for B-61 Nuclear Bomb Upgrades. Nina Diamante

[Charles Witteck]

Headline reads: "Spending Billions on B-61 Nuclear Bomb Upgrades Doesn't Make Sense."

Do we really need, say, Sister Rice, and others to tell the rest of Americans that little of what the DoD, in fact, not opinion, or irresponsible ranting, or incantations "in the "interest of national security" makes sense?

The fact is: by the DoD's own admission, they are unable or unwilling to maintain strict accounting for their own budgetary allotments, made in good faith, by the U.S. Congress, and through them every taxpayer in the country. Their continual and flagrant disregard of these bone fides, are reason enough, for revolt in the form not of mere sequestration, but actual, not symbolic restitution of any waste, fraud, mismanagement,by the power vested in the legislature.

[Scott Kuechenmeister]

"do we really need the capacity to destroy the world 10 times over"