$94.6B/y, as compared to the $824B 2024 DOD budget. 11.4% of DOD to sustain the most important weapon system in existence.
I wouldn't use the word "cheap," but it doesn't look all that unreasonable, given what we're dealing with here.
I wouldn't use the word "cheap," but it doesn't look all that unreasonable, given what we're dealing with here.
That’s probably a good thing; certainly the people complaining here about costs would not suggest we go back to doing so.
But, to the extent that the bean counters can, somehow, draw a bunch of arbitrary lines in the sand and directly attribute some 11% of the US military budget to the nukes keeping the peace on behalf of the entire Western world, it doesn't appear excessive.
At some point there may be a phase change where the US abandons this goal. In that world, the rational strategy becomes one of strategic disengagement, so that if nuclear war breaks out (or a conventional war that risks going nuclear) the US is not drawn in. The lesson becomes that of WW1, not WW2.
So say you. This is a discussion about costs, as opposed "goals." Were I to stipulate the claim you make, then it's all be a terrible failure: at least three US allies have built and currently operate a nuclear arsenal.