from Hacker News

America Is Updating Its Nuclear Weapons. The Price: $1.7T

by sherilm on 10/10/24, 2:00 PM with 25 comments

  • by maxglute on 10/10/24, 5:28 PM

    IIRC also includes delivery platform acquisition costs: 12 SSBNs @ (lol) 10B per boat, and 100 B21s @ 700m per bird, ~400 (silo/deployed) +250 (reserve) sentinels to replace 400+50 minutmen. Something like 150B/100B/150B for Sea/Air/Land delivery vehicles.

    Actual modernization of warhead/ordnance = more accuracy / efficiency against bunker / hardened targets - effectively adds ~500-1000 deployed warheads since less will be needed to hit (current) ~800 silo based nukes in RU/PRC, the latter probably going to add 2000-3000 warheads to reach parity with US in next 25 years.

    Lazy napkin numbers: 70B per year (all inclusive) over 25 years, or ~$400 per tax paying American per year, ~$10000 over 25 years. Which TBH, will likely definitely go over budget since it includes so many different porkbarrel projects across many states, on the otherhand the hardware will probably be kept going for more than 25 years. Maybe B21 is going to see 100 years of service like B52s.

    I'm curious how much people would pay per year for nuclear deterrence, including those from non nuke countries. $400 bucks a year seems pretty steep. SSBN/sub costs have doubled per boat over last generation. Land based ICBMs are somehow also stupid, stupid, expensive per silo @350m per. I feel like PLA rocket force can probably get 5-10 TELs+DF4X for that cost. B21s surprisingly good value. How many would "unsubscribe" from legs of the triad when each triad works out to 10bux per month?

  • by euroderf on 10/10/24, 3:40 PM

    And this is on top of the F-35 program.

    To paraphrase the late senator Everett Dirksen, "A trillion here, a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money."

  • by ein0p on 10/10/24, 4:39 PM

    Let’s spin up more of these boondoggles, and also start a few more wars in the Middle East, and then also start a war with China and Iran at the same time. Lindsey Graham already has his tissues and lotion on the ready. We only owe 37 trillion dollars, we gotta get those numbers up.

  • by MichaelZuo on 10/10/24, 2:57 PM

    After spending and upgrading all these facilities, wouldn’t this make America, and every other country, less safe in aggregate?

    Since in the current environment it’s impossible to imagine decision makers in other world capitals wouldn’t respond and enact countermeasures accordingly.

  • by sschueller on 10/10/24, 6:47 PM

    Imagine the infrastructure and energy systems we could build with that money. There isn't going to be anything left to fight over at this rate of global climate change. What a waste and sad world we live in.

  • by Clubber on 10/10/24, 3:07 PM

    The existing nuclear arsenal already serves its purpose: deterrence. Not sure why we need to upgrade them. If these start flying, it doesn't matter if a few don't work, the result is the same.

  • by spicybbq on 10/10/24, 3:49 PM

  • by atemerev on 10/10/24, 3:40 PM

    The entire Manhattan project was developed on about $22B in 2024 dollars.

  • by more_corn on 10/10/24, 4:37 PM

    Lovely, let’s end the goddamned world instead of solving climate change or, poverty, or building a future for the next generations. Maybe death by fire, starvation and freezing are what we deserve if we choose to act like this.

  • by more_corn on 10/13/24, 4:41 AM

    Where are the “it’s too expensive” republicans now. This is bonkers. We’re investing trillions in weapons whose sole purpose is to end the world. Just batshit.

  • by madduci on 10/10/24, 3:27 PM

    Imagine investing this insane amount of money in healthcare and education