🔷 Unpaid $1T Deterrence Bill

The Nuke Bill is Due

No one wants a world-ending nuclear war.

Strategic deterrence aims to prevent this by making the cost unacceptable, and most major powers rely on a nuclear triad to do this.

In the US, this means intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), subs with submarine-launched missiles, and bombers equipped with stand-in and stand-off nuclear weapons.

Right now, every part of this triad—and its command and control—is overdue for modernization, creating a perfect storm.

$1 Trillion Bill

The bill is enormous.

Across the triad, modernization will cost almost $1 trillion between now and 2034.

That amounts to $95B a year, equal to the combined annual budgets of the Marine Corps and Space Force.

The biggest line-item: the Navy’s Columbia-class program, which will field 12 new ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). The program is expected to cost $228B over the next 10 years.

The Navy’s Deterrence Fund

Around 2010, naval advocates warned that the cost of this SSBN modernization would cripple the Navy’s shipbuilding budget and fleet readiness.

By 2013, the Navy realized this too and requested $60B in supplemental funding to help cover some of the costs of the SSBN program.

In 2015, Congress realized the cost burden and created the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF) to manage the SSBN program outside the normal shipbuilding account.

The Air Force?

As this was taking shape, the Air Force had signaled a similar narrative—modernizing two-thirds of the triad would cripple its modernization efforts too, and a fund outside the service could solve for this.

That never manifested.

Today, the B-21 bomber and LGM-35A Sentinel ICBM programs are projected to cost $205B through 2034. And don’t forget about the $16B AGM-181 nuclear cruise missile program.

Then there’s all the C2 modernization.

The Pitch

There are 2 things that should be done—and both are required.

First, there should be a serious debate about establishing a National Deterrence Fund (NDF). This recognizes that the nuclear mission is a national obligation, not an internal service trade-off. Congress recognized that truth for the Navy. It must now do the same for the Air Force. The Sentinel ICBM program was called the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent for a reason.

Second, fund it.

Since it’s all ‘green money,’ without dedicated budget top-line increases (TOA in Pentagon speak), all of this is just a budget gimmick. This was acknowledged 10 years ago when the submarine NSBDF was created, and no one had a plan to fund it.

Leadership at the time even predicted this would become a critical mess in the mid-2020s without reform on where the money is coming from.

Well…here we are.

More TOA

The good: This week Congress unveiled a $150B boost to the Pentagon’s budget

The bad: It’s a good start—not the solution. This only has $13B for nuclear modernization, or about 13% budget relief of 1 year of the $95B annual budget burden

The ugly: this plus-up could create a bad precedent on funding allocation, which would continue to not solve the funding issue with nuclear modernization.

The Opportunity

A deterrence fund should only earn that name if it has….funding!

As the Trump administration weighs a Nuclear Posture Review, it should also review the process for how to fund it.

The nuclear mission is a national obligation, not an internal service trade-off.

The burden to fund it is real—and its real heavy.