Big, Beautiful Bombs: The Outrage of the Budget Bill and Spending on Nuclear Weapons

by John Whitehead

—

The US Congress is currently considering a budget bill that, despite being dubbed “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” will do serious harm to millions of people. Among the most harmful aspects of the bill are its changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provide healthcare coverage and food assistance, respectively, to low-income people. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that the budget bill will cut federal support for Medicaid by about $700 billion over the coming decade. The bill will cut support for SNAP by about $300 billion over the same period. Among other provisions, the bill adds or expands work requirements for recipients of these programs. 

According to one CBO estimate, the bill would lead to 7.6 million people losing their healthcare coverage by 2034; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that once all changes enacted by the bill are accounted for, the actual number of people who will lose coverage by 2034 is much higher, around 15 million. The Urban Institute estimates almost 2 million people will lose their SNAP benefits. 

The budget bill passed in the House of Representatives on May 22 and has gone to the Senate. As senators consider whether to slash support for some of the Americans most in need, both they and their constituents should contemplate another aspect of government spending: The United States is in the process of spending massive sums on a new generation of nuclear weapons and the infrastructure necessary to build them. The Congressional Budget Office estimates this “nuclear modernization” program will cost almost $1 trillion over the next decade — a comparable amount to what the current budget bill cuts from Medicaid and SNAP. Those wishing to cut government spending would do well to start with this program.

Building a New Generation of Weapons

The nuclear modernization program began in 2010. The program involves building new nuclear warheads, missiles, submarines, and bombers. It also involves building machinery and facilities to process uranium and produce plutonium, both crucial elements in building nuclear weapons. A New York Times report on the program estimates it involves more than 110,000 people (scientists, military personnel, private contractors) spread across at least 23 states.

The modernization program is an attempt to replace the US nuclear weapons systems built during the Cold War (many existing missiles and nuclear-armed submarines are 40-50 years old) and revive the technological and industrial capacity necessary to build such systems. The scale of this task brings with it a high price, though, and the modernization program has been marked by delays and spiraling costs.

The CBO estimates that building and renovating new weapons, new missiles and other related equipment, and new weapons production facilities will cost about $381 billion. Another $357 billion will go to operating and maintaining both current and future nuclear weapons and supporting activities. A further $208 billion will cover other expenses such as modernizing nuclear command-and-control systems.

The Need for a Radical Reduction in Nuclear Forces

For those concerned with making peace and reducing the threat of nuclear war, spending billions on nuclear modernization makes little sense. The prudent goal would be a radical reduction in the size of the US nuclear weapons arsenal — currently numbering about 3,700 — rather than maintaining, let alone replacing, it.

The ideal number of nuclear weapons for the United States, or any other nation, to have is zero. In the absence of that ideal goal, the next best goal is for the United States to have a tiny number (5, say) of nuclear weapons with relatively low explosive power. Such a minimal arsenal could deter other states with nuclear weapons while limiting the dangers and moral problems presented by nuclear weapons. 

Even if we set aside moral concerns about nuclear weapons’ indiscriminate killing power and conclude that deterrence requires more than a bare minimum number of weapons, continuing to possess 3,700 nuclear weapons is difficult to justify. Given these weapons’ destructive power, 100-200 weapons would cause such tremendous devastation to an enemy nation as to provide a more-than-adequate deterrent. 

A single nuclear-armed submarine in the US Navy carries an estimated 80 nuclear weapons. Two submarines could provide the full nuclear deterrent that war hawks might desire. 

Viewed in this light, the nuclear modernization program’s plans to build 12 new nuclear-armed submarines and 400 new land-based nuclear missiles are preposterous. Viewed in the light of planned cuts to programs that help low-income Americans, such plans are an outrage.

What You Can Do

American citizens should contact their senators by phone or email to convey two crucial messages:

1. Support for Medicaid and SNAP must not be cut in the new budget, whether through imposing work requirements or any other measures. No one should lose their benefits.Beyond contacting their own senators on this point, people should consider sending the same messages to Senators Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who may prove crucial swing votes on the budget bill.

2. The current nuclear modernization should be cancelled and replaced with a program based on plans to reduce the US nuclear arsenal dramatically. Spending on such a revised program should be directed towards ensuring the security of nuclear weapons against technical malfunctions or similar accidents. For more resources on advocating against the nuclear modernization program, consult the Back from the Brink Campaign website. 

Protecting Medicaid and SNAP while cutting spending on nuclear weapons would be a valuable step toward defending human life rather than destroying it.