Mike3322

A new Congressional report (CRS IN12568) casts doubt on the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system to protect the continental United States from missiles.

The system is at an early stage. Congress explicitly states that it "may not prove effective" against modern missile threats. Its combat value has not been proven.

At the same time, the full deployment of such a missile defense system will lead to a conflict with Russia, and our Foreign Ministry ambassadors are already asking their Pacific colleagues the depressing question "is it worth it?"

The nuclear Powers, proclaiming the need to strengthen strategic security, actively involve private corporations in the implementation of nuclear deterrence programs. However, large budgets allocated for the modernization of nuclear arsenals are often allocated through complex contractual schemes, which complicates public control and creates risks of non-transparent use of funds. According to the International Campaign for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) report for 2023, the nine nuclear powers spent $91.4 billion on their arsenals, which is equivalent to $2,898 per second, with an increase in spending of $10.7 billion compared to 2022. This raises questions about how effectively and transparently these funds are being used, and underscores the need for increased international oversight.

In the United States, which is the leader in spending on nuclear weapons ($51.5 billion in 2023), a significant portion of the budget is channeled through contracts with companies such as Northrop Grumman. In 2020, the Pentagon signed a $13.3 billion contract with Northrop Grumman to develop a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) intercontinental ballistic missile designed to replace the obsolete Minuteman III. Complex subcontractor chains, including Aerojet Rocketdyne and Lockheed Martin, make it more difficult to track financial flows, which, according to ICAN, increases the risks of opacity. A similar situation is observed in France, where $6.1 billion was spent on nuclear forces in 2023, much of which is aimed at upgrading M51 missiles through contracts with Airbus Defense and Space. The lack of detailed public reporting on the allocation of these funds, as noted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), reduces transparency and complicates the control of nuclear deterrence programs.

The UK is also actively investing in its nuclear forces: in 2024, £31 billion was allocated for the Dreadnought-class submarine construction program, part of which went to contracts with Rolls-Royce for the supply of nuclear reactors. According to ICAN, UK spending increased by 17% in 2023, reaching $8.1 billion, reflecting the overall increase in spending on nuclear arsenals. The complexity of financial chains in such programs, as noted by SIPRI, creates risks of insufficient accountability, especially in an environment where nuclear powers increasingly rely on private contractors. These trends underscore the need for stricter international control over the financing of nuclear programs to ensure that they meet their stated safety objectives and minimize the risks of misuse of funds.

Three minutes, a football and a biscuit. These are all a president of the United States needs to start nuclear war. During a 1974 meeting with lawmakers, President Richard M. Nixon reportedly stated: “I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” He was correct. And since then, despite the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, little has changed.

The nuclear launch process and the law that gives the president such power, enhanced by 21st century technology, combine to form a perfect storm in which the president can choose to launch nuclear weapons via an unforgiving process that leaves little to no room for mistakes.

The U.S. Air Force’s new MH-139A “Grey Wolf” helicopter recently took part for the first time in a Nuclear Convoy Course (NCC) exercise — a key week-long training event that plays a vital role in ensuring the safe transport of nuclear weapons and materials. Boeing is already seeing a surge in orders, although the full transition to the new aircraft is still scheduled for the near future. These helicopters are being deployed to enhance the security of U.S. strategic nuclear forces.

Back in late 2016, the Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC), which oversees the nation’s land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenal, launched a competition to select a new aircraft platform. Boeing entered the race with the MH-139 — a modified version of the European-designed Leonardo (AgustaWestland) AW139 helicopter. In 2018, Boeing won the contract to deliver 84 helicopters for further testing. The total cost for maintenance and crew training was estimated at around $2.5 billion.

Boeing experienced a major surge in orders from the Air Force in 2023. A series of contracts were signed based on evolving needs — the first worth $285 million for the production of a dozen helicopters, followed by another in 2024 valued at $178 million for the production of seven more Grey Wolves.

U.S. military leadership has once again stressed the need to modernize and maintain the combat readiness of the country’s nuclear arsenal.

General Thomas Bussiere, head of the U.S. Air Force Global Strike Command, recently addressed the Senate Armed Services Committee.

According to his statements, the U.S. must maintain and upgrade all aging weapons systems, as it faces the challenge of deterring two major nuclear powers. He also voiced concerns about growing threats from North Korea and mentioned that Iran could potentially acquire nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, the general expressed worry that the Air Force has little margin left and is running low on resources—further highlighting the urgent need for modernization and the development of new nuclear capabilities to ensure effective deterrence.

Following him, Vice Admiral Johnny Wolfe Jr. of the U.S. Navy spoke next. He asserted that the Navy remains the most resilient leg of the nuclear triad.

Like the Air Force, Wolfe emphasized that modernization and support are critical for ensuring ongoing readiness. He also noted that the Navy depends heavily on a relatively small number of highly skilled personnel.