US and Russia Ballistic Nuclear Submarine Budgets

I was going through the FY 2008 Department of Defense Budget and found a few things that I find noteworthy. For example, did you realize that Congress is only spending $15 million on new projects US Ballistic Missile Submarines, but in fact is probably (rather very likely) spending more than that on Russian Ballistic Missile Submarines? No that wasn't a joke, in fact it is signed into law.

In digging into every corner of the Dept. of Defense Budget of FY 2008, all I can find being spent on US Navy SSBNs is $15 million Navy dollars for the Trident II Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). There is also a section in the Defense Budget called the "Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account" that allocates a ton of money for Russian Ballistic Missile Submarines.

For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs relating to the training and support of defense and military personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and for defense and military contacts, $448,048,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, $12,000,000 shall be available only to support the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines, submarine reactor components, and security enhancements for transport and storage of nuclear warheads in the Russian Far East.

Which breaks down like this:

(1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $102,885,000.
(2) For nuclear weapons storage security in Russia, $22,988,000.
(3) For nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia, $37,700,000.
(4) For weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention in the states of the former Soviet Union, $51,986,000.
(5) For biological weapons proliferation prevention in the former Soviet Union, $194,489,000.
(6) For chemical weapons destruction in Russia, $1,000,000.
(7) For threat reduction outside the former Soviet Union, $10,000,000.
(8) For defense and military contacts, $8,000,000.
(9) For activities designated as Other Assessments/Administrative Support, $19,000,000.

A little on the "Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account" which is also called the "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program," it should be pointed out this program has been largely successful in reducing nuclear weapons worldwide.

The Nunn-Lugar scorecard now totals 7,191 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated, 662 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) destroyed, 485 ICBM silos eliminated, 110 ICBM mobile launchers destroyed, 615 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) eliminated, 456 SLBM launchers eliminated, 30 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed, 155 bomber eliminated, 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles (ASMs) destroyed, 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated, 363 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured, 12 nuclear weapons storage site security upgrades, and 9 biological monitoring stations built and equipped. Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. Those countries were the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers in the world.

That is very good news, and remarkable results if you think about it, but I'm thinking it might be time to take a serious look at cutting the program, or at least adding conditions.

$12 million of the $448 million total Congress is spending on Russia is dedicated to the removal of nuclear submarine reactors, while nearly $103 million is allocated to the elimination of nuclear warheads in Russia. I'm very curious how much of that nearly $103 million is spent on warheads of old ballistic missile submarines, because if only 15% of that money is spent in the elimination of Russian submarine launched ballistic missile warheads, then Congress would actually be spending more money on warheads for Russian SSBNs than on US SSBNs.

It actually gets stranger though. Congress is spending $448 million dollars on reducing Russian nuclear weapon systems. Perhaps they are not aware, but this fiscal year Russia is spending 10 billion Rubbles, or roughly $411 million dollars on new Borei Class ballistic missile nuclear submarines.

In other words, by paying the cost of decommissioning nuclear weapons for Russia, Congress is giving Russia a free pass on the responsibilities of life cycle costs of being a nuclear power, and thus enabling Russia to build more nuclear weapons and more nuclear weapon delivery systems like SSBNs.

So what are the facts.

• The Russian Navy is spending twenty seven times more money than the US Navy in the development of new nuclear ballistic missile submarine technologies.
• Congress is very likely spending more money on submarine launched ballistic missiles in the FY 2008 Defense Budget for Russia than they are in the same budget for submarine launched ballistic missiles for the US Navy.
• Congress is spending around the same amount of money decommissioning Russian nuclear missiles as Russia is spending building new ballistic missile submarines.

Those aren't debatable facts, they are 100% accurate and sources are linked to look it up. I don't really know what to say, because while I think the "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program" appears to be historically successful, maybe it is time to take a hard look at this program going forward.

Russia has become the most vocal critic of Ballistic Missile Defense, which we probably wouldn't need in the specific places in Europe currently proposed if Russia wasn't spending huge sums of money upgrading their nuclear weapons arsenal and supporting the nuclear programs of countries like Iran. Americans are looking at the huge sums being spent in defense, well take a look America, we have an example here where nearly half a billion dollars is being spent to insure Russia gets to build more nuclear weapon systems.

Keep the facts in mind next time you read some dumbass rant about nuclear weapons, because you can be assured said dumbass is oblivious to the facts as presented, and will resort to blaming Bush or some other empty political rhetoric rather than dealing with serious issues that our own Congress should be taking account of. Congress screwed up, they need to better evaluate the factors that are contributing to future nuclear weapons expenditures, both in the US and outside the US, if they are serious about reducing the nuclear threat. No matter how you look at it, with Russia spending almost 75% of its entire Navy shipbuilding budget on SSBNs this year, successful programs like the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program may now be contributing more to the nuclear problem than to the nuclear solution.

One final thought... I'm American, so naturally when it comes to sea based systems like SSBNs I think everything is about us, mostly because the media of the whole world typically claims all bad things are caused by the US. I have been wondering lately though, is it possible that Russia isn't building new SSBNs to counter the US? Is it possible Russia is building SSBNs because of increasing nuclear capabilities of another nation, one that is historically a rival to Russia? Just saying... it would actually make more sense if true, unless one actually thinks the US is looking to use nuclear weapons on another country...