Nuclear weapons have become a security liability, not an asset. Since these weapons were first invented and used nearly 70 years ago, the world has become a much different place. The Cold War has been over for a quarter century, yet the United States and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons, hundreds of which are kept on hair-trigger alert, raising the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch in the absence of any credible threat. Despite the president’s commitment not to build new nuclear weapons, the administration is now planning to spend tens of billions of dollars to do so. In 2009, President Obama pledged to seek a world free of nuclear weapons, but he must take strong steps now if we are to see any real progress during his tenure. —Karla

This Just In

The future of nuclear weapons in the United States? To safely reduce the number of nuclear weapons in this country, we must ensure that those we do have remain reliable, safe, and secure. But what does that require? A new UCS report, Making Smart Security Choices, takes a big-picture look at the laboratories and facilities that research, design, produce, and maintain nuclear weapons and recommends cost-effective changes that will improve national security and save taxpayers money. MORE

Ask a Scientist

“How much does it cost to create a single nuclear weapon?”—Z. Witmond, New York, NY

Although the United States hasn’t built a new nuclear warhead or bomb since the 1990s, it has refurbished several types in recent years to extend their lifetime. It also plans to replace its entire arsenal with a suite of five new weapon types over the next 25 to 30 years, violating the spirit if not the letter of President Obama’s 2010 pledge not to develop new nuclear warheads. This plan, along with modest reductions in the U.S. arsenal of both deployed and reserve weapons, will cost taxpayers some $250 billion in the next few decades. That’s roughly equal to 30 years of federal funding for Head Start programs for kids at 2012 enrollment levels. MORE

Lisbeth Gronlund, Ph.D.,  Co-Director, Global Security Program

Follow Lisbeth’s blog >>

Science in Action

Missile defense: costly and unproven. There are much better ways to alleviate the threat of missile attack than by spending billions of dollars to build a missile defense system with an abysmal track record that will not make Americans safer. Urge your senators to oppose funding for costly, unproven, missile defense sites and to instead work to alleviate the threat posed by nuclear weapons in more sensible ways.