United States to Spend Nearly $1 Trillion Updating Nuclear ArsenalUpdating Americas behemoth nuclear arsenal could cost nearly one trillion dollars, according to anew report from independent researchers at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Though previous Pentagon assessments claimed that updating the United States nuclear weapons couldcost $270 billion, theprice now appears to be much higher. In 2013, President Obamaannounced plansto update the militarys nuclear weapons program over a period of 30 years. More specifically, the White House intended to update the nuclear triadthe intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarines, and aircraft responsible for delivering nuclear warheads. However, Obama failed to provide full data on projected costs. As Al Jazeeranoted, the White House has to date only released a $73 billion estimate that covers fiscal years 2016 to 2020 years before the programs costs are projected to spike. The new study by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessmentwhich works closely with the Pentagon says that between 2014 and 2043, the total could be as high as $963 billion. Further, researchers Todd Harrison and Evan Montgomery noted that Ultimately, this report finds that the Pentagon willrequire as much as $12 to 13 billion per year in additional funding to support nuclear maintenance and modernization during the 2020s, when spending on U.S. nuclear forces will peak. The figure itself may be suspect considering the tendency of war mongers tounderestimate the costs of war and the Pentagons fiscal ineptitude. The new reports findings are consistent with a widely-cited study released last year thatprojected a similar figure, but the cost to maintain one of the worlds biggest nuclear arsenals is chronically high. The Manhattan Projectwhich spawned the bombs dropped on Japan in August of 1945,cost $20 billion (adjusted for current inflation). From 1957 to 1964 alone, the U.S. spent the equivalent $14 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile launch pads and silos, as well as support facilities. With7,300 total nuclear warheads as of 2014, the United States leads the world in nuclear stockpiles. It is followed by Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. The United States is the first and only nation to openly and unabashedly drop a nuclear bomb on civilian populations. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed 70 years ago in an attack military commandersincluding General Dwight D. Eisenhowerdeemedwholly unnecessary. Though some might argue that $1 trillion over 30 years to maintain a nuclear stockpile is only a fraction of the United States presumedmilitary budget over the same time period, that fact alone is alarming. It reveals disturbingly misplaced priorities within one of the worlds wealthiest nations. Worse, the projected costs highlight the grotesque hypocrisy in Obamas conduct of foreign affairs. While his recent nuclear deal with Iran is laudable for its attempt to prioritize diplomacy over war, it remains comical that a nation that fervently stockpiles nuclear weaponsand is the only one with the audacity to detonate themshould control the conversation and conduct of other nations ability to wield nuclear power. There is no evidence that Iran detonated nuclear bombs for the sake of bolstering a powerful image and testing out new toys.That was, of course, the United States under Harry Truman. While Obama once campaigned onpromises of nuclear disarmament,his actions in office signal the opposite approach. Nowhere in his Iran dealwhich is ostensibly intended to reduce the threat of nuclear violencedid he suggest the United States scale back its arsenal. AnOnion headline once satirically summed up this conundrumlong before the recent deal: Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8500th Nuclear Weapon, it read, highlighting the ridiculousness of the global empires purported fear of a nationsurrounded by United States military bases. As the United States machine continues to expand its militaristic misadventuresin defending his Iran deal this week, Obamabragged that he had bombed seven countriesits desperation to cling to aggressive power becomes all the more obvious. While the outrageous costs of maintaining a nuclear arsenal should spark serious discussion about Americas priorities, they merely expose its politicians hubris in demandingand exercising violent powerwhile commanding others to lay down their arms. Carey Wedler writes for theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11pm Eastern/8pm Pacific. If you spot a typo, email edits@theantimedia.org. Carey Wedler joined Anti-Media as an independent journalist in September of 2014. As a senior editor, her topics of interest include the police and warfare states, the Drug War, the relevance of history to current problems and solutions, and positive developments that drive humanity forward. She currently resides in Los Angeles, California, where she was born and raised. Learn more about Wedler here! What if you were to learn that the A-bombs allegedly dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not dropped but these cities were fire bombed just like Gen. LeMay had done to 62 other cities? What if they just learned that the same folks that photoshopped the alleged moon landings used the same exact studio in Lookout Mountain, Ca to produce the alleged nuclear photos run by the CIA? What if they just sold us all these massive lies and kept the money that they keep in secret bank accounts in Rothschilds Switzerland and offshore tax havens? What if theyve been lying to us about EVERYTHING for over a century? What if? Its about perpetually creating big black holes to steal from. Lunacy. SoIF Obama is really aiding ISIL, is he building the U.S. Nuclear arsenal to turn over to them? 