Reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world is about more than just avoiding Armageddon. With the US federal government ramping up trillions of dollars in debt and an unemployment rate that shows only weak signs of decreasing, reducing our stockpiles of nuclear warheads has become equally as much about ensuring our fiscal future as our military future. Nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive to maintain and, given that the US has enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world three times over, the discussion of how many nuclear weapons we really need is worth having.

The world currently spends $105 billion annually on the construction of nuclear weapons, their delivery systems, and their maintenance. This should be a matter of concern to an economy still struggling to recover from the greatest recessions since the 1930s. According to Global Zero, an organization advocating for the reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, the cumulative cost of a decade of nuclear weapons now exceeds $1 trillion. It should be no surprise that the United States currently spends more than any other country combined at $60 billion annually.

With eminent sequestration or severe budget cuts, the high cost of nuclear weapons has risen to prominence. Faced with tight budgets it is time to make tough decisions about where tax-payers money should be spent in the future. How can a Department of Energy bring new and cleaner forms of energy into practice when it must devote two thirds of its decreasing budget to nuclear weapons-related programs? Case in point: over 5000 nuclear weapons are waiting to be dismantled as a result of weapon stockpile reductions mandated by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). With the dismantlement budget decreasing from $186 million in 2009 to $58 million in 2011 these nuclear weapons will take over 20 years to disappear. The longer time for dismantlement means that the government will have to spend even more money to maintain these weapons over the 20 years than it takes to dismantle them.

This post is not meant to necessarily advocate for or against nuclear weapon spending but rather to begin a discussion on this important topic. Alternative uses for these funds are too numerous to count. Other than reducing the deficit, they could include increasing (or in the very least, maintaining) the levels of science and research funding, expand training for math and science teachers in public schools or even increasing the allocation to foreign aid.

Since nuclear weapons are not likely to disappear immediately, what can the United States do to limit its spending on these weapons of mass destruction? The New York Times has recently reported that Gen. James E. Cartwright, the retired vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former commander of the United States’ nuclear forces, has released a report with Global Zero arguing that the United States’ nuclear deterrence could be guaranteed with a total arsenal of 900 warheads. This report also states that only half of these weapons would need to be deployed. Dropping from the 1,550 nukes required by START to 900 could definitely help a struggling economy while maintaining a temporary nuclear deterrence.

While some may advocate for the use of nuclear weapons the cost of these Cold War relics should be considered. $60 billion may be an unreasonably high price to pay for maintaining the ability to annihilate mankind.