Search

 

Disclaimer 

In October 2012 our shortened URL (www.thewillandthewallet.org) expired and was purchased by spammers before we were able to reclaim it. Part of their misuse includes redirecting this URL to an imposter site that has advertisements posted in the comment boxes. Stimson is working to take down that site and reclaim the domain name. In the interim, please update your bookmarks accordingly to www.thewillandthewallet.squarespace.com. Thank you all for your patience as we work through this issue.

Picture This

(Gallup)

Wordwise

Anyone who has heard President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address knows that there is a political nexus that links the Defense Department to its contractors. But Ike conveniently left out the middle player who makes the game possible: Congress.

Gordon Adams, Foreign Policy

« Scaling Back the Overmatch | Main | Shadow Play »
Tuesday
Jun192012

Something for Everybody

With defense cuts looming, the exact cost of our strategic nuclear offensive forces has become a hotly debated topic. There is a wide range of disagreement as to what should qualify as a related expenditure. This debate stems around the idea that:

Fewer nuclear weapons presumably mean less spending, but no one can say how much less, in part because there is no definitive estimate of current nuclear weapons spending. Official estimates tend to be narrowly defined. Unofficial estimates capture more costs, but with less detail and authority.

In our newest report, Resolving Ambiguity: Costing Nuclear Weapons, we take seventy pages to help elucidate what has previously been less and less clear. Our bottom up estimate is fully detailed, but we also have something for those looking “to ease some of the confusion surrounding the issue” without the full length seventy page read. BFAD wrote a more succinct and accessible summary of the report that is well below seventy pages in Arms Control Today.