September 5, 2014 | Edited by Jacob Marx and Will Saetren

Nukes swallowing budgets - “The Pentagon may have to start eating its young to pay for two of the most expensive weapons in US history: the Air Force’s Long Range Strike bomber and the Navy’s replacement for the Ohio class nuclear missile submarine,” writes Colin Clark for Breaking Defense.

--The Air Force and Navy are ramping up many big ticket weapons programs over the next ten years, and, when trying to squeeze in the new boomer and bomber, “there just won’t be enough money to pay for it all.”

--To buy everything it wants, “the Air Force and Navy would need to cut back on some combination of force levels, acquisitions, and readiness to make enough budget headroom for these programs, [Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis analyst Todd Harrison] estimates. Since both services have already substantially cut their force levels and lowered readiness, Harrison believes they will have to cut other major acquisition programs to fund the LRS-B and Ohio Replacement.” Full story here. http://bit.ly/1lJQpvz [1]

Nuclear costs in 3 charts -
--Total cost of the Air Force’s new bomber: $90 billion. http://ow.ly/i/6MSsw [2]
--Total cost of the Navy’s Ohio-replacement submarine: $113 billion. http://ow.ly/i/6MSst [3]
--Never-ending costs of the Ballistic Missile Defense System project: $103 billion spent, with $35.4 billion projected through 2019. http://ow.ly/i/6MSsA [4]

--Full CSBA ”Weapons-System Factbook” (pdf) http://bit.ly/1nAlWLL [5]

--Full CSBA report: “Analysis of the FY2015 Defense Budget” by Todd Harrison. Read the full report here (pdf). http://bit.ly/1AeBqL5 [6]

Tweet - @ISISNuclear [7]: Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in Iran for September 5, 2014 http://t.co/rXNkV3IOTX [8]

Doomed - “Even with new technology, America’s multi-billion-dollar efforts to build a shield against long-range ballistic missiles looks doomed,” reports The Economist. Given the testing record, “the prospects for a truly effective defence against ICBMs appear as far away as ever.”

--The Ground-based Midcourse Defence system alone has already cost more than $40 billion, and far more spending would be needed to create anything approaching an effective defense against long-range ballistic missiles. Read the full story on the shortcomings of missile defense projects and their enormous budgetary costs. http://econ.st/1uD4EBN [9]

Irrelevant and expensive - Several observers are calling on NATO to reaffirm the importance of its “tactical” nukes that are still deployed in Europe. “Not only are these outdated weapons irrelevant to the Ukraine crisis, they divert resources from more pressing and credible responses,” writes Kingston Reif in Real Clear Defense.

--Reif notes that the B-61 nuclear bombs in Europe lack military utility and, if they are going to be kept with NATO, would cost the U.S. $7 billion over the next decade while NATO allies have not committed resources to upgrade aircraft to deploy the new nuclear bombs. This raises the real possibility that the expensive bombs without a military mission would also lack plans to deliver them. Read the full story here. http://bit.ly/1lESCIb [10]

UK Perspective - “There is a risk, however, that the six countries negotiating with Iran will miss the opportunity for a solution by seeking to impose restrictions on the country’s uranium enrichment activities that are incompatible with its strong sense of identity as a sovereign state. Both sides have been pressing for more than they can reasonably expect to achieve. If a deal is not done by 24 November 2014, the negotiation will probably break down,” write Amb. Peter Jenkins and Sir Richard Dalton.

--”The West should review its assessment of Iranian intentions. If the conclusion remains that Iran is not intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, the West can afford to settle for measures that do not compromise Iranian self-respect.”

--Full report: “Iran’s Nuclear Future” by Amb. Peter Jenkins and Sir Richard Dalton for Chatham house. (pdf) http://bit.ly/1Bg7RuX [11]

Violations and opportunities - “Russia’s compliance record with the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has emerged as another serious problem in an already strained U.S.-Russian security relationship, and one seemingly bound for an endless, and ultimately, futile discussion. But this need not be the case,” writes Greg Thielmann at Arms Control Now.

--”Rather than resigning themselves to a weakening of the landmark agreement that has benefited both sides both during and after the Cold War, Moscow and Washington should use the INF Treaty compliance controversy not only to find ways to resolve the issues at hand, but also to open up talks on strengthening and expanding the treaty.” Read the full article here. http://bit.ly/1lEXpcF [12]

Iran receives thawed assets - “Iran's central bank has received a total of $1 billion of previously frozen oil revenue from Japan under the terms of an extended nuclear agreement with six world powers,” reports Reuters. http://reut.rs/1pSnshI [13]

Quick Hit:

--”Putin's Nuclear Option: Would Russia's president really be willing to start World War III?” by Jeffrey Tayler for Foreign Policy. http://atfp.co/1rP8lHB [14]

Events:

--President Obama attends the NATO summit in Wales. Sept. 4-5.

--“Iran Negotiations Update: Verification vs. Breakout Capacity” a discussion with Daryl Kimball and Stephen Rademaker, moderated by Barbara Slavin. Sept. 9 from 9:30-11:00am at The Atlantic Council. http://bit.ly/1ogX22L [15]

--“Debate: U.S. No First Use,” Walt Slocombe and Jack Mendelsohn engage in a Project on Nuclear Issues debate. Sept. 10 from 6:00-8:00pm at CSIS. Details here. http://bit.ly/1kYCdhB [16]

--“Nuclear Weapons Testing: History, Progress, Challenges” a Special Event to Mark International Day Against Nuclear Tests, with presentations from: Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Under Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, NNSA Administrator Frank G. Klotz and Dr. Lassina Zerbo, Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization. Sept. 15 from 12:30-5:00pm at the U.S. Institute of Peace. http://bit.ly/1lynIS4 [17]

--International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors meeting. Sept. 15-19 in Vienna.

--Center for Strategic and International Studies Project on Nuclear Issues presents Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Department of State's Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs in the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. Sept. 16 from 12:00-1:30pm at CSIS. Details here. http://bit.ly/W6m7Xj [18]

--“Iranian Attitudes on Nuclear Negotiations with the P5+1" featuring Ebrahim Mohseni and Steven Kull. Sept. 17 from 10:00-11:30am at the Carnegie Endowment. Details here. http://bit.ly/1tqCz3r [19]