Nuclear Weapons Spending (split from B-21 topic)

[bobbymike]

Driven by B-21, Annual Bomber Spending Spikes to $11B

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/26/driven-b-21-annual-bomber-spending-spikes-11b/84960288/

I hope nobody thought they were going to get it for free.

The amount we actually spend on weapon systems is such a small percentage of the federal budget and especially the national economy. Around $120 billion out of $4 trillion (3%) or out of $18.2 trillion (6/10ths of 1%)

Interesting as a percentage of the economy the nuclear weapons budget from the 80's would be roughly $170 billion/annum today more than we spend in total on all weapons.

 

[Arian]

The amount we actually spend on weapon systems is such a small percentage of the federal budget and especially the national economy. Around $120 billion out of $4 trillion (3%) or out of $18.2 trillion (6/10ths of 1%)

Interesting as a percentage of the economy the nuclear weapons budget from the 80's would be roughly $170 billion/annum today more than we spend in total on all weapons.

"What we spend on weapon systems" is actually about $160 billion (out of the $562 billion of the DoD), which includes about $95 billion for weapons procurement and about $64 billion for development.

% of the economy is a useless measure. If your wage increases 5x, you don't eat 5x more. Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

 

[RyanC]

So by that chart, we're spending the same as our 1960s peak of megatonnage.

Where the heck are our thousands of B61s then?

 

[Arian]

So by that chart, we're spending the same as our 1960s peak of megatonnage.

Where the heck are our thousands of B61s then?

As far as I know, we do have "thousands" of B61 bombs, albeit most in storage.

Here's how the money is spend: FY 2017 requests: $1.3 billion for B-21; $1.9 billion for SSBN-X; $1.22 billion for Trident missiles; $281 million for W-88 warhead life extension; $223 million for W-76; $220 million for W-80; $138 million for B-61; $113 million for GBSD; $ 95 million for nuclear cruise missiles.

 

[marauder2048]

It's a fairly useless chart as NNSA didn't exist before the year 2000.

 

[Arian]

It's a fairly useless chart as NNSA didn't exist before the year 2000.

It includes all those other agencies listed in the title.

 

[marauder2048]

It's a fairly useless chart as NNSA didn't exist before the year 2000.

It includes all those other agencies listed in the title.

How can you do historical comparisons on budgets with an agency that didn't exist during most of the historical period in question?

 

[marauder2048]

So by that chart, we're spending the same as our 1960s peak of megatonnage.

Where the heck are our thousands of B61s then?

As far as I know, we do have "thousands" of B61 bombs, albeit most in storage.

Here's how the money is spend: FY 2017 requests: $1.3 billion for B-21; $1.9 billion for SSBN-X; $1.22 billion for Trident missiles; $281 million for W-88 warhead life extension; $223 million for W-76; $220 million for W-80; $138 million for B-61; $113 million for GBSD; $ 95 million for nuclear cruise missiles.

And these numbers don't total to the $7.6 billion mentioned earlier.

 

[sferrin]

Where the heck are our thousands of B61s then?

As far as I know, we do have "thousands" of B61 bombs, albeit most in storage.

As far as he knows we don't even have "hundreds" of usable B61s. On top of that they're FREE FALL bombs for god's sake. And in fact:

"As of late 2013, there were 200 B61 bombs actively in use by the United States.[2] Of these, 180 were deployed with NATO allies in Europe.[3]"

"As of 2013, the Pentagon was asking for an $11 billion life-extension program for the B61 bomb, which would be the most ambitious and expensive nuclear warhead refurbishment in history. Congress is opposed to this effort for cost and timeline issues and questions for the B61's need. Cost estimates have doubled from $4 billion to $8 billion and production slipped from 2017 to 2020, then grew to $10 billion for life extension plus $1 billion for tail guidance kits and production was delayed to 2021. Sequestration budget cuts in early 2013 have delayed any start until 2020. The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee stated that extending the life of B61s and consolidating its variants may not be a cheap and low-risk method to meet military requirements."

But hey, that $138 million is going to accomplish a lot. : And the biggest reason for that great expense list above? Go ahead, guess.

 

[marauder2048]

And the biggest reason for that great expense list above? Go ahead, guess.

NNSA overhead rates. Seriously. It's 85%!

 

[Arian]

How can you do historical comparisons on budgets with an agency that didn't exist during most of the historical period in question?

Cause we're not doing comparisons of budgets of agencies. They are adding up line items, regardless of what agency they fell under. Whether it fell in one agency or another, it makes no difference.

And these numbers don't total to the $7.6 billion mentioned earlier.

Cause there's other stuff they're spending money on. These are just the ones I could find info on.

As far as he knows we don't even have "hundreds" of usable B61s. On top of that they're FREE FALL bombs for god's sake.

Take it easy. I didn't bring the B61 into this debate. I was relying to someone who did.

"As of late 2013, there were 200 B61 bombs actively in use by the United States.[2] Of these, 180 were deployed with NATO allies in Europe.[3]"

There's 180 in Europe and 300 in the US (as of 2015). These are just the operational weapons. Not including the ones in storage. Including the ones in storage, its over 1,000. B61-12 modernization is for 500 such weapons (i.e. pretty much all the operational weapons)

"As of 2013, the Pentagon was asking for an $11 billion life-extension program for the B61 bomb, which would be the most ambitious and expensive nuclear warhead refurbishment in history. Congress is opposed to this effort for cost and timeline issues and questions for the B61's need. Cost estimates have doubled from $4 billion to $8 billion and production slipped from 2017 to 2020, then grew to $10 billion for life extension plus $1 billion for tail guidance kits and production was delayed to 2021. Sequestration budget cuts in early 2013 have delayed any start until 2020. The Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee stated that extending the life of B61s and consolidating its variants may not be a cheap and low-risk method to meet military requirements."

But hey, that $138 million is going to accomplish a lot. : And the biggest reason for that great expense list above? Go ahead, guess.

1) I don't need to guess. I don't copy-paste from Wikipedia.

2) You realize the $138 million is FY2017 budget. It's not the total spend. They are actually spending the money you mention on this project, so I don't know what exactly you're trying to say here, or what you're complaining about. But knowing you, you're probably just complaining for the sake of complaining.

3) Engineering phase is $1.1 billion. Now they are in the integration phase. I'm sure you can Google budgets, so you can find the same numbers I can (if you bothered, but that would leave little time for complaining)

So...what's your point? They are upgrading them, they are spending the money on them. So?

NNSA overhead rates. Seriously. It's 85%!

You could try actually looking at the budget descriptions for these projects. They're not secret. Of the $1.1 billion of the engineering phase, management services accounted for $45 million. Or, about 4%.

 

[bobbymike]

% of the economy is a useless measure. If your wage increases 5x, you don't eat 5x more. Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Of course percentage of another number (in this case the federal budget and the economy) is a valid comparison because I'm making an affordability argument. Your folly is talking absolute dollars in an AFFORDABILITY argument. The argument about the coming so-called 'nuclear spending bow wave' is about affordability. Opponents are saying we can't AFFORD nuclear modernization.

Two people are looking to purchase cars. One picks out one that costs $20k and the other person picks out one that costs $100k. Which purchase is more affordable? Hard to tell unless you know the salaries of the people. If person A makes $20k/year and person 2 makes $250k/year, that more expensive car is actually more affordable to him despite it being 5X as expensive. Something can be both expensive AND also affordable.

Correction on my earlier post: I used the term nuclear weapons spending but I should have said total spending on all nuclear systems including delivery vehicles to be more clear.

 

[Arian]

% of the economy is a useless measure. If your wage increases 5x, you don't eat 5x more. Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Of course percentage of another number (in this case the federal budget and the economy) is a valid comparison because I'm making an affordability argument. Your folly is talking absolute dollars in an AFFORDABILITY argument. The argument about the coming so-called 'nuclear spending bow wave' is about affordability. Opponents are saying we can't AFFORD nuclear modernization.

I'm not making any affordability argument whatsoever. Nor am I talking on behalf of any "opponent". I'm just making the factual statement that it is pointless to talk in terms of % of GDP, because there's nothing to say that everything needs to go up at the same proportion as GDP growth.

I'm just saying what the actual numbers are, not what fictitious numbers would be. You can make of that what you want.

Correction on my earlier post: I used the term nuclear weapons spending but I should have said total spending on all nuclear systems including delivery vehicles to be more clear.

Yes I know. And I'm speaking in those terms as well, i.e. development, procurement etc. of all weapon systems. The point is, today we are spending more than we did in the past: apples to apples.

Two people are looking to purchase cars. One picks out one that costs $20k and the other person picks out one that costs $100k. Which purchase is more affordable? Hard to tell unless you know the salaries of the people. If person A makes $20k/year and person 2 makes $250k/year, that more expensive car is actually more affordable to him despite it being 5X as expensive. Something can be both expensive AND also affordable.

I'm not arguing about affordability nor taking any stance as to whether we should spend more or less. But, if you want to talk affordability, then the metric of interest here is the money left over, not your salary. You can make $250k a year and blow it all, having little left over for a new car. That's where we are today. But hey, hmm, lets blow a few more trillion dollars on some pointless wars.

 

[bobbymike]

% of the economy is a useless measure. If your wage increases 5x, you don't eat 5x more. Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Of course percentage of another number (in this case the federal budget and the economy) is a valid comparison because I'm making an affordability argument. Your folly is talking absolute dollars in an AFFORDABILITY argument. The argument about the coming so-called 'nuclear spending bow wave' is about affordability. Opponents are saying we can't AFFORD nuclear modernization.

I'm not making any affordability argument whatsoever. Nor am I talking on behalf of any "opponent". I'm just making the factual statement that it is pointless to talk in terms of % of GDP, because there's nothing to say that everything needs to go up at the same proportion as GDP growth.

I'm just saying what the actual numbers are, not what fictitious numbers would be. You can make of that what you want.

Correction on my earlier post: I used the term nuclear weapons spending but I should have said total spending on all nuclear systems including delivery vehicles to be more clear.

Yes I know. And I'm speaking in those terms as well, i.e. development, procurement etc. of all weapon systems. The point is, today we are spending more than we did in the past: apples to apples.

Two people are looking to purchase cars. One picks out one that costs $20k and the other person picks out one that costs $100k. Which purchase is more affordable? Hard to tell unless you know the salaries of the people. If person A makes $20k/year and person 2 makes $250k/year, that more expensive car is actually more affordable to him despite it being 5X as expensive. Something can be both expensive AND also affordable.

I'm not arguing about affordability nor taking any stance as to whether we should spend more or less. But, if you want to talk affordability, then the metric of interest here is the money left over, not your salary. You can make $250k a year and blow it all, having little left over for a new car. That's where we are today. But hey, hmm, lets blow a few more trillion dollars on some pointless wars.

Well then your responses to me are irrelevant aren't they?

 

[Arian]

Well then your responses to me are irrelevant aren't they?

Ok. Except that I'm still not sure where you're getting your projections of $170 billion from. In the 1980s we spend about $7 billion in today's dollars. In constant dollar terms the US GDP in 1986 was ~ $7 trillion, or about half of today. So at best, if it stayed as the same proportion of GDP, it would be about $14 billion, not $170 billion.

 

[marauder2048]

How can you do historical comparisons on budgets with an agency that didn't exist during most of the historical period in question?

Cause we're not doing comparisons of budgets of agencies. They are adding up line items, regardless of what agency they fell under. Whether it fell in one agency or another, it makes no difference.

Your observation was:

Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Except that chart you use to support that argument includes a new agency whose administrative and overhead costs are part of the post 2000 budgetary history making historical comparisons back to 1989 difficult.

 

[marauder2048]

You could try actually looking at the budget descriptions for these projects. They're not secret. Of the $1.1 billion of the engineering phase, management services accounted for $45 million. Or, about 4%.

That's not how overhead rates are calculated.

 

[bobbymike]

Well then your responses to me are irrelevant aren't they?

Ok. Except that I'm still not sure where you're getting your projections of $170 billion from. In the 1980s we spend about $7 billion in today's dollars. In constant dollar terms the US GDP in 1986 was ~ $7 trillion, or about half of today. So at best, if it stayed as the same proportion of GDP, it would be about $14 billion, not $170 billion.

You're still talking warheads nuke enterprise only. Current total force cost including modernization is $1 trillion over 30 years or $33 billion/annum.

My figure comes from a chart retired General Kowalski former head of Stratcom that showed 80's spending on nuclear systems peaked at roughly 0.9% of GDP. BEA states today's GDP at $18,230 billion X 0.009 equals $164 billion. Sorry the in my head estimate was off a bit.

Trying to locate this chart.

 

[Arian]

Your observation was:

Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Except that chart you use to support that argument includes a new agency whose administrative and overhead costs are part of the post 2000 budgetary history making historical comparisons back to 1989 difficult.

I'm not comparing agency budgets at all. I'm getting my data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com They have a category for "atomic energy defense activities", under which there is a heading "weapons activities". For FY2015 it is $7.6 billion. That's the "weapons activities" segment of the NNSA. That stuff would have been under different agency's budgets before, but that doesn't prevent us from comparing.

That particular chart is adding similar line items from previous budgets, regardless of which agency they fell in. How well they are doing it, it's not for me to defend. I'm just giving you what the chart says. Show us something better, if you disagree!

That's not how overhead rates are calculated.

That would depend on the definition of overhead.

You're still talking warheads nuke enterprise only. Current total force cost including modernization is $1 trillion over 30 years or $33 billion/annum.

I'm looking at the line items which talk about "weapons activities". It's not warheads only. Total force costs is a different thing.

My figure comes from a chart retired General Kowalski former head of Stratcom that showed 80's spending on nuclear systems peaked at roughly 0.9% of GDP. BEA states today's GDP at $18,230 billion X 0.009 equals $164 billion. Sorry the in my head estimate was off a bit.

There very well may have been a time when total expenditures on all nuclear-related activities were 0.9% of GDP. But it wasn't in the 1980s. It may have been in the 1960s. So by that definition, even the 1980s represented a significant reduction in %/GDP over the 1960s.

Also, that depends on what is covered under all those programs. As I said, the current budget (FY2015) is $18.7 billion dollars for all nuclear weapons related activities. But only $7.6 is related to actual weapons development or procurement. So maybe that 0.9% of GDP also includes all sorts of other things as well besides simply weapons programs.

Additionally, some things fall under different budgetary headings. There's weapons development and procurement. Then there's maintenance and operations of weapons, which fall under a different category and different Department. For example. CBO gives different figures from those found in other sources, probably because they include the costs of operation and maintenance of these weapons. Here is CBO projections: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49870

I'll include a screenshot of their table for people who don't have Excel.

So it's $7 billion for subs in FY2017 in the CBO table, it was $1.8 billion for SSBN-X in FY2017 in my previous post. So we either include just the R&D+procurement, or the total costs of operating the whole fleet of current Ohio class subs. $18.7 billion is the number given by the CBO for FY2015, which is also the number given by http://www.usgovernmentspending.com that I gave earlier. Within this, there's a bunch of stuff, $7.6 billion is "weapons activities" related to R&D and procurement, which falls under a separate line item in the NNSA budget (but is aggregated with other items in this CBO list)

So, what was that 0.9% of GDP peak comprised of? Not so clear what the actual expenditures are even today. But we want to get an apples to apples comparison, and that chart is the closest I could find to it (you're free to find something better!)

PS: According to what I could find for FY2016, the weapons activities item request was $8.8 billion, and FY2017 request is $9.2 billion.

PPS: Brookings gives similar data: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/rdt

Expenditures for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Research, Development, Testing, and Production, 1948-1998

As you can see it's basically the same as the previous chart (but in different constant dollars, and ends in 1998)

 

[Arian]

The confusion is that your original argument was about weapons procurement, which is why you're comparing it here with the DoD's weapons procurement budget. Not total operating costs of all weapon systems!

The amount we actually spend on weapon systems is such a small percentage of the federal budget and especially the national economy. Around $120 billion out of $4 trillion (3%) or out of $18.2 trillion (6/10ths of 1%)

Interesting as a percentage of the economy the nuclear weapons budget from the 80's would be roughly $170 billion/annum today more than we spend in total on all weapons.

So the 0.9% of GDP peak, was never about nuclear weapons procurement/R&D/testing. It may be for all operational expenses of the force. The charts I'm giving are for the former.

Operating expenses are obviously going to go down, because that's the intended aim. When you move from Atlas ICBM to Minuteman III ICBMs, your operating costs are going to collapse. That's the idea.

 

[marauder2048]

Your observation was:

Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Except that chart you use to support that argument includes a new agency whose administrative and overhead costs are part of the post 2000 budgetary history making historical comparisons back to 1989 difficult.

I'm not comparing agency budgets at all. I'm getting my data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com They have a category for "atomic energy defense activities", under which there is a heading "weapons activities". For FY2015 it is $7.6 billion. That's the "weapons activities" segment of the NNSA. That stuff would have been under different agency's budgets before, but that doesn't prevent us from comparing.

Yes it does prevent a comparsion as NNSA is not a different agency but an agency within an agency with its unique overhead costs which are part of the weapons activities budget line.
Thus, the the pre-2000 data is not comparable to the post-2000 data.

That's not how overhead rates are calculated.

That would depend on the definition of overhead.

The way it's always been defined for federal budgetary purposes: indirect costs over total costs.

How well they are doing it, it's not for me to defend. I'm just giving you what the chart says. Show us something better, if you disagree!

You made a claim about weapons activities spending over a historical period using data with serious confounds.

 

[bobbymike]

Your observation was:

Today's expenditures are about $7.6 billion in the nuclear weapons category (out of $18.7 billion total budget), which in constant dollars is more than we spend in 1989.

Except that chart you use to support that argument includes a new agency whose administrative and overhead costs are part of the post 2000 budgetary history making historical comparisons back to 1989 difficult.

The confusion is that your original argument was about weapons procurement, which is why you're comparing it here with the DoD's weapons procurement budget. Not total operating costs of all weapon systems!

The amount we actually spend on weapon systems is such a small percentage of the federal budget and especially the national economy. Around $120 billion out of $4 trillion (3%) or out of $18.2 trillion (6/10ths of 1%)

Interesting as a percentage of the economy the nuclear weapons budget from the 80's would be roughly $170 billion/annum today more than we spend in total on all weapons.

So the 0.9% of GDP peak, was never about nuclear weapons procurement/R&D/testing. It may be for all operational expenses of the force. The charts I'm giving are for the former.

Operating expenses are obviously going to go down, because that's the intended aim. When you move from Atlas ICBM to Minuteman III ICBMs, your operating costs are going to collapse. That's the idea.

I'm not comparing agency budgets at all. I'm getting my data from http://www.usgovernmentspending.com They have a category for "atomic energy defense activities", under which there is a heading "weapons activities". For FY2015 it is $7.6 billion. That's the "weapons activities" segment of the NNSA. That stuff would have been under different agency's budgets before, but that doesn't prevent us from comparing.

That particular chart is adding similar line items from previous budgets, regardless of which agency they fell in. How well they are doing it, it's not for me to defend. I'm just giving you what the chart says. Show us something better, if you disagree!

That's not how overhead rates are calculated.

That would depend on the definition of overhead.

You're still talking warheads nuke enterprise only. Current total force cost including modernization is $1 trillion over 30 years or $33 billion/annum.

I'm looking at the line items which talk about "weapons activities". It's not warheads only. Total force costs is a different thing.

My figure comes from a chart retired General Kowalski former head of Stratcom that showed 80's spending on nuclear systems peaked at roughly 0.9% of GDP. BEA states today's GDP at $18,230 billion X 0.009 equals $164 billion. Sorry the in my head estimate was off a bit.

There very well may have been a time when total expenditures on all nuclear-related activities were 0.9% of GDP. But it wasn't in the 1980s. It may have been in the 1960s. So by that definition, even the 1980s represented a significant reduction in %/GDP over the 1960s.

Also, that depends on what is covered under all those programs. As I said, the current budget (FY2015) is $18.7 billion dollars for all nuclear weapons related activities. But only $7.6 is related to actual weapons development or procurement. So maybe that 0.9% of GDP also includes all sorts of other things as well besides simply weapons programs.

Additionally, some things fall under different budgetary headings. There's weapons development and procurement. Then there's maintenance and operations of weapons, which fall under a different category and different Department. For example. CBO gives different figures from those found in other sources, probably because they include the costs of operation and maintenance of these weapons. Here is CBO projections: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49870

I'll include a screenshot of their table for people who don't have Excel.

So it's $7 billion for subs in FY2017 in the CBO table, it was $1.8 billion for SSBN-X in FY2017 in my previous post. So we either include just the R&D+procurement, or the total costs of operating the whole fleet of current Ohio class subs. $18.7 billion is the number given by the CBO for FY2015, which is also the number given by http://www.usgovernmentspending.com that I gave earlier. Within this, there's a bunch of stuff, $7.6 billion is "weapons activities" related to R&D and procurement, which falls under a separate line item in the NNSA budget (but is aggregated with other items in this CBO list)

So, what was that 0.9% of GDP peak comprised of? Not so clear what the actual expenditures are even today. But we want to get an apples to apples comparison, and that chart is the closest I could find to it (you're free to find something better!)

PS: According to what I could find for FY2016, the weapons activities item request was $8.8 billion, and FY2017 request is $9.2 billion.

PPS: Brookings gives similar data: http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/archive/nucweapons/rdt

Expenditures for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Research, Development, Testing, and Production, 1948-1998

As you can see it's basically the same as the previous chart (but in different constant dollars, and ends in 1998)

You're going round and round at cross purposes to my original point all the charts graphs and other detritus are meaningless. My original response about the B-21 and its cost as this cost HAS been included in total nuke spending projections is based on that total budget historically. You are talking of the budget within that budget ALL VALID points BUT not relevant to my argument.

The point nine percent of GDP was in the eighties sixties was up to 2% of GDP IIRC.

 

[marauder2048]

Another confound is the fact that the Brookings and other studies on historical spending use deflators or inflation rates/indices that differ
markedly from what DOE/NNSA actually use to estimate out year costs for nuclear weapons.

 

[bob225]

Not being picky but wouldn't this discussion around nuclear weapons be better of in a different topic? Rather than being in one about a bomber??

 

[Arian]

Another confound is the fact that the Brookings and other studies on historical spending use deflators or inflation rates/indices that differ
markedly from what DOE/NNSA actually use to estimate out year costs for nuclear weapons.

It wouldn't matter since we're not looking at DOE/NNSA past/future projections. These are line items in then-year dollars, added up, and then adjusted for inflation.

You're going round and round at cross purposes to my original point all the charts graphs and other detritus are meaningless. My original response about the B-21 and its cost as this cost HAS been included in total nuke spending projections is based on that total budget historically. You are talking of the budget within that budget ALL VALID points BUT not relevant to my argument.

Sorry, but that IS your argument. You're talking (or were, now you may change your argument), about procurement/development expenses. Which ARE budgets within budgets, or rather are a set of budget line items. That's why you compared with the DoD's procurement/development budget.

The point nine percent of GDP was in the eighties sixties was up to 2% of GDP IIRC.

It could not possibly have been 0.9% in the 1980s. In 1986 US GDP was $4.6 trillion nominal. 0.9% would translate to $41 billion then dollars. Or $59 billion 1996 dollars. Looking at the Brookings chart, that's about 10 times higher than it actually was in 1996 dollars.

It could not possibly have been 2% in the 1960s, either. In 1965 US GDP was $744 billion nominal. 2% of that is $15 billion then dollars, or $75 billion 1996 dollars. That's about 15 times higher than what we see in the Brooking's chart.

So either you're missing a zero somewhere, or you may be talking about total costs, rather then procurement/development (and I suspect you know that that is the case)

Yes it does prevent a comparsion as NNSA is not a different agency but an agency within an agency with its unique overhead costs which are part of the weapons activities budget line.
Thus, the the pre-2000 data is not comparable to the post-2000 data.

So according to you, there was no overhead when the B-2 was under the DoD budget line, but there is overhead now that it is under NNSA budget line? Unique overhead costs means little, unless you're somehow arguing that NNSA overhead costs would be multiple times higher than they were when the projects were in the DoD or DoE? Is this what we're supposed to believe?

NNSA personnel costs are ~$400 million in FY2015. They're in the NNSA budget. They are not included in the $7.6 billion, or in the CBO totals. They are different line items, so they are not included. Again, we're not talking about NNSA budget here at all.

The way it's always been defined for federal budgetary purposes: indirect costs over total costs.

Then please go ahead and give us those numbers for NNSA vs. other agencies prior to 2000. Should be easy enough, right?

You made a claim about weapons activities spending over a historical period using data with serious confounds.

There's no confounds here. You just don't like the numbers. I gave you 3-4 sources giving the same numbers, and painting the same pictures. The way the numbers are calculated is independent of agencies. It's based on budget line items. Those can be compared across years, regardless of which agency they fell under. Whether B-2 fell under DoD before, and now falls under NNSA, has no bearing on the line item which sums up the costs of the B-2.

 

[bobbymike]

So either you're missing a zero somewhere, or you may be talking about total costs, rather then procurement/development (and I suspect you know that that is the case)

I think I've said in TWO posts now I'm talking total cost.

Now, YOU ANSWERED my post so your argument should director counter MY POST and not go off on tangents not in the original post.

Again I really don't understand what you are arguing about WE AREN'T talking about the same things.

See attached chart (I finally found) My numbers were off looks like we averaged about 0.75% of GDP for the period of Reagan's presidency 1981-1989 (the 60's look like as high as 1.5%) . That included the following in the 80's.

1) DOE weapons activities
2) O&M
3) Peacekeeper
4) Trident II / Ohio
5) ALCM
6) B-1
7) B-2
8) Investment

Now our existing force plus modernization will consist of:

1) DOE weapons activities
2) O&M (of existing Triad)
3) Ground Based Strategic Deterrent
4) SSBN(X)
5) LRSO
6) B-21
7) Investment

This according to Ploughshares Fund (not exactly nuke friendly) will cost AN AVERAGE of $33 billion/year. Based on that I am making ONE SIMPLE comparison based on the similarities in our expected TOTAL nuke spending budget of $33 billion today AND that we used to spend 0.75% of GDP in the 80's.

Our current GDP according to BEA is $18,230 billion X 0.0075% = $137 billion today.

You keep adding an inflation and 'then year' dollar numbers when I'm simply using GDP WHICH IS MORE than the economy of the 1980's plus inflation.

 

[sferrin]

1) DOE weapons activities
2) O&M
3) Peacekeeper
4) Trident II / Ohio
5) ALCM
6) B-1
7) B-2
8) Investment

You forgot B83, Midgetman and AGM-129.

 

[bobbymike]

1) DOE weapons activities
2) O&M
3) Peacekeeper
4) Trident II / Ohio
5) ALCM
6) B-1
7) B-2
8) Investment

You forgot B83, Midgetman and AGM-129.

I think that fell under 'Investment' and "DOE Weapons Activities" in the chart.

I am trying to find the speech by General Kowalski to get further details but the gist of it was "We spent way more" as a percentage of GDP on nuclear forces as we do today. He was not saying "We should match" historic spending only that those who said that today's Triad/Nuke Enterprise was too expensive were dead wrong.

And of course we are modernizing a smaller force. The chart also shows we are a decade or more 'late' in modernization showing the 26 year trough from 1990 to today. It is well past time for a complete force renewal IMHO.

 

[Arian]

So either you're missing a zero somewhere, or you may be talking about total costs, rather then procurement/development (and I suspect you know that that is the case)

I think I've said in TWO posts now I'm talking total cost.

Then that is why you are wrong.

You were comparing spending on "weapons programs". Not total budgets. Yes, total budget for nuclear weapons is smaller, and as I already said, it's supposed to be smaller because that's the whole point. As you make weapons that require less maintenance, less operational costs, etc, the total budget is going to be reduced.

Comparing apples to apples, that is weapons development and procurement budgets...we are spending more than today than in the past.

 

[marauder2048]

Comparing apples to apples, that is weapons development and procurement budgets...we are spending more than today than in the past.

Based on the data you have regurgitated without normalizing for the inflation indices actually used by the agencies. Consequently, period comparisons are invalid as is your conclusion.

 

[Arian]

Based on the data you have regurgitated without normalizing for the inflation indices actually used by the agencies. Consequently, period comparisons are invalid as is your conclusion.

I normalized them by the same inflation index. Yes, I didn't normalize them by the specific inflation used by the agencies. I don't know what that is...and I suspect neither do you.

So if you want to give me the specific inflation index used "by these agencies", we can redo the numbers. I eagerly await you numbers.

Of course, for my comparison to be invalid, we would need to assume that the inflation index used by "these agencies" would need to be widely different from the overall dollar inflation index. Which may be the case. I suggest you visit FRED's website where they have a couple of hundred different inflation indices , and point me to one you'd like to use.

And if these inflation indices are so widely different, then certainly % of GDP would be much worst than my comparison.

PS: You do have a point, however. But if that's the case, than 99% of comparisons of 2 different types of goods over time would be invalid since IT equipment, for example, has a different deflation than a car in any case. Their aggregate, however, is the dollar inflation index.

 

[marauder2048]

It really is incumbent upon you to vet data that you yourself acknowledge is suspect.
Especially since you are the one using this data to support a claim that you alone are making.

 

[Arian]

It really is incumbent upon you to vet data that you yourself acknowledge is suspect.
Especially since you are the one using this data to support a claim that you alone are making.

So, in other words, you have no actual criticism other than "you used the standard deflation that everyone uses for anything when comparing dollar figures over time".

 

[marauder2048]

It really is incumbent upon you to vet data that you yourself acknowledge is suspect.
Especially since you are the one using this data to support a claim that you alone are making.

So, in other words, you have no actual criticism other than "you used the standard deflation that everyone uses for anything when comparing dollar figures over time".

So, in other words, you have no useful data. I invite you to withdraw the claims which rely on this data.

The "standard deflation" (not an actual term) isn't standard for DOD (which varies even between the service branches) or Energy as every serious student of these matters knows full well.

 

[Arian]

So, in other words, you have no useful data. I invite you to withdraw the claims which rely on this data.

The "standard deflation" (not an actual term) isn't standard for DOD (which varies even between the service branches) or Energy as every serious student of these matters knows full well.

Sir, I'm going to repeat this again for the 5th time, and hopefully last. This is just a standard dollar deflator applied to dollars.

X dollars spend in this year vs x dollars spend in that year. The dollar inflation index is the the index commonly used when comparing dollar figures. Full stop.

After about 5 different critiques you made, none of which stuck, this is what you have left. Fine. I hope you realize what a ridiculous critique this is, but judging by the fact that you skimmed over my previous reply, I suppose you don't.

Yes, there are other deflators used for various goods. As I said, for you to have a point here, we would have to assume that these are somehow widely different from the dollar deflator. I then asked you to go ahead and give me that index. Which you obviously don't know what it is. You want to talk about "serious student of these matters"?

Here, let me make it easier for you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/21

You have about 1,300 different deflators there, and about 370 government ones. Please pick one you think is appropriate.

Second issue, the point of this discussion was on the amount of DOLLARS spend on weapons procurement and development. The point of a price index for, for example, apples, is to compare the VALUE of an apple today vs an apple yesterday. So these are not in fact telling us the same thing. So if you want to say that the total VALUE of weapons in 1965 was greater than the value of weapons today, that is a different argument from whether we are spending more DOLLARS today than in 1965.

PS: Then we'll talk about what % of GDP means

 

[marauder2048]

So, in other words, you have no useful data. I invite you to withdraw the claims which rely on this data.

The "standard deflation" (not an actual term) isn't standard for DOD (which varies even between the service branches) or Energy as every serious student of these matters knows full well.

Sir, I'm going to repeat this again for the 5th time, and hopefully last. This is just a standard dollar deflator applied to dollars.

X dollars spend in this year vs x dollars spend in that year. The dollar inflation index is the the index commonly used when comparing dollar figures. Full stop.

After about 5 different critiques you made, none of which stuck, this is what you have left. Fine. I hope you realize what a ridiculous critique this is, but judging by the fact that you skimmed over my previous reply, I suppose you don't.

Yes, there are other deflators used for various goods. As I said, for you to have a point here, we would have to assume that these are somehow widely different from the dollar deflator. I then asked you to go ahead and give me that index. Which you obviously don't know what it is. You want to talk about "serious student of these matters"?

Here, let me make it easier for you: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/21

You have about 1,300 different deflators there, and about 370 government ones. Please pick one you think is appropriate.

Second issue, the point of this discussion was on the amount of DOLLARS spend on weapons procurement and development. The point of a price index for, for example, apples, is to compare the VALUE of an apple today vs an apple yesterday. So these are not in fact telling us the same thing. So if you want to say that the total VALUE of weapons in 1965 was greater than the value of weapons today, that is a different argument from whether we are spending more DOLLARS today than in 1965.

PS: Then we'll talk about what % of GDP means

Forgive me, but I tend to stop reading discursive posts that contain made-up terminology e.g. "standard deflation"

Again, for the 5th time. I'm not trying to make a case using data that's too noisy for anything useful. The burden is on *you* to denoise your data. It means diving down into the budgetary documents for the various programs since 1965 and extracting the inflation rates actually used by the different agencies and the different program managers (since the AF leaves it to the discretion of the PM to determine the inflation rate).

At least the serious students of this subject admit when their data like yours has flaws (from the armscontrolwonk.com):

For example, in 1998, the Congressional Budget office estimated the annual cost of a START-1 force of 6,000 accountable warheads at $22 billion. That’s about $31 billion today. (I was too lazy to try to use differing Defense and Energy deflators. So sue me.)

(emphasis mine)