Inside America’s nuclear sponge and $141 billion missile update
USA TODAY’s Davis Winkie explains why the U.S. is spending $141 billion to replace aging nuclear missile silos.
USA TODAY asked nuclear strategy experts for their recommendations on the next steps in U.S. nuclear policy. Their responses offer competing roadmaps for how to keep America safe. Most of them are alarmed by the current trajectory of the Sentinel program, whether they wish to accelerate it, tweak it, or cancel it.
Darryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said lawmakers need to reconsider whether it makes sense to maintain 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) through 2075. He also questioned whether the United States needed them at all. He believes the country’s nuclear bombers and nuclear-powered missile submarines are sufficient to deter enemy attacks.
Matt Korda and Mackenzie Nightboil, two nuclear researchers at the Federation of American Scientists, argued in a 2024 memo that Congress’s mandate for at least 400 missiles was “arbitrary” and served political interests. They argue that Congress should stop requiring a minimum number of missiles and instead let national security needs drive the size of the Sentinel program.
Kyle Balzer, a nuclear weapons policy expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the country needs to “look at the reality of the situation and make sure (Sentinel) is back on track and that we have 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).” However, he sees 400 as probably the upper limit for silo-based missiles, rather than the lower limit. The United States has limited resources and cannot devote all of them to nuclear missiles.
“We have to do what we need to do on the (non-nuclear) end,” he argued, including building more naval ships and expanding the goal of the B-21 Raider program, a next-generation stealth bomber, from 100 to 200 aircraft. The B-21 is particularly attractive to Balzer because it can carry out both nuclear and non-nuclear strikes.
He and Bob Peters of the Heritage Foundation are also interested in mounting Sentinel missiles on launch vehicles. They believe this could be a cost-effective way to maintain and even expand the land segment, as silo issues have pushed the new missile over budget. For Russia and China, road-mobile missiles may also prove more difficult to target than silos.
“There’s potential for cost savings, right?” Peters said. “If we could eliminate 50 or 100 fewer silos and associated command and control centers and tunnels, we could potentially save some money.”
For now, plans for a next-generation nuclear sponge would maintain a minimum of 400 silo-based missiles, carry a $140 billion tab, and target missile launch sites.
★★★
The Nuclear Sponge is a five-part commentary project by USA TODAY designed to inform readers about the strategic debates and costs of land modernization for America’s nuclear triad.
Part 1: USA TODAY’s fallout map shows what would happen if American missile silos were attacked.
Part 2: U.S. nuclear arsenal undergoes $140 billion upgrade. Is it a liability or an asset?
Part 3: Collapsing Silos, Rush Deals – Why the Sentinel Program Fell Off Track
Part 4: Should President Trump and Congress update America’s nuclear strategy? We asked experts.
Project background: How USA TODAY mapped the potential impact of an attack on a U.S. missile silo
Davis Winkie’s role covers nuclear threats and national security for USA TODAY. Outrider Foundation and Journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
