Nuclear spending

Over the past two years, the world's leading nuclear powers have made a number of pledges to reduce the number of warheads and delivery systems at their disposal and have backed these up with new treaties designed to eradicate the planet of atomic weapons.

The overall impression has been that the threat of nuclear annihilation has cast such a long shadow over the world for over 60 years that the global powers, led by US President Barack Obama, have finally embraced the goal - however utopian it may seem - of total nuclear disarmament.

However, a new authoritative report published recently by the British American Security Information Council (Basic) offers damning evidence that appears to show that the rhetoric surrounding a new non-nuclear age is nothing but a smokescreen and that the treaties that bind nations like the United States and Russia to dramatic arms reductions are not worth the paper they are written on.

The Basic report details the projected expenditure of the world's nuclear powers over the next decade as they plan a new era of modernizing and upgrading weapons warheads and delivery systems. Despite the current financial crisis and the prospect of continuing recession in many of the leading nuclear nations, the Basic report contains staggering forecasts with the United States alone expected to spend over $700 billion (966 billion euros) on the nuclear weapons industry over the next 10 years.

This figure appears to fly in the face of President Obama's crusade to rid the world of its estimated 23,000 nuclear weapons and bring about the nuclear-free state he has been championing as Global Zero.

Obama's 'no nukes' stance

Two years ago, Obama made a speech in Prague in which he vowed to seek "the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons" - a speech which signaled his intent to follow Global Zero as a signature foreign policy issue and one which contributed to him winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009.

Less than a year after that, Obama returned to the Czech Republic's capital in April 2010 to co-sign a landmark treaty with his Russian counterpart, President Dmitry Medvedev, which committed the two former Cold War foes to new reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Both the US Senate and the Kremlin ratified the new treaty in the year that followed.

Obama also took the lead in the fight against nuclear proliferation, bringing many more nations together to promise to secure nuclear material and work to prevent rogue states getting hold of nuclear secrets and technology.

But according to the Basic report, in addition to the $700bn the US is planning to spend on refitting its nuclear arsenal over the next decade, a further $92bn will be spent on new nuclear warheads. The report also says that the US intends to build 12 nuclear ballistic missile submarines, as well as developing new generations of air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and bombs.

"The Republican Party has traditionally been the strongest on defence and maintaining, or increasing, America's capabilities and spending in this area," Xenia Dormandy, an expert of US foreign policy and security at Chatham House, told Deutsche Welle.

"However, there's a strong split in the party today over increasing isolationism on the one hand, and a more assertive security posture on the other," she added. "With elections coming up next year, it is very hard for anyone, in particular President Obama, to take steps that could be seen as weakening America’s security."

Russia reacts to US expansion

Obama's partner in the new START agreement signed in 2010, Dmitry Medvedev, is also looking to expand rather than dismantle Russia's nuclear arsenal. Moscow will spend $70bn on improving its strategic nuclear land, sea and air delivery capabilities while introducing a range of new mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple warheads, a new generation of nuclear weapons submarines to carry cruise as well as ballistic missiles, and a short-range, nuclear-capable missile for use by 10 of its army brigades.

According to Anthony Seaboyer, the director of the Center for Security, Armed Forces and Society at the Royal Military College of Canada, the potential increases in spending by the US and Russia won't affect the START treaty - mainly because it was mostly a cosmetic document.

"The START agreement looked good at a first glance but it didn't really contain any significant disarmament," he told Deutsche Welle. "Almost all the reduction agreed upon was coming from weapon systems that had to be dismantled anyway because they passed their service life. Russia already currently has less functioning weapons then it would be allowed to have after the reductions agreed upon in the treaty."

In addition to the US and Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan and Israel are all reportedly planning improvements to their existing nuclear capabilities while adding new delivery systems, extending the reach of their current missiles, and investing in new, smaller tactical nuclear weapons.

Far from heading towards the utopian goal of Global Zero, the report suggests that the world is entering a new and dangerous nuclear era - a new arms race prompted by the increased instability in geopolitically strategic regions of the world, and the advances in nuclear and conventional force development among rival nations.

Race for security

Just as in the Cold War, the Basic report outlines a scenario where Russia reacts to increased US expenditure on nuclear weapons by increasing its own, both of which in turn threatens China which begins its own expansion. China's growing nuclear power threatens India which has the knock-on effect of provoking Pakistan. The overall race to acquire more nuclear weapons filters into the Middle East where Arab states fear being left vulnerable, which in turn creates a clamor for technology with the by-product of pushing Israel to add to its undeclared deterrent.

The Middle East aspect is one which experts such as Anthony Seaboyer believe could be the catalyst for this potential new arms race, specifically the continuing stand-off over Iran's secret nuclear program.

"There is not much trust in international non-proliferation efforts of being able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon capability," said Seaboyer. "The consequences of an Iranian nuclear program would be a nuclear arms race. This development appears more realistic at present as Iran is showing no willingness to abstain from furthering its nuclear program."

Xenia Dormandy believes it is extremely unlikely that a new arms race will develop between the established nuclear powers but others will continue to pursue expanded goals.

"China, India and Pakistan will continue to grow their capabilities in any active way," she said. "Creating better targeting, ensuring that capabilities are maintained, improving security, and advancing research and development in areas like verification, detection and forensics are all growing areas."

Author: Nick Amies

Editor: Rob Mudge