Introduction President Trump stated in Davos, “Tremendous amounts of money are being spent on nuclear, and the destructive capability is something that we don’t even want to talk about today, because you don’t want to hear it. It’s too depressing.” Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is spearheading an effort to cut costs throughout government. While the U.S. government has not released any planned cuts to nuclear modernization, this does not mean the nuclear weapons budget is safe. President Trump directed Secretary of Defense Hegseth to establish the Golden Dome and increase the military’s border presence, which will require significant funding. Defense Secretary Hegseth is focusing on “refocusing and reinvesting” from existing defense programs, rather than from increases in the overall Department of Defense (DoD) budget. In this age of increasing budgetary scrutiny, leaders should see the nuclear weapons modernization program as a cost-effective defense strategy compared to that of conventional weapons programs. The Costs of Modern Conventional War The war in Ukraine offers insights into the cost of a modern conventional war. The RAND Corporation reports Russia spent a total direct cost of about $40 billion between February 2022 and September 2022, which represents about 14.4% of total pre-war government spending in 2021. If the U.S. spent the same percentage of its $6.8 trillion budget in FY 2021, this would account for a total of $980 billion dollars for an 8-month period. This is roughly equal to the approximately $1 trillion General Cotton stated the entirety of the cost of nuclear modernization efforts over the next thirty years. While these direct costs are large, the indirect ones can be more damaging. The RAND research report conservatively estimates annual Russian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses for 2022 to be between $103 billion and $160 billion and a $289 billion loss in market value of companies on the Moscow Stock Exchange. These numbers do not fully account for many other economic losses, such as the loss of human capital from battlefield casualities and people fleeing the country as well as reconstruction efforts from damaged locations. Therefore, the costs of nuclear modernization pale in comparison to the costs of a conventional war. The Power of Nuclear Deterrence A major invasion has not occurred against a nuclear power. Although nuclear weapons are only about 80 years old, this is likely not a coincidence. The Cold War, a period of intense geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, serves as a prominent example. The mutual threat of nuclear annihilation likely constrained both superpowers from escalating conventional conflicts into direct, large-scale confrontation. Deterrence has the capability to prevent costly conventional wars between nuclear parties that fear they could escalate to use of nuclear weapons. Deterrence only works if the threat of nuclear retaliation is credible. When discussing the primary reason for the nuclear modernization effort, Deborah Rosenblum, former assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs (ASD(NCB)) stated, “we have to have a deterrent that’s credible so that no adversary thinks at any moment that it’s in their interest to contemplate, let alone use a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or one of our allies.” Currently we have an aging system that raises concerns about reliability and survivability. In 2023, a failed Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) test launch highlighted this issue. The Sentinel modernization program brings improved range, accuracy, survivability, and a modular design for easier maintenance to the land leg of the triad. This upgrade, along with those in the air and sea legs, communicates to our enemies a strong and reliable nuclear force. We Can Afford More than Just Our Survival In a globalized world, the cost of war does not just involve the nations involved. Today’s economy is much more interdependent than the past and thus the effects of major wars are seen throughout the world. During the first two weeks of the Russia-Ukraine war, energy prices in Europe rose by more than 25%. Firms with strong dependence on Russian experience, which are most commonly found in Europe, suffered 2.16% losses in their share prices when compared with those that did not. One study found an approximate 1% global GDP decrease, or about $1.5 trillion, in 2022 compared with pre-war estimates. Former Defense Secretary Mattis made a strong statement in 2018 when defending the defense budget by stating, “we can afford survival.” However, investment in our nuclear weapons does more than just ensure our own survival; It enables us to project our deterrence to our allies. The U.S. has a strong record with its extended deterrence posture through its prevention of an invasion of NATO territory and protection of South Korea and Japan from a nuclear-armed North Korea. While the cost of extended deterrence has been criticized, it is miniscule compared to the strategic value it provides to the U.S. and the potential cost savings of preventing a war similar to that of the Russia-Ukraine war. A 2025 report by the Congressional Budger Office (CBO) estimates the total cost of all tactical nuclear delivery systems and weapons to be $800 million for 2025, of which the forces deployed to NATO are only a subset of this spending. This spending is much less than the $182.8 billion given from the U.S. to Ukraine from February 2022 through December 2024, albeit this may be paid back at some indefinite point. Effective extended deterrence must be resourced sufficiently to be seen as credible. While America may be headed towards an era of isolationism, we must continue to stress the importance of investing in extended deterrence to potentially save significant costs of supporting allies in future wars. Conclusion In conclusion, the war in Ukraine serves as a stark reminder of the true cost of large conventional wars. These costs may have escaped the American public’s attention since the end of World War II largely because of the existence of a stable nuclear deterrent that has prevented them. With increased scrutiny currently exists on all budgetary items in the DoD, it is important to communicate the importance of investing in a strong nuclear force that presents a credible threat to an enemy. Nuclear deterrence plays an outsized role compared with its cost in preventing a large-scale war. Investing significantly in our nuclear weapons posture can be seen as cost-savings measure in the long term; some money spent now on a credible deterrent may save us immensely by preventing another large-scale conventional conflict.