; 125 Stat. 240), as a result of an aging population, rising health care costs, and the rising interest on the national debt. (7) A substantial decrease in spending on the nuclear arsenal of the United States is prudent for both the budget and national security. The current plans to sustain the United States nuclear arsenal assume that the United States will maintain a nuclear arsenal like the one it has now for decades to come. However, the Department of Defense’s June 2013 nuclear policy guidance entitled, Report on Nuclear Employment Strategy of the United States found that force levels under the Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed on April 8, 2010, and entered into force on February 5, 2011 (commonly known as the New START Treaty ), are more than adequate for what the United States needs to fulfill its national security objectives and can be reduced by up to one-third below levels under the New START Treaty to 1,000 to 1,100 warheads. (8) A December 2016 Congressional Budget Office report showed that at least 10 percent of the projected costs of nuclear forces over the next decade can be saved by trimming back the current plans, while still maintaining a triad of delivery systems. Even larger savings would accrue over the subsequent decade. (9) Even without additional reductions below the New START Treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads, the United States can save tens of billions of dollars by deploying those warheads more efficiently on delivery systems and by deferring production of new delivery systems until they are needed. (10) As it undertakes its Nuclear Posture Review in 2017, President Donald Trump must seriously examine options to reshape and rescale the plans and adequately fund a smaller number of projects that would still leave the United States with a capable and credible deterrent. 3. Reductions in nuclear forces (a) Reduction of nuclear-Armed submarines