called for in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. Over the next 30 years, the price tag is likely to exceed $1,500,000,000,000 and could even approach $2,000,000,000,000. (4) Numerous United States Government officials have warned of the affordability problem posed by the current nuclear weapons sustainment plans, cautioning that these plans cannot be executed in the absence of significant long-term increases to defense spending or cuts to other military priorities. For example, Brian McKeon, former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense stated in October 2015 that: We’re looking at that big bow wave [in nuclear weapons spending] and wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it, and probably thanking our lucky stars we won’t be here to answer the question. Projected spending on the nuclear weapons budget has grown even larger since 2015. (5) The projected growth in nuclear weapons spending is coming due as the Department of Defense is seeking to replace large portions of its conventional forces to better compete with the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China and as internal and external fiscal pressures are likely to limit the growth of, and perhaps reduce, military spending. We’re going to have enormous pressure on reducing the debt which means that defense spending—I’d like to tell you it’s going to keep going up—[but] I’m not terribly optimistic. , Alan Shaffer, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, said in February 2019. (6) A substantial decrease in spending on the nuclear arsenal of the United States is prudent for both the budget and for national security. 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 April 2010 Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms between the United States and the Russian Federation (commonly known as the New START Treaty ) are more than adequate for what the United