<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" When the Norwegian Nobel Committee nominated U.S. president Barack Obama for its Peace Prize, they said the committee &amp;quot;attached special importance to Obama&amp;#039;s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.&amp;quot; They might be surprised to see some of the lesser-known details of his defense budget\u2014which requests $7 billion, up $624 million from 2010, in funding for weapons research by the Department of Energy&amp;#039;s National Nuclear Security Administration. For all the president&amp;#039;s talk this week about limiting the scope of America&amp;#039;s use of its nuclear weapons, his budgetary actions make it clear that any reduction in the U.S. stockpile will go hand-in-hand with modernization.  Take, for example, a program to replace the nuclear-tipped cruise missiles carried by Air Force bombers. (The basic idea is to shoot the nuke from a range long enough to avoid radar networks and to keep the bomber safe from the explosion.) The Bush administration cut several hundred of these air-launched cruise missiles as part of a way to reach mandates of treaties signed with Russia. If bombers carry better weapons, fewer warplanes are needed, and both can be reduced. These missiles can carry W80 warheads, the newest of which was manufactured in 1990, but under the Bush administration the nukes did not receive upgrades that could have extended their lives. (President George W. Bush was lobbying for a replacement warhead, but that program was canceled.) W80 warheads in the stockpile are scheduled for another life-extension program, to receive new neutron generators, starting in 2015, and will be refurbished in 2030, according to 2009 budget documents. The NNSA is requesting $34 million for work on the W80 in 2011 alone, according to the Washington D.C.\u2013based Arms Control Association.  The Obama administration&amp;#039;s 2011 budget request allocates more than $800 million to build a new nuclear-capable cruise missile for its long-range bombers, including $3.63 million in 2011 to complete ongoing technical studies, and funds through 2015 that will be dedicated to research and development. The new program proposes to research what it terms a Follow-On Long Range Stand-Off (LRSO) missile. (Here is a pdf of the document outlining the 2011 funding for air-launched cruise missiles; page 77 lists the program.) Many in the arms-control community criticized the new LRSO effort, saying it violates Obama&amp;#039;s public push toward global nuclear disarmament by creating a new vehicle to carry weapons to targets.  There are many in the Pentagon and Congress who advocate for the replacement of the aged W80 warheads carried by cruise missiles. Funding this new missile opens a door for the production of new warheads. Obama&amp;#039;s LRSO program will make it easier for this president, and even more so for following commanders-in-chief, to modernize and reinvigorate the Air Force&amp;#039;s nuclear weapons.  The LRSO is not alone\u2014more funding is allocated to facilities that produce nuclear weapons material. In 2011, Obama&amp;#039;s budget increases funding of a plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory from $97 million to a whopping $225 million. A uranium processing facility in Tennessee will get a more moderate, $11 million increase. The Minuteman III intercontinental missile and the Trident II submarine-launched missiles are also getting upgrades, and the Navy is extending the lives of Trident Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines.  Congress will vote on the defense authorization bill in fall. Depending on any given person&amp;#039;s feelings about deterrence, these programs are either a subtle renunciation of a presidential pledge or a simple acknowledgment that U.S. nukes are not going anywhere, anytime soon. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5642/nuclear-weapons-funding/>