Cost of modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons to fall to next presidentMINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. (Reuters) - In this flat, windy expanse just south of the Canadian border, U.S. Air Force pilots fly the same bombers their grandfathers flew, using mid-20th century cables and pulleys. Each spring, the airmen and airwomen must clear melting snow from the steel and concrete doors of the silos that house 150 nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles scattered across thousands of square miles of the upper Great Plains. The U.S. nuclear arsenal, patched, welded, and re-skinned countless times, was built between 25 and 62 years ago when the United States found itself locked in an arms race with a rival superpower, the Soviet Union. Now, its future is an issue in the campaign for the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has said she would call for a nuclear posture review, last completed in 2010, as one of her first acts upon taking office. Republican candidate Donald Trump has said he would be open to reversing decades of U.S. policy and allowing allies such as Japan and South Korea to acquire their own nuclear weapons to deter a strike from North Korea, which carried out its fifth and largest nuclear test this month. On Monday, in his first visit to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota as U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter said America’s nuclear deterrence was the “bedrock” of its security, and the Pentagon’s No. 1 priority. “If we don’t replace these systems, quite simply they will age even more, and become unsafe, unreliable, and ineffective,”  Carter said, speaking at a lectern in front of a B-52 bomber loaded with cruise missiles. “The fact is, most of our nuclear weapon delivery systems have already been extended decades beyond their original expected service lives. So it’s not a choice between replacing these platforms or keeping them - it’s really a choice between replacing them or losing them,” Carter said. Russia, he said, had built new nuclear weapons systems, raising questions as to whether its leaders were cautious enough when it came to atomic weapons. And North Korea presents a sustained threat, Carter said. Carter’s speech coincides with a growing realization among defense officials and experts that budget constraints almost certainly will force the next president to decide whether and how quickly to proceed with the Obama administration’s plans to maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The crunch comes in the next decade as American ballistic missile submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles – the three legs of the nuclear triad – reach the end of their useful lives. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost of nuclear forces through 2024 at $348 billion, but that does not include some of the costliest upgrades, scheduled for the latter half of the next decade. Independent estimates have put the cost of maintaining and modernizing the arsenal at about $1 trillion dollars over 30 years. “There’s a bipartisan commitment to doing that upgrade, so we have to assume those funds will come through,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told Reuters on Sept. 20. “But it will be a significant budget increase, especially in the next decade.” The Energy Department shares responsibility with the Pentagon for the nuclear arsenal, and some of its research and production facilities are 73 years old. The next administration could abandon or delay some aspects of modernization to cut costs. Or it could raise taxes, increase the budget deficit, or cut domestic programs, all unpopular steps with American voters. The most vulnerable elements of the modernization plans are a long-range standoff weapon, or LRSO – a nuclear-capable cruise missile launched from an aircraft – and new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Ten U.S. senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, called on President Barack Obama in July to cancel the LRSO, saying it “would provide an unnecessary capability that could increase the risk of nuclear war.” Some Pentagon officials and defense experts have said the cruise missile would be a hedge against improved air defenses that are difficult for even a stealthy bomber to penetrate. A Clinton or Trump administration also could cut the number of land-based ballistic missiles below the 400 currently planned or delay a new missile by extending the life of the current Minuteman IIIs, which each carry a warhead with an explosive yield of at least 300 kilotons, 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which killed an estimated 140,000 people.  The United States is one of five nuclear weapons states allowed to keep a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The others are Russia, Britain, France and China. The U.S. Air Force has estimated the cost of a new ground-based system – including missiles, command-and-control systems and launch control centers – to be more than $60 billion.     Some former U.S. officials, including former defense secretary William Perry, have argued that land-based missiles are not essential and should be phased out; proponents say they are more important in the face of potential nuclear threats by Russia and North Korea. Much of the planned modernization is nearly locked in  because of the need for new weapons and because some of it is so far along, said Evan Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based research group. The B-21 long-range strike bomber and the replacement for the Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are “the two most expensive items, and they’re arguably the two safest in a lot of ways,” Montgomery said. The bomber can deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons, and the submarine is considered a priority because it would survive any first strike by an adversary. The Navy plans to replace its Ohio-class submarines, first commissioned in 1981 and armed with up to 24 Trident missiles with multiple independently targeted warheads, with 12 boats costing about $100 billion. In his speech on Monday, Carter said that most people do not realize that spending on the nuclear program is a small percentage of total defense spending. At its peak, nuclear spending would make up about five percent of the Pentagon’s budget, which is now around $600 billion annually, defense experts said. Still, the funding gap means that despite the Pentagon’s massive budget, the next president will face an unavoidable dilemma. “There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re tens of billions of dollars short in that time frame from what it takes to execute a global strategy,” said James Miller, a former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration. “It’s not a rounding error anymore.” politicsNews
cost modernizing nuclear weapons fall next presidentminot air force base reuters in flat windy expanse south canadian border air force pilots fly bombers grandfathers flew using century cables pulled each spring airmen airmen must clear melting snow steel concrete doors silos house ballistic missiles scattered across thousands square miles upper great plains the nuclear arsenal patched welded countless times built years ago united states found locked arms race rival superpower soviet union now future issue campaign presidential election democratic candidate hillary clinton said would call nuclear posture review last completed one first acts upon taking office republican candidate donald trump said would open reversing decades policy allowing allies japan south korea acquire nuclear weapons deter strike north korea carried fifth largest nuclear test month on monday first visit minor air force base north dakota secretary defense ash carter said america nuclear deterrence bedrock security pentagon no priority if replace systems quite simply age even become unsafe unreliable ineffective carter said speaking letter front bomber loaded cruise missiles the fact nuclear weapon delivery systems already extended decades beyond original expected service lives so choice replacing platforms keeping really choice replacing losing carter said russia said built new nuclear weapons systems raising questions whether leaders cautious enough came atomic weapons and north korea presents sustained threat carter said carter speech coincides growing realization among defense officials experts budget constraints almost certainly force next president decide whether quickly proceed obama administration plans maintain modernize nuclear arsenal the crunch comes next decade american ballistic missile submarines bombers missiles three legs nuclear triad reach end useful lives the congressional budget office estimates total cost nuclear forces billion include costliest upgrades scheduled latter half next decade independent estimates put cost maintaining modernizing arsenal trillion dollars years there bipartisan commitment upgrade assume funds come energy secretary ernest movie told reuters but significant budget increase especially next the energy department shares responsibility pentagon nuclear arsenal research production facilities years old the next administration could abandon delay aspects modernization cut costs or could raise taxes increase budget deficit cut domestic programs unpopular steps american voters the vulnerable elements modernization plans standoff weapon rso cruise missile launched aircraft new intercontinental ballistic missiles items ten senators including elizabeth warren massachusetts bernie sanders vermont called president barack obama july cancel rso saying would provide unnecessary capability could increase risk nuclear some pentagon officials defense experts said cruise missile would hedge improved air defenses difficult even stealth bomber penetrate a clinton trump administration also could cut number ballistic missiles currently planned delay new missile extending life current minuteman itis carry warhead explosive yield least kilotons times powerful atomic bomb dropped hiroshima killed estimated people the united states one five nuclear weapons states allowed keep nuclear arsenal nuclear treaty the others russia britain france china the air force estimated cost new system including missiles systems launch control centers billion some former officials including former defense secretary william perry argued missiles essential phased proponents say important face potential nuclear threats russia north korea much planned modernization nearly locked need new weapons far along said evan montgomery senior fellow center strategic budgetary assessments research group the strike bomber replacement navy ballistic missile submarines two expensive items arguably two safest lot ways montgomery said the bomber deliver conventional nuclear weapons submarine considered priority would survive first strike adversary the navy plans replace submarines first commissioned armed trident missiles multiple independently targeted warheads boats costing billion in speech monday carter said people realize spending nuclear program small percentage total defense spending at peak nuclear spending would make five percent pentagon budget around billion annually defense experts said still funding gap means despite pentagon massive budget next president face unavoidable dilemma there doubt mind tens billions dollars short time frame takes execute global strategy said james miller former undersecretary defense policy obama administration it rounding error politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Cost of modernizing U.S. nuclear weapons to fall to next presidentMINOT AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. (Reuters) - In this flat, windy expanse just south of the Canadian border, U.S. Air Force pilots fly the same bombers their grandfathers flew, using mid-20th century cables and pulleys. Each spring, the airmen and airwomen must clear melting snow from the steel and concrete doors of the silos that house 150 nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles scattered across thousands of square miles of the upper Great Plains. The U.S. nuclear arsenal, patched, welded, and re-skinned countless times, was built between 25 and 62 years ago when the United States found itself locked in an arms race with a rival superpower, the Soviet Union. Now, its future is an issue in the campaign for the Nov. 8 presidential election. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton has said she would call for a nuclear posture review, last completed in 2010, as one of her first acts upon taking office. Republican candidate Donald Trump has said he would be open to reversing decades of U.S. policy and allowing allies such as Japan and South Korea to acquire their own nuclear weapons to deter a strike from North Korea, which carried out its fifth and largest nuclear test this month. On Monday, in his first visit to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota as U.S. Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter said America’s nuclear deterrence was the “bedrock” of its security, and the Pentagon’s No. 1 priority. “If we don’t replace these systems, quite simply they will age even more, and become unsafe, unreliable, and ineffective,”  Carter said, speaking at a lectern in front of a B-52 bomber loaded with cruise missiles. “The fact is, most of our nuclear weapon delivery systems have already been extended decades beyond their original expected service lives. So it’s not a choice between replacing these platforms or keeping them - it’s really a choice between replacing them or losing them,” Carter said. Russia, he said, had built new nuclear weapons systems, raising questions as to whether its leaders were cautious enough when it came to atomic weapons. And North Korea presents a sustained threat, Carter said. Carter’s speech coincides with a growing realization among defense officials and experts that budget constraints almost certainly will force the next president to decide whether and how quickly to proceed with the Obama administration’s plans to maintain and modernize the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The crunch comes in the next decade as American ballistic missile submarines, bombers, and land-based missiles – the three legs of the nuclear triad – reach the end of their useful lives. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost of nuclear forces through 2024 at $348 billion, but that does not include some of the costliest upgrades, scheduled for the latter half of the next decade. Independent estimates have put the cost of maintaining and modernizing the arsenal at about $1 trillion dollars over 30 years. “There’s a bipartisan commitment to doing that upgrade, so we have to assume those funds will come through,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told Reuters on Sept. 20. “But it will be a significant budget increase, especially in the next decade.” The Energy Department shares responsibility with the Pentagon for the nuclear arsenal, and some of its research and production facilities are 73 years old. The next administration could abandon or delay some aspects of modernization to cut costs. Or it could raise taxes, increase the budget deficit, or cut domestic programs, all unpopular steps with American voters. The most vulnerable elements of the modernization plans are a long-range standoff weapon, or LRSO – a nuclear-capable cruise missile launched from an aircraft – and new land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Ten U.S. senators, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, called on President Barack Obama in July to cancel the LRSO, saying it “would provide an unnecessary capability that could increase the risk of nuclear war.” Some Pentagon officials and defense experts have said the cruise missile would be a hedge against improved air defenses that are difficult for even a stealthy bomber to penetrate. A Clinton or Trump administration also could cut the number of land-based ballistic missiles below the 400 currently planned or delay a new missile by extending the life of the current Minuteman IIIs, which each carry a warhead with an explosive yield of at least 300 kilotons, 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which killed an estimated 140,000 people.  The United States is one of five nuclear weapons states allowed to keep a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The others are Russia, Britain, France and China. The U.S. Air Force has estimated the cost of a new ground-based system – including missiles, command-and-control systems and launch control centers – to be more than $60 billion.     Some former U.S. officials, including former defense secretary William Perry, have argued that land-based missiles are not essential and should be phased out; proponents say they are more important in the face of potential nuclear threats by Russia and North Korea. Much of the planned modernization is nearly locked in  because of the need for new weapons and because some of it is so far along, said Evan Montgomery, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington-based research group. The B-21 long-range strike bomber and the replacement for the Navy’s 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines are “the two most expensive items, and they’re arguably the two safest in a lot of ways,” Montgomery said. The bomber can deliver both conventional and nuclear weapons, and the submarine is considered a priority because it would survive any first strike by an adversary. The Navy plans to replace its Ohio-class submarines, first commissioned in 1981 and armed with up to 24 Trident missiles with multiple independently targeted warheads, with 12 boats costing about $100 billion. In his speech on Monday, Carter said that most people do not realize that spending on the nuclear program is a small percentage of total defense spending. At its peak, nuclear spending would make up about five percent of the Pentagon’s budget, which is now around $600 billion annually, defense experts said. Still, the funding gap means that despite the Pentagon’s massive budget, the next president will face an unavoidable dilemma. “There’s no doubt in my mind that we’re tens of billions of dollars short in that time frame from what it takes to execute a global strategy,” said James Miller, a former undersecretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration. “It’s not a rounding error anymore.” politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: cost modernizing nuclear weapons fall next presidentminot air force base reuters in flat windy expanse south canadian border air force pilots fly bombers grandfathers flew using century cables pulled each spring airmen airmen must clear melting snow steel concrete doors silos house ballistic missiles scattered across thousands square miles upper great plains the nuclear arsenal patched welded countless times built years ago united states found locked arms race rival superpower soviet union now future issue campaign presidential election democratic candidate hillary clinton said would call nuclear posture review last completed one first acts upon taking office republican candidate donald trump said would open reversing decades policy allowing allies japan south korea acquire nuclear weapons deter strike north korea carried fifth largest nuclear test month on monday first visit minor air force base north dakota secretary defense ash carter said america nuclear deterrence bedrock security pentagon no priority if replace systems quite simply age even become unsafe unreliable ineffective carter said speaking letter front bomber loaded cruise missiles the fact nuclear weapon delivery systems already extended decades beyond original expected service lives so choice replacing platforms keeping really choice replacing losing carter said russia said built new nuclear weapons systems raising questions whether leaders cautious enough came atomic weapons and north korea presents sustained threat carter said carter speech coincides growing realization among defense officials experts budget constraints almost certainly force next president decide whether quickly proceed obama administration plans maintain modernize nuclear arsenal the crunch comes next decade american ballistic missile submarines bombers missiles three legs nuclear triad reach end useful lives the congressional budget office estimates total cost nuclear forces billion include costliest upgrades scheduled latter half next decade independent estimates put cost maintaining modernizing arsenal trillion dollars years there bipartisan commitment upgrade assume funds come energy secretary ernest movie told reuters but significant budget increase especially next the energy department shares responsibility pentagon nuclear arsenal research production facilities years old the next administration could abandon delay aspects modernization cut costs or could raise taxes increase budget deficit cut domestic programs unpopular steps american voters the vulnerable elements modernization plans standoff weapon rso cruise missile launched aircraft new intercontinental ballistic missiles items ten senators including elizabeth warren massachusetts bernie sanders vermont called president barack obama july cancel rso saying would provide unnecessary capability could increase risk nuclear some pentagon officials defense experts said cruise missile would hedge improved air defenses difficult even stealth bomber penetrate a clinton trump administration also could cut number ballistic missiles currently planned delay new missile extending life current minuteman itis carry warhead explosive yield least kilotons times powerful atomic bomb dropped hiroshima killed estimated people the united states one five nuclear weapons states allowed keep nuclear arsenal nuclear treaty the others russia britain france china the air force estimated cost new system including missiles systems launch control centers billion some former officials including former defense secretary william perry argued missiles essential phased proponents say important face potential nuclear threats russia north korea much planned modernization nearly locked need new weapons far along said evan montgomery senior fellow center strategic budgetary assessments research group the strike bomber replacement navy ballistic missile submarines two expensive items arguably two safest lot ways montgomery said the bomber deliver conventional nuclear weapons submarine considered priority would survive first strike adversary the navy plans replace submarines first commissioned armed trident missiles multiple independently targeted warheads boats costing billion in speech monday carter said people realize spending nuclear program small percentage total defense spending at peak nuclear spending would make five percent pentagon budget around billion annually defense experts said still funding gap means despite pentagon massive budget next president face unavoidable dilemma there doubt mind tens billions dollars short time frame takes execute global strategy said james miller former undersecretary defense policy obama administration it rounding error politicsnews