The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.
Artyom Shraibman
{
"authors": [
"Stephen I. Schwartz",
"Deepti Choubey"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}REQUIRED IMAGE
Total appropriations for nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008 were at least $52.4 billion. Of which, only $5.2 billion is spent on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, technology, and expertise.
What is nuclear security spending?
Nuclear security spending is how much the United States spends to operate, maintain, and upgrade its nuclear arsenal; defend against nuclear attack; prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, technology, and expertise; manage and clean up the radioactive and toxic waste left over from decades of nuclear weapons production and compensate victims of past production and testing activities; and prepare for the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack.
How much does the United States spend on nuclear security?
Total appropriations for nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008 were at least $52.4 billion. That’s not counting related costs for classified programs, air defense, antisubmarine warfare, and most nuclear weapons-related intelligence programs. Of which, only $5.2 billion is spent on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, weapons materials, technology, and expertise.

How is the $52.4 billion spent?
Which agencies receive nuclear security dollars and how much?

Stephen I. Schwartz
Former Deputy Director, Nuclear Policy Program
Choubey was previously the director of the Peace and Security Initiative for the Ploughshares Fund. She also worked for Ambassador Nancy Soderberg in the New York office of the International Crisis Group.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.
Artyom Shraibman
It is not a phenomenon unique to Russia that the public of a country at war (even the aggressor) enduring airstrikes will not overturn its government but rather show solidarity with it and blame its woes on the enemy.
Vladislav Gorin
Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.
Nikita Smagin
Reestablishing a dialogue with Moscow is not a goal in its own right. The goal is to guarantee the independence of Ukraine and the peace and security of Europe.
Arkady Moshes
Ukraine’s increasingly confrontational posture on Belarus reflects Kyiv’s effort to shape the emerging regional order in Eastern Europe. Kyiv wants to limit European normalization with Minsk—and any future rapprochement with Russia.
Balázs Jarábik