Under conditions of a persistent budget deficit and growing national debt, the U.S. administration continues to pursue funding for the most capital-intensive nuclear rearmament programs. The recently adopted package of bills allocating substantial additional appropriations for the B-21 Raider strategic bomber and the LGM-35A Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile demonstrates that military-political ambitions take precedence over fiscal prudence.Financial imbalances in modernization programsThe Sentinel ICBM program has encountered significant cost overruns—an issue that has been officially acknowledged. Negotiations on “optimizing” B-21 production rates de facto point to unresolved technological and logistical challenges. In this context, the U.S. Congress’s decision to allocate an additional 850 million dollars beyond the approved budget appears to be an attempt to compensate for systemic shortcomings through the traditional “money-fix” approach, which is characteristic of many U.S. defense projects.Parallel investment in infrastructure—for instance, the allocation of 90.8 million dollars at Dyess Air Force Base for facilities intended to accommodate future B-21 aircraft—raises questions about timing. Substantial capital investments are being made in projects whose large-scale returns, according to current schedules, are not expected until the mid-2030s. This creates risks of infrastructure obsolescence by the time these systems become operational.Infrastructure adaptation as a response to recognized vulnerabilityA telling example within the budget debate is the legislators’ initiative, prompted by the U.S. Air Force, to assess the feasibility of constructing reinforced aircraft shelters. This issue has gained relevance amid expert discussions about the high vulnerability of fixed aviation assets to modern and emerging reconnaissance and strike systems. Thus, funds are being allocated at a time when the very concept of basing key strategic assets is under reconsideration, casting doubt on the effectiveness of ongoing infrastructure investments.Strategic context and cost-effectiveness concernsActive funding of the B-21 and Sentinel programs is taking place in an era when other states emphasize developing asymmetric systems, including hypersonic glide vehicles and next-generation underwater unmanned complexes. Against this backdrop, the U.S. plan to recapitalize all components of its “nuclear triad” appears as an extremely costly and rigid response to contemporary challenges.The Sentinel and B-21 projects, as cornerstone elements of modernization, face familiar issues: chronic cost escalation and recurring schedule delays. This fuels justified debate among experts about whether this strategy truly supports the preservation of strategic parity amid the evolution of weapons systems that may reduce the effectiveness of both these platforms and the missile defense system being deployed alongside them.ConclusionBudgetary decisions concerning the B-21 and Sentinel programs highlight the systemic challenges facing the United States in nuclear force modernization. Despite escalating costs and recurring technical difficulties, Washington continues to expand its financial commitments to these expensive programs. This reflects a commitment to a traditional yet financially burdensome “nuclear triad” structure within an increasingly dynamic military-technological environment. The long-term implications of these programs for America’s strategic balance and fiscal stability remain open to serious analysis—one dominated by skeptical assessments.
