The terrifying cost of the new nuclear arms race

A new report from ICAN highlights the growing cost of global nuclear weapons programmes and increasing risks of nuclear confrontation. CAROL TURNER explains.

John Healey’s resignation as UK Secretary of State for Defence on 11 June delivered the latest in a growing list of challenges to Keir Starmer’s premiership. In the wake of arguments between the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Treasury over the long-delayed Defence Investment Plan, Healey accused the Prime Minister of failing to protect Britain’s interests.

An equally excoriating attack came days later, from Strategic Defence Review co-author and arms industry consultant George Robertson, who charged Starmer with ‘corrosive complacency’ over defence. Both views represent the interests of the military industrial complex, not the British economy or the majority of people whose standard of living continues to decline.

The military budget is already bloated and putting pressure on the public purse. Investing more on big projects such as expanding Britain’s nuclear capability will not product the same as results for the economy as investments in health, education, housing, or transport.The Labour government is struggling to expand Britain’s already bloated military budget, as conflicting demands on the public purse continue to grow. Unlike health, education, or welfare, however, losing the struggle to increase military spending would be a big win for the British economy and the majority of people whose living standards continue to decline.

How much is spent on nukes

Britain’s nuclear weapons programmes account for around 14% of the MoD’s budget, according to this latest attack on government priorities, a report by ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Their recent report , has received less publicity than it deserves more consideration. Premeditated: Nuclear Weapons Spending in 2025 highlights a spectacular rise in global nuclear spending by the nine nuclear weapons states – with Britain overtaking Russia to become the third highest nuclear weapons spender.

ICAN’s report documents the exorbitant waste of public funds by the nuclear weapons states that have allocated almost half a trillion dollars of government money to maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenals.

Rapid rise in nuclear weapons spending

The report documents the exorbitant waste of public funds by the nuclear weapons states that have allocated almost half a trillion dollars of governments money to maintaining and upgrading their nuclear arsenals. Between 2021-25, they spent $471 billion on nuclear weapons, with little if any democratic oversight or public scrutiny. Between 2021-25, the nine spent $471 billion on nuclear weapons, with little if any democratic oversight or public scrutiny.

In 2025, spending rose by $118.8bn, a 19% increase on the previous year. In rank order, they are the US, China, UK, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The US leads the pack, as it has for almost 50 years. The US spends more than the combined amount of all other nuclear weapons states.

Congress devoted $69.2bn to its nuclear weapons programmes in 2025. In 2025, nine nuclear weapons states spent $118.8bn, a 19% increase on 2024. In rank order, they are the US, China, UK, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The US leads the pack, as it has for almost 50 years. Congress devoted $69.2bn to its nuclear weapons programmes in 2025.

The US spends more than the combined amount of all other nuclear weapons states. In 2025, US nuclear spending rose by 22%, an increase of $12.4bn compared to 2024. This increase inamount by which US nuclear spending rose was almost as much as the entire amount of $13.5bn allocated to its nuclear programme pent by China, the second highest nuclear spender.  China allocated to its 2025 nuclear budget.

Building, deploying, and maintaining a nuclear weapons system is always a long-term project. ICAN’s report also outlines nuclear developments over the next decade: ‘nuclear-armed states are currently planning to build new nuclear weapons systems that will be in operation through 2100.’

Winners and losers

The report also illustrates which pockets are being lined, and how much government lobbying they engage in. The report also illustrates which pockets are being lined by this increase, and how much government lobbying they engage in to keep the nuclear budget growing. At least 25 companies involved in nuclear weapons projects earned a minimum of $38bn in 2025. They also hold at least $401bn worth of ongoing contracts according to ICAN estimates. These include:

• BAE Systems which designs and manufactures Britain’s nuclear-powered submarines, including Trident Vanguard and Dreadnought class submarines. The company earned more than $1.5bn for all its nuclear weapons work in 2025, 3.7% of total revenue.
• Rolls-Royce Submarines which manufactures the nuclear reactors that propel the Trident submarine fleet. The company also earned more than $1.5bn in 2025, 5.6% of total revenue.
• Babcock International which maintains and refits Trident submarines at the Faslane naval base. The company earned more than $1.3bn worth of nuclear weapons work in 2025, 20.6% of total revenue.
• Lockheed Martin UK, a British subsidiary of the US aerospace giant, which supplies and supports Trident’s ballistic missiles. The parent company earned more than $4,5bn for all its nuclear weapons work in 2025, 9 6.0% of total revenue.The parent company earned more than $4,5bn for all its nuclear weapons work in 2025, 9.6.0% of total revenue.

Real costs of nuclear weapons

Whilst the nuclear industry is booming, the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world are facing a future of growing impoverishment and scarcity – from the spiralling cost of living in the global north, to famine, disease, health crises, and water shortages in the global south. ICAN illustrates what might be contributed to diplomacy, education, health, climate protection, and more if governments redirected the money they spend on nuclear weapons.

… and what the media doesn’t tell us

The real choices governments make are rarely examined from this perspective by the mainstream media of the global north. It spearheads European rearmament, which is a de facto war drive. It justifies military alliances and nuclear weapons by focussing on the counter-factual assertion that only democracies can be trusted to keep the peace.

The underlying narrative is fed by daily news: threats The real choices governments make are rarely examined from this perspective by the traditional media, of course. Largely owned by big business, these media outlets justify military alliances and the drive to war by focussing on the counter-factual assertion that only democracies can be trusted with nuclear weapons. The only nuclear weapons ever used were the US atomic bombs used on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Mainstream media narratives reinforce this message. They include: the threat by authoritarian China to democratic Taiwan; the US-Israel war to prevent Iran, a theocratic regime, achieving nuclear capability; and the need for Europe to rearm against rapacious Russia, a military superpower led by an authoritarian president. Indeed, the case for European rearmament is largely taken for granted across Europe and North America, and the media acquiesces. Rather than encouraging reasoned debate, which would include an examination of costs, we are treated to a myriad of stories reinforcing the notion of a Russian threat. The media acts as a public opinion persuader, extolling the virtues of war and acquiescing in the lack of transparency about the expansion of nuclear capability.

Britain’s nuclear spending

ICAN estimates that Britain ranks third in the nuclear weapons spending league. UK nuclear spending absorbed 14% of the military budget in 2025, an increase of $1.8bn (£1.4bn).  . In 2025, Britain overtook Russia to become the third highest nuclear spender after the US and China. Our nuclear spending increased by $1.8bn (£1.4bn).

Trident, the  is a submarine-launched nuclear weapons programme, is currently deployed on Vanguard-class submarines, with four new generation Dreadnought-class submarines in the pipeline. The UK is also developing a new nuclear warhead. Britain is also expanding its nuclear capability.

At the beginning of 2024, despite parliament’s silence, we learned that Rishi Sunak had agreed to US B61-12 nuclear bombs returning to RAF Lakenheath as part of the Nato nuclear mission in Europe. In 2025, Keir Starmer announced his decision to purchase 12 F-35A nuclear-capable fighter jets from the US which are able to deliver the nuclear gravity bombs at Lakenheath to their target.

Whilst the US bears the direct costs of siting nuclear bombs in Lakenheath, the UK covers the costs incurred by integrating them into Britain’s Nato nuclear mission. The 12 nuclear capable fighter jets will cost the British government around £1bn.

On top of this, at the beginning of 2024 we learned that Rishi Sunak’s government had agreed to US nuclear bombs returning to RAF Lakenheath as part of the US nuclear mission in Europe. The US bears the direct costs of siting these nuclear bombs in Lakenheath, such as upgrading the base infrastructure. However, the UK covers the cost of integrating them into its Nato nuclear mission. In 2025, Keir Starmer announced his decision to purchase 12 F-35A nuclear-capable US fighter jets which are capable of delivering the B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs stored at Lakenheath, at a cost of £1bn.

Most important of all importantly, expanding UK nuclear capability increases the risk of nuclear confrontation. It does not keep us safe, it and makes Britain a target.

Keeping Britain safe

Military spending levels, including on nuclear weapon projects, are political decisions like any other a government makes. Cost is important but not the only or even determining factor. The current government operates within Labour’s Government spending is a political decision like any other. Operating within Labour’s self-imposed fiscal constraints, the parameters of which continue the neo-liberal economic framework of past Tory government.

This leaves Starmer with three unpalatable options for increasing Britain’s military spending, He can raise: raising taxes, increasing public debt, or cutting the budgets of other government departments. Big business, not the working class, benefits from these constraints. In the context of a fragmenting political order, Starmer’s government is strained to breaking point.spending. All of these choices result in the heaviest burden falling on the working class, while the arms industry lines its pocket.

Attempting In an attempt to avoid these cover the unpalatable truths outcome of increasing the military budget, the government argues that investment in armaments, conventional and nuclear, not only creates well-paid, high-skilled employment it also helps grow the British economy. These are myths.

The arms industry is a relatively small economic sector in employment terms. Studies show that investing in armaments creates less jobs than the equivalent invested in sectors such as education or healthcare. According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), the UK defence sector supports roughly 1 in every 60 jobs, trailing behind retail, hospitality, and public services.

Investment in armaments does not grow the economy. War – the outcome of that investment – obliterates human life, ravages the environment, and demolishes social and economicdemolishes infrastructure. In some cases, it can destroy a society’s long-term ability to recover. Contemporary examples attest to this abound across the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, and parts of Africa.

Increasing spending on conventional and nuclear weaponry lines the pockets of the arms industry at the expense of the working class in Britain and worldwide.

A 21^st century nuclear arms race is already taking shape. The drive to war is gaining momentum, in Britain and beyond. The anti-war movement in Britain and internationally represents the interests of the majority. We are right to demand Cut Warfare Not Welfare!

This article first appeared in the Morning Star, 20 June 2026.