Obama to increase funding for nuclear weapons

Very good article saying that although Obama gave vague speeches about nuclear disarmament, in fact he's increasing funding for nuclear weapons.

Indeed on February 1, the Obama administration delivered a budget request calling for a full 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year, to be followed by further increases in subsequent years. These increases, if enacted, would bring the recent six-year period of flat and declining nuclear weapons budgets to an abrupt end. Not since 2005 has Congress approved such a large nuclear weapons budget.

The request proposes major upgrades to certain bombs as well as the design, and ultimately production, of a new ballistic missile warhead. Warhead programs are increased almost across the board, with the notable exception of dismantlement, which is set to decline dramatically. A continued scientific push to develop simulations and experiments to partially replace nuclear testing is evident.

All these initiatives and others are embedded in an overall military budget bigger than any since the 1940s that includes renewed funding for the development of advanced delivery vehicles, cruise missiles, and plenty of money for nuclear deployments.

Moreover, Russia and the US signed under Obama a Joint Understanding that commits both parties to some reductions over many years (the deadline for the reductions would be 2016). The important point is that those reductions do not require dismantling or destruction of nukes, but only their de-alerting (remove them from deployment and putting them into reserve); if the de-alerted ones are indeed dismantled, then that's good (although they would be small reductions), but if they're only placed under reserve, then it's not such a big improvement:

Compared with the forces deployed as of 2009, the effect of the START follow-on appears to be a reduction of Russian deployed strategic warheads by approximately 40 percent, and a U.S. reduction of roughly 24 percent. The estimated effect on the total stockpile of either country is more modest: 14 percent fewer warheads for Russia and 10 percent for the United States. But that assumes the warheads cut by the START follow-on treaty would be retired rather than placed in the reserve, something the agreement does not require. The treaty itself requires no change in the size of the total stockpiles.
The reduction to 500-1,100 strategic delivery vehicles represents a significant reduction from the START ceiling of 1,600, at least on paper. In reality, however, the upper limit exceeds what either country currently deploys, and the lower level exceeds what Russia is expected to deploy by 2017 anyway. Therefore, a 500-1,100 limit doesn’t force either country to make changes to its nuclear structure but essentially follows current deployment plans.
The United States currently deploys approximately 798 strategic delivery vehicles; Russia approximately 620. But many of the Russian systems are being retired and not being replaced on a one-for-one basis so the entire force could shrink to less than 400 strategic delivery vehicles by 2016. To put in perspective; that would be less than the United States deploys in its ICBM force alone.

Bottom line:
Even when the new treaty has been implemented in seven years, the two countries will still possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, each with over 20 times more weapons than the next-largest nuclear power: China.