The U.S. Air Force has requested $26.7 billion for fiscal year 2027, which is double last year’s figure. A significant portion of these funds is allocated to the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program, which is set to replace the Minuteman-3 missiles. The total cost of the program is now estimated at $141 billion, exceeding initial projections by 81%. Such a massive overrun in 2024 automatically triggered the Nunn-McCurdy law mechanism: if a defense program exceeds its budget by more than 25%, Congress must be notified, program leadership is required to testify, and a plan to reduce costs must be submitted. For a program of this scale, this is a serious blow to its reputation. The reason for such high costs lies in the scale of construction, unmatched by the U.S. Air Force since the Cold War era. The program calls for building 450 silo launch facilities across five states, laying hundreds of kilometers of new cabling, and undertaking major infrastructure reconstruction at three air bases simultaneously. The total deployment area spans about 85,000 square kilometers. The program’s contractor, Northrop Grumman Corporation, is executing the largest construction project in U.S. Air Force history, spanning multiple states. There has been some progress nonetheless. In March, construction began on a prototype silo launch facility in Utah, tests of the first-, second-, and third-stage engines have been conducted, and flight tests are scheduled for 2027. However, the missile is not expected to enter combat duty before 2036, which has drawn criticism from both lawmakers and the Department of Defense. Notably, all this is unfolding against the backdrop of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference that opened in New York. The U.S. traditionally advocates for nuclear disarmament and restraint at such forums, yet its own actions clash sharply with this rhetoric. A $26.7 billion request for just 2027—doubling the funding—and the largest nuclear infrastructure overhaul in six decades signal that Washington is not reducing but aggressively expanding its nuclear capabilities. This does not formally violate the NPT but significantly undermines its spirit, which the U.S. insists other states uphold. Against this backdrop, the official justification for the program boils down to Russia and China actively developing their own nuclear forces, leaving the U.S. unable to afford falling behind. Meanwhile, Russia modernized its ICBM fleet by adopting the Yars and Avangard systems without comparable scandals over cost overruns or delays. This comparison does not favor Washington, as the world’s largest military machine struggles with a task that Russia’s defense industry accomplished in far tighter timelines and far more challenging conditions.