The United States is the financial caretaker for 5,000 nuclear warheads. Some sit entombed in silos, invisible monuments to apocalyptic scenarios never realized. Others roam the sea, where, at any given time, 12 Trident submarines cruise, each armed with 96 nuclear weapons. A single submarine is capable of destroying all of Russia and China’s major cities, even though there is no clear and present reason to do so. The entire U.S. nuclear arsenal could destroy the world five times over.

Meanwhile, millions of America’s senior citizens worry whether proposed Republican changes to Medicare will cost them $2,000 more per year in health care costs. American families wonder if heating assistance, school lunches or job training will win out over billions in oil and gas subsidies in the battle over budget priorities. College students, small businesses and Alzheimer’s patients wonder where their fate will fall when “hard choices” in budget negotiations pit them against large corporations.

And through it all, thousands of nuclear weapons sit and collect dust. And new ones in the pipeline wait to be built.

The Berlin Wall fell. The Soviet Union crumbled. The Cold War ended. Yet 20 years later, we continue to spend more than $50 billion a year on an excessive nuclear arsenal. This makes no sense. The Soviets are long gone, yet the stockpiles remain. These funds are a drain on our budget and a disservice to the next generation of Americans.

The congressional supercommittee was established to make recommendations for at least $1.2 trillion in cuts to our federal deficit. In the next few weeks, the panel is due to finalize its plan to put America back on a sound financial footing. Our outdated bombs must serve as the “nuclear option” — we can cut at least $20 billion per year from the $50 billion nuclear weapons budget, or $200 billion over the next 10 years.

We can use those savings to cut the deficit and save programs that help the poor, care for our seniors, educate our students and create new jobs.

Already, 64 House members have signed on to support this nuclear option.

The New START agreement, signed by America and Russia in 2010 and ratified by the Senate in 2011, is designed to reduce U.S. deployed strategic warheads to 1,550. This is a 25 percent cut from today’s levels. Fewer nuclear weapons should equal less funding — not an unending trust fund.

We can cut the deficit without undercutting our national security. At $50 billion per year for 5,000 nuclear warheads, each nuke costs the U.S. taxpayer about $10 million.

Imagine how many college students could be put through school with one less B-52 bomber to operate and maintain for one year at a cost of $9.8 million each (We have 76). Or how many homes could be heated this winter for families with the savings from operating and maintaining one B-2 bomber for one year, at $42 million each (We have 18.)

Rather than cratering seniors’ savings with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the supercommittee should be targeting nuclear-armed B-52 and B-2 bombers. The “greatest generation” blotted out the sun with flying fortresses.

Now it’s our turn to protect it with health care and financial security — not redundant bombers or submarines.

After the bombs at Nagasaki and Hiroshima effectively ended World War II, our Cold War arms race cost trillions and put the world on the brink of mutually assured destruction. Yet for the returning soldiers, it was the GI Bill’s promise of an education or possibility of homeownership that ultimately produced real wealth in America.

The supercommittee should not reduce funding to vital programs millions of Americans rely on. Cut Minutemen missiles, not Medicare and Medicaid.

Invest in the future; don’t waste money on the past.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) is ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee and a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. See the online version for the complete list of signatories.