Dems introduce bill to ban low-yield nukes

Dems introduce bill to ban low-yield nukes
© Anna Moneymaker

A group of House Democrats and a Senate Democrat introduced a bill Tuesday that would ban the Trump administration’s plans for a so-called low-yield nuclear weapon.

“We should not fund President TrumpDonald John TrumpGrassroots America shows the people support Donald Trump Trump speaks to rebel Libyan general attacking Tripoli Dem lawmaker: Mueller report shows 'substantial body of evidence' on obstruction MORE’s request for new low-yield nuclear weapons,” House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithTrump team spurns Adam Smith with its trade stance Top Armed Services Republican: 'I don't think anybody is satisfied' with Space Force proposal Overnight Defense: House votes to condemn transgender military ban | 5 Republicans vote against ban | Senate bill would block Turkey getting F-35s over Russia deal MORE (D-Wash.) said in a statement. “His proposal dangerously lowers the threshold to nuclear use and siphons money away from genuine military readiness needs.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Smith introduced the bill in the House alongside Democratic Reps. Ted Lieu (Calif.), John GaramendiJohn Raymond GaramendiOvernight Energy: Pentagon details bases at highest risk from climate change | Dems offer bill to bind Trump to Paris accord | Senate GOP blocks climate panel Overnight Defense: Pentagon transfers B for wall over Dem objections | Top general says North Korean activities 'inconsistent' with denuclearization | Pentagon details bases at risk from climate change Pentagon releases list of military bases most at risk to climate change MORE (Calif.) and Earl BlumenauerEarl BlumenauerGreat challenges require great vision As chairman of trade panel, Blumenauer can have a positive impact on tariff debate Bipartisan bill to protect legal cannabis businesses introduced MORE (Ore.). Democratic Sen. Ed MarkeyEdward (Ed) John MarkeyBen & Jerry's backs Green New Deal: 'We have to act now' Warren praises Ocasio-Cortez in Time 100 The Hill's 12:30 Report: Trump, Dems prep for Mueller report's release MORE (Mass.) introduced the Senate version of the bill.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review called for the development of a low-yield nuclear warhead for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The administration argues it needs such a weapon for deterrence purposes, as adversaries might think the United States would never use its current arsenal.

Opponents of the plan, including Democratic lawmakers and arms control groups, argue it is too costly, could spark a new nuclear arms race and could lead to a greater willingness to use nuclear weapons if officials believe “low-yield” is less destructive.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law last month authorizes the development of a low-yield warhead. The Energy Department spending bill passed last week would allocate $65 million for the project.

The bill introduced Tuesday would repeal the section of the NDAA authorizing the warhead and instead ban any funding from being used for “the research and development, production or deployment of the Trident D5 low-yield nuclear warhead.”

“There’s no such thing as a low-yield nuclear war,” Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Wash.) said in a statement. “Use of any nuclear weapon, regardless of its killing power, could be catastrophically destabilizing. It opens the door for severe miscalculation and could drag the U.S. and our allies into a devastating nuclear conflict.”

The bill is unlikely to get a vote in a Republican-controlled Congress. Smith, though, has said curbing Trump’s nuclear weapons plans would be one of his priorities if Democrats take back control of the House in the midterm elections and he becomes Armed Services Committee chairman. 

“I think the Republican Party and the Nuclear Posture Review contemplates a lot more nuclear weapons than I and I think most Democrats think we need. We also think the idea of low-yield nuclear weapons are extremely problematic going forward,” Smith said at the Defense News conference earlier this month. “When we look at the larger budget picture, that’s not the best place to spend the money.”