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 TrumpJustice Department preparing for Mueller report as soon as next week: reports Smollett lawyers declare 'Empire' star innocent Pelosi asks members to support resolution against emergency declaration MORE’s request for new low-yield nuclear weapons,” House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithTrump’s state of emergency declaration imperils defense budget Overnight Defense: Trump declares border emergency | .6B in military construction funds to be used for wall | Trump believes Obama would have started war with North Korea | Pentagon delivers aid for Venezuelan migrants Papering over climate change impacts is indefensible 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 GaramendiDem lawmaker: 'The president has it in for California' Overnight Defense — Presented by Raytheon — Trump blasts intel officials as 'passive and naive' | Lawmakers reintroduce Yemen war powers resolution | Dems push Pentagon to redo climate report | VA proposes new rules for private health care House Armed Services Dems demand Pentagon offer more complete climate change report MORE (Calif.) and Earl BlumenauerEarl BlumenauerDems ready aggressive response to Trump emergency order, as GOP splinters Businesses need bank accounts — marijuana shops included Dem senator introduces S. 420 bill that would legalize marijuana MORE (Ore.). Democratic Sen. Ed MarkeyEdward (Ed) John MarkeyGabbard cites ‘concerns’ about ‘vagueness’ of Green New Deal Durbin after reading Green New Deal: 'What in the heck is this?' Democrats brush off GOP 'trolling' over Green New Deal 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.”