Warren's pledge to avoid first nuclear strike sparks intense pushback

Warren's pledge to avoid first nuclear strike sparks intense pushback

Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth Ann WarrenWarren to protest with striking Chicago teachers Overnight Health Care — Presented by Partnership for America's Health Care Future — Four companies reach 0M settlement in opioid lawsuit | Deal opens door to larger settlements | House panel to consider vaping tax | Drug pricing markup tomorrow On The Money: Trump dismisses 'phony Emoluments Clause' after Doral criticism | Senate Dems signal support for domestic spending package | House panel to consider vaping tax MORE (D-Mass.) is taking heat from all sides over her proposal to make it official U.S. policy not to be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

Republicans slammed the proposal as sending a dangerous signal to both allies and enemies about a lack of U.S. resolve -- previewing a potential attack line from President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump says he doesn't want NYT in the White House Veterans group backs lawsuits to halt Trump's use of military funding for border wall Schiff punches back after GOP censure resolution fails MORE should the two face off in the general election.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some Democrats do back the idea. But others say a "no first use" policy like the one Warren proposed is too simplistic for a complex world.

“The worry is that, of course, that should be our policy, but if we tell the world that is our policy … you actually may perversely encourage bad behavior in others,” said Sen. Tim KaineTimothy (Tim) Michael KaineLawmakers set to host fundraisers focused on Nats' World Series trip The Hill's 12:30 Report: Washington mourns loss of Elijah Cummings GOP cautions Graham against hauling Biden before Senate MORE (D-Va.), who was the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2016.

The United States has long reserved the right to be the first country to launch a nuclear weapon in a conflict.

Former President Obama reportedly thought of declaring a no first use policy toward the end of his tenure, but was talked out of it by advisors who argued it would worry allies and embolden adversaries.

Arms control advocates hold that declaring a no first use policy would improve U.S. national security by lowering the risk for miscalculation. 

Warren made no first use a key part of her foreign policy early on in her run.

“No first use. To reduce the chances of a miscalculation or an accident, and to maintain our moral and diplomatic leadership in the world, we must be clear that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal,” she said in a November foreign policy speech.

The speech was delivered before she officially jumped in the race but was considered an early sign she was running.

In January, she introduced the Senate version of a bill to make no first use official U.S. policy. The bill has six co-sponsors, including follow presidential contenders Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersWarren to protest with striking Chicago teachers Sanders: 'Outrageous' to suggest Gabbard 'is a foreign asset' Democratic strategist: Sanders seeking distance from Warren could 'backfire' MORE (I-Vt.) and Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandSanders seeks spark from Ocasio-Cortez at Queens rally Overnight Defense — Presented by Boeing — House passes resolution rebuking Trump over Syria | Sparks fly at White House meeting on Syria | Dems say Trump called Pelosi a 'third-rate politician' | Trump, Graham trade jabs Senate confirms Trump's Air Force secretary pick MORE (D-N.Y.).

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam SmithDavid (Adam) Adam SmithTop Democrats warn against withdrawing from treaty that allows observation flights over Russia This year, let's cancel the Nobel Prize in economics Pentagon space agency to request .6 billion over five years: report MORE (D-Wash.), a longtime no first use advocate, also introduced the bill in the lower chamber. The House version has 35 co-sponsors, including presidential candidates Reps. Tulsi GabbardTulsi GabbardSanders: 'Outrageous' to suggest Gabbard 'is a foreign asset' Clinton attacks on Gabbard become flashpoint in presidential race Saagar Enjeti: Clinton remarks on Gabbard 'shows just how deep the rot in our system goes' MORE (D-Hawaii) and Tim RyanTimothy (Tim) John RyanThe Hill's Campaign Report: Biden camp faces new challenges Third-quarter fundraising sets Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg apart The Hill's 12:30 Report: Hunter Biden speaks out amid Ukraine controversy MORE (D-Ohio.).

Only Warren, though, was asked to defend the policy at this week’s Democratic debates.

“We don't expand trust around the world by saying, ‘You know, we might be the first ones to use a nuclear weapon,’” Warren said Tuesday night from the stage in Detroit.

“That puts the entire world at risk and puts us at risk, right in the middle of this," she said.

She also noted that Trump's policies, including pulling out of a nuclear deal with Iran, had gotten the world "closer and closer to nuclear warfare."

"We have to have an announced policy that is one the entire world can live with," she concluded.

Montana Gov. Steve BullockSteve BullockSuper PAC seeks to spend more than million supporting Yang The Hill's Campaign Report: Biden camp faces new challenges Private flight spending soars in Democratic presidential race MORE (D) shot back that he wouldn’t take the option off the table.

“I don't want to turn around and say, ‘Well, Detroit has to be gone before we would ever use that,’” he said.

Nonproliferation advocates hailed Warren after the debates.

“#NoFirstUse is exactly the kind of ambitious and far-reaching policy agenda we need to defuse nuclear flashpoints around the planet and begin to unravel the undemocratic and absolute power every American president holds to unilaterally start a nuclear war,” tweeted Derek Johnson, executive director of Global Zero.

“#NoFirstUse is a no-brainer that makes America, and the world, safer and more secure. It takes pressure off adversaries to ‘go nuclear’ first in a crisis.”

Some of Warren’s fellow Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee, though, said the issue is more complicated than simply declaring “no first use.”

“Our nuclear force has to be an effective and strong deterrent, and so I think that it has to be regarded and used in that way, and over-simplistic terminology tends to diminish its force,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said. “The problem with talking about first strike and the reason why it’s over simplistic is that we’re developing new means of delivering nuclear deterrent, and I think that the meaning of first strike is undergoing new definitions.”

Republicans, meanwhile, pounced.

“Key question for Elizabeth Warren @ewarren today - which American cities and how many American citizens are you willing to sacrifice with your policy of forcing the US to absorb a nuclear attack before we can strike back?” Rep. Liz CheneyElizabeth (Liz) Lynn CheneyHouse rejects GOP measure censuring Schiff House Republicans 'demand the release of the rules' on impeachment Republicans seek to delay effort to censure Schiff after Cummings' death MORE (R-Wyo.) tweeted the day after the debate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Deb. Fischer (R-Neb.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services subcommittee with oversight of nuclear weapons, said a strong deterrence must include both nuclear capability and the commitment to use that capability.

“Our European allies, I’m sure they have to be scratching their heads that any presidential candidate would make a statement like that. We’ve never had a president who has ever, ever said that,” Fischer said. “It’s very, very disturbing that you would have any candidate for president make a statement like that and put this country in jeopardy. It’s basically saying that we’re not going to respond unless we see a city wiped out with a nuclear bomb, one of our cities.”

Trump’s own history with nuclear policy has been complicated.

During his first presidential campaign in 2016, Trump waffled on his willingness to use nuclear weapons, alternately saying he would “certainly not do first strike” but that he “can’t take anything off the table.”

As president, Trump has made threats interpreted as nuclear taunts, such as threatening “fire and fury” on North Korea before developing a relationship with Kim Jong UnKim Jong UnUS proposed helping North Korea build tourist area amid nuclear talks: report Kim poses for photos on white horse on sacred mountain, plans 'great operation' Beware the 34th month of Trump's presidency MORE. Trump has also bragged about the size and power of the nuclear arsenal, but has added “hopefully we will never have to use this power.”

His administration’s Nuclear Posture Review says the United States would only use nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances.”

The review added the United States will “posture our nuclear capabilities to hedge against multiple potential risks and threat developments,” including non-nuclear threats such as chemical, biological, cyber and large-scale conventional attacks.

The Trump campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Hill on Warren’s no first use proposal.

In response to criticism of the policy, Warren’s campaign sent The Hill seven tweets and articles from nonproliferation advocates in support of Warren. The support included former Defense Secretary William Perry, who tweeted that “our nuclear arsenal is intended to deter a nuclear attack, not to initiate a nuclear war.”

Warren campaign spokeswoman Saloni Sharma added that “our bill sends a clear signal to the world that deterrence is the sole purpose of our arsenal.”