Senate Democrats push for arms control language in defense policy bill

Senate Democrats push for arms control language in defense policy bill
© Getty Images

Eighteen Senate Democrats are pushing for three arms control provisions to make it into the final version of the annual defense policy bill.

The Democrats, led by 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenBill from Warren, Gillibrand and Waters would make Fed fight economic racial inequalities The other reason Democrats want Biden to shun debates The Memo: Biden faces balancing act MORE (Mass.), penned a letter to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee pushing for the inclusion of provisions that would block a low-yield nuclear warhead, urge the Trump administration to extend the New START Treaty and deny funding for intermediate-range missiles.

ADVERTISEMENT

Five other presidential candidates also signed the letter: Sens. Bernie SandersBernie SandersProgressives soaring after big primary night 'Absolutely incredible': Ocasio-Cortez congratulates Cori Bush on upset victory over Lacy Clay Sanders supporters launch six-figure ad campaign explaining why they're voting for Biden MORE (I-Vt.), Kamala HarrisKamala Devi HarrisTwitter bans Trump campaign until it deletes tweet with COVID-19 misinformation Virginia mayor refuses to resign over controversial Biden, 'Aunt Jemima' post Exclusive: Democrats seek to increase racial diversity of pandemic relief oversight board MORE (D-Calif.), Kirsten GillibrandKirsten GillibrandProgressives soaring after big primary night Bill from Warren, Gillibrand and Waters would make Fed fight economic racial inequalities Biden should pick the best person for the job — not the best woman MORE (D-N.Y.), Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerEx-USAID employee apologizes, denies sending explosive tweets Exclusive: Democrats seek to increase racial diversity of pandemic relief oversight board USAID appointee alleges 'rampant anti-Christian sentiment' at agency MORE (D-N.J.) and Amy KlobucharAmy KlobucharLobbying world Biden should pick the best person for the job — not the best woman House committee requests hearing with postmaster general amid mail-in voting concerns MORE (D-Minn.).

All three provisions were included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but are fiercely opposed by Senate Republicans and the White House.

The White House has threatened to veto the House version of the bill, in part citing the provisions on the low-yield warhead and intermediate-range missiles.

Supporters of the submarine-launched low-yield nuclear warhead, dubbed the W76-2, argue it is necessary to deter Russia as Moscow might miscalculate that the United States would be unwilling to use its current nuclear weapons in response to a Russian low-yield nuclear strike.

In their letter, the Democrats argued the warhead “is a dangerous, costly, unnecessary, and redundant addition to the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”

“The W76-2 would reduce the threshold for nuclear use and make nuclear escalation more likely,” they wrote to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James InhofeJames (Jim) Mountain InhofeSenate GOP divided over whether they'd fill Supreme Court vacancy  Controversial Trump nominee placed in senior role after nomination hearing canceled Chamber of Commerce endorses Ernst for reelection MORE (R-Okla.) and ranking member Sen. Jack ReedJohn (Jack) Francis ReedOvernight Defense: Embattled Pentagon policy nominee withdraws, gets appointment to deputy policy job | Marines, sailor killed in California training accident identified | Governors call for extension of funding for Guard's coronavirus response Controversial Trump nominee placed in senior role after nomination hearing canceled Overnight Defense: Pompeo pressed on move to pull troops from Germany | Panel abruptly scraps confirmation hearing | Trump meets family of slain soldier MORE (D-R.I.). “It is designed to be a nuclear war-fighting weapons with a reduced yield that is intended to match the lower yield of some Russian systems. Supporters of this warhead argue this make its use more credible. In other words, it is specifically intended to be a more useable nuclear weapon.”

The ground-launched intermediate-range missiles, meanwhile, are being developed following President TrumpDonald John TrumpLincoln Project ad dubs Jared Kushner the 'Secretary of Failure' Pence: Chief Justice Roberts 'has been a disappointment to conservatives' Twitter bans Trump campaign until it deletes tweet with COVID-19 misinformation MORE’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

The INF Treaty banned the United States and Russia from having nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.

Trump officially withdrew from the treaty earlier this month in response to repeated Russian violations, and the Pentagon conducted a test Sunday of a missile that was banned by the treaty.

The House NDAA would prohibit funding for the missile banned by the treaty unless certain conditions are met.

“The United States and its NATO allies can and must respond to Russia's violation of the INF Treaty, but we must do so in a way that does not contribute to a renewed arms race or drive a wedge in our existing alliances," the senators wrote in their letter. “The House bill sensibly denies funding for new INF-type missiles until pragmatic diplomatic and strategic planning steps are taken.”

Finally, the senators pushed for the inclusion of a provision that expresses support for the United States remaining in the New START Treaty.

New START, negotiated by the Obama administration, caps the number of deployed nuclear warheads the United States and Russia can have at 1,550 each.

New START is up for renewal in 2021. The Trump administration has indicated it wants to expand the scope of the treaty as a condition of extension, by taking steps such as folding in China and other weapons not currently covered by the agreement.

The senators argued that New START both provides “much needed nuclear stability” and “affords the United States with invaluable insight into Russia's nuclear arsenal.” 

“Furthermore, extending the treaty for another five years would provide a foundation for the Trump administration to achieve its goal of negotiating more comprehensive follow-on arms control agreements,” they wrote. “Negotiating further strategic arms control treaties without such a stable foundations will be considerably more difficult.”