Jan 152015
 

We spend about $20 billion each year maintaining our strategic nuclear arsenal which consists of 15,113 nuclear warheads as well as the missiles and submarines needed to deliver them. The goal of nuclear disarmament is to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons. Disarmament opponents claim nuclear deterrence and the threat of nuclear force are needed to maintain peaceful relations between unfriendly nations. They point to the success our détente policy had in preventing our “cold” war with the former Soviet Union from turning “hot.” Disarmament supporters claim the fall of the Soviet Union has made nuclear weapons unnecessary, if not obsolete. They claim eliminating all nuclear weapons will not alter the balance of power but will remove a catastrophic threat to humanity. They say the use of nuclear weapons are immoral, threatens all life on Earth and go beyond the political reasons for war. They also claim we loose credibility when telling other nations such as Iran and North Korea not to build nukes while maintaining a huge arsenal ourselves. Most agree that nuclear disarmament decreases the chance of an accidental missile exchange.

Pending Legislation:

H.R.1650 – Nuclear Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act of 2013

H.R.1506 – Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures Act

I oppose reforming current nuclear disarmament policy and wish to defeat H.R.1650 and H.R.1506

I support requiring the government to provide leadership to negotiate and enter into a multilateral treaty or other international agreement that provides for the dismantlement and elimination, under strict international control, of all nuclear weapons in every country by 2020. Once the President certifies that all countries have eliminated such weapons or begun such elimination under established legal requirements; to redirect resources that are being used for nuclear weapons programs to addressing human and infrastructure needs and to converting nuclear weapons industry employees, processes, plants and programs to constructive, ecologically beneficial peacetime activities; to undertake efforts to eliminate war, armed conflict, and all military operations; to promote policies to induce all other countries to join in such commitments, and wish to pass H.R.1650

I support prohibiting using funds: to arm B-2 or B-52 aircraft with nuclear weapons; for the research, development or procurement of a new long-range penetrating bomber aircraft or ICBM; to make the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Requiring that: there shall include no more than eight operational ballistic-missile submarines available for deployment; no more than 200 intercontinental ballistic missiles, no more than 250 submarine-launched ballistic missiles; or for the medium extended air defense system, and wish to pass H.R.1506

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

The threat of worldwide nuclear destruction has been greatly reduced by the fall of the former Soviet Union. However, threats have increased from rogue nations and terror groups that are trying to acquire radioactive material. Since 1993, the International Atomic Energy Agency has logged some 2,000 cases of illicit trafficking of nuclear and radioactive material. Security experts warn that if terrorists have the opportunity and acquire enough radioactive material to make a “dirty bomb” -they will use it. Since 1992, we have spent more than $10 billion to secure Soviet weapons and nuclear material under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. This program has also paid the salaries of thousands of former Soviet weapons engineers, scientists and technicians to prevent them from working for rogue states. It is suspected that a former Soviet lab worker helped Iran develop its nuclear program. In 2009, 41 nations had weapons-usable nuclear material. President Obama then said that preventing nuclear terrorism was a top security priority. Today, thanks to these efforts, there are only 31 of these states. More than 3,000 pounds of weapons-usable nuclear material has been removed from nations such as Austria, Mexico, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Poland, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Uzbekistan. Even so, advocates claim the threat from “loose nukes” and dirty bombs has not disappeared. They say we need to continue efforts to secure nuclear material and prevent it from getting into the wrong hands.

Pending Legislation:

S.1021 – Next Generation Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2013

I oppose reforming current nuclear threat reduction policy and wish to defeat S.1021

I support directing the President to establish a multi-year comprehensive regional assistance strategy to coordinate and advance the Cooperative Threat Reduction program (CTR) and related nonproliferation efforts in the Middle East and North Africa; authorizing 2014-2019 appropriations for the relevant executive agencies to implement such a Strategy, and wish to pass S.1021

 Posted by at 12:00 am
Jan 152015
 

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a multilateral agreement that would ban explosive nuclear tests above or below the Earth’s surface. President Clinton signed the CTBT in 1996 but our Senate failed to ratify it. The CTBT has achieved near universal adherence but it has not entered into force due to the non-ratification of eight nations. Some of these nations such as India have indicated they would sign the treaty after we do. If enacted, the CTBT would force nuclear-ambitious nations to either risk deploying untested weapons, or incur international condemnation and reprisals by conducting tests in violation of the treaty. CTBT would also hinder nations from confirming the performance of advanced nuclear weapon designs. Opponents say CTBT enforcement would be difficult and that nations could easily cheat. They also claim our nuclear stockpile would not be safe or reliable without testing. Supporters disagree, saying CTBT includes provisions to verify whether a nation has tested a nuclear device. This verification consists of GPS satellite surveillance and 337 worldwide monitoring stations, 260 of which have already been certified. They also say sophisticated computer models can ascertain the performance of newly-designed nukes without actually exploding them. They claim the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would constrain regional arms races in the years and decades to come. They add that, after more than five decades of talks, it is time to finally ban the testing of nuclear weapons.

The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was an agreement between our nation and the former Soviet Union which prohibited the development and deployment of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems. When unilaterally withdrawing from this treaty with Russia in 2001, President Bush said “I have concluded the ABM treaty hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue state missile attacks.” It is likely he was talking about North Korea which has nearly developed the capability to strike our mainland with an ICBM. After more than 10 years, Russia still strongly opposes our intention to develop a missile defense system. ABM Treaty supporters claim an anti-missile system will demolish our policy of détente -assuming it is still relevant. They say the purpose of this treaty was to prevent a country from using an anti-missile system to shield itself after launching a preemptive attack on another nation. ABM critics say deploying such a system could encourage a first strike from a nation without one. Russia and China have threatened a renewed arms race if we proceed with an anti-ballistic missile system.

Pending Legislation: None

I oppose reforming current nuclear treaties policy

I support identifying a senator who will sponsor a bill to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

I support identifying a legislator who will sponsor a bill to reinstate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia

 Posted by at 12:00 am