Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW
Countable Is Officially Causes.com

senate Bill S. Res. 633

Do Plans for Modernizing the Nuclear Arsenal Need to be Changed?

Argument in favor

The cost of updating the cruise missile and a new intercontinental ballistic missile is too much, and that spending should be focused instead on other defense programs.

William's Opinion
···
12/19/2016
We're dangerously close to hitting the $20 trillion mark of debt in this country, while military spending is the second highest of any budget allocation. Reevaluating how we spend this money can help curb our debt problem and prioritize the needs of Americans before power politics.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Christopher's Opinion
···
12/19/2016
The nuclear weapons we have now are more than capable of inflicting enough harm on an enemy, and in turn, causing them to retaliate with severe damage to our country. One nuclear weapon is one too many.
Like (5)
Follow
Share
Meredith's Opinion
···
12/19/2016
The idea that many countries around the world including ours have nuclear weapons is terrifying. And the thought that there aren't very many rules and regulations keeping these nations from nuking each other is even more so. There needs to be more regulations.
Like (5)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

America’s nuclear arsenal is aging, and at some point the missile technology will need to be updated. Besides, all this is does is ask the president to look at the programs.

Loraki's Opinion
···
12/18/2016
I agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said: "The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY: "It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya." The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the effectiveness of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE! WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK!
Like (16)
Follow
Share
UnapologeticallyAmerican's Opinion
···
12/18/2016
The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
operaman's Opinion
···
12/18/2016
While this request that the president reevaluate the plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons may seem promising, the proposed by the Depts. of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) came under the weak-kneed Obama Administration. So let's allow the Trump Administration under the leadership of Gen. James Mattis. But let's not forget that all branches our military also require modernization with a focus on the Air Force and Navy with increases in the Army's troop levels. Even a bully would cower to a bigger stick.
Like (7)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. Res. 633?

This resolution would request that the president reevaluate the plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons proposed by the Depts. of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) to ensure that it prioritizes the refurbishment of existing weapons to ensure their safety and efficiency.

It would also request that planned nuclear arsenal modernization programs be prioritized in a way that meets deterrence needs without jeopardizing other economic investments or defense expenditures that would meet the 21st century needs of the U.S.

As a simple resolution, this bill would not advance to the House if passed and wouldn't have the force of law.

Impact

The Senate and the President.

Cost of Senate Bill S. Res. 633

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) introduced this bill to ensure that existing nuclear arsenal modernization plans don’t jeopardize other national security priorities because of their cost:

“We need to do everything we can to make sure that our nuclear arsenal is safe, secure, and reliable. But if we don’t reevaluate and modify current plans to modernize our nuclear weapons, we could end up wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and compromise our national security. My resolution urges the President to take action to ensure that the modernization plan is focused on the safety, affordability, and reliability of the arsenal, and doesn’t jeopardize other economic and national security priorities.”

This resolution has the support of 12 cosponsors in the Senate, including 11 Democrats and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).


Of Note: There are several components of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, including strategic bombers and submarines with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM). There are currently plans underway to develop the B-21 bomber and Ohio-class replacement submarines, but two proposed upgrades — to the cruise missile and the development of a new ICBM — have not been finalized.


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user SurfaceWarriors)

Official Title

A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on the plan of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy for modernizing the nuclear weapons of the United States.

simple resolution Progress

  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Armed Services
    IntroducedDecember 9th, 2016
    William's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    We're dangerously close to hitting the $20 trillion mark of debt in this country, while military spending is the second highest of any budget allocation. Reevaluating how we spend this money can help curb our debt problem and prioritize the needs of Americans before power politics.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Loraki's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    I agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said: "The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY: "It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya." The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the effectiveness of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE! WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK!
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    UnapologeticallyAmerican's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    operaman's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    While this request that the president reevaluate the plan to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons may seem promising, the proposed by the Depts. of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) came under the weak-kneed Obama Administration. So let's allow the Trump Administration under the leadership of Gen. James Mattis. But let's not forget that all branches our military also require modernization with a focus on the Air Force and Navy with increases in the Army's troop levels. Even a bully would cower to a bigger stick.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Meredith's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    The idea that many countries around the world including ours have nuclear weapons is terrifying. And the thought that there aren't very many rules and regulations keeping these nations from nuking each other is even more so. There needs to be more regulations.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Christopher's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    The nuclear weapons we have now are more than capable of inflicting enough harm on an enemy, and in turn, causing them to retaliate with severe damage to our country. One nuclear weapon is one too many.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    R4m53y's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    What many in this country don't realize is that we don't need thousands of weapons in our nuclear arsenal. Any nuclear war to occur today would spark a nuclear winter, destroying much of humanity. I call for a drastic reduction in our nuclear program to a total of twelve high tech, advanced, and up to date weapons. Four on land, for in submarines, and four where we need them around the world for deployment by aircraft. To destroy the entire population of any country, even the world population, 12 high tech weapons are much better than thousands of outdated, incapable ones that endanger the safety of the american public.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    KalebLawrence's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    Our ICBM's were built before JFK was assassinated. This a testament to the strength and fortitude with which these facilities were built. That being said maintenance on these systems becomes increasingly difficult because many pieces of equipment are no longer manufactured. Plans to update the nuclear arsenal are underway and should be continued as planned. We could have a new system as early as 2030. However any more delays will push this date back and force the Air Force to make due with less and less. To address concerns about an arms race, there are 450 ICBM sites on the CONUS so we're already past the point of having "too many". In addition to that we don't decommission anything unless Russia does too, you don't decommission yours hoping another country will follow suit just like you don't lower your weapon in a standoff hoping the assailant will do the same. As far as cost effectiveness goes the Nuclear Enterprise takes up about 1% of the DoD's budget so we already get a bigger bang for our buck. Obviously updating a system will require contractors and a lot of money but consider this. Iran has stated that they will eat grass in order to finance their own nuclear weapon system. If that is how hell bent other countries are to finance a nuclear weapons system then we must also be willing to write a big check at some point. To the individual who said we should make houses out of these sites for the homless I hope you are trolling this argument because the majority of these sites are in the middle of nowhere North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming. So unless you plan on purchasing 4 wheel drive trucks for all these people that isn't even an option because they would literally die walking to the grocery store. Let the program currently underway run it's course because we can't afford anymore delays.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Bonnie's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/18/2016
    Dismantle them and use them to build tiny homes for homeless.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Michael's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Dylan's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    I vote "Yea" in the hopes that this will spark an end to needless spending on our over bloated military.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Smith's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/23/2016
    Our containment of nukes relies on a 70's era computer system that ensures it cannot be hacked from an outside entity and thus being the reason it has not been modified.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Barbara's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/19/2016
    I would like to see more efforts toward disarming and more resources provided to education. Out military spending is insane I my opinion.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    RetVet's Public Comment
    ···
    01/08/2017
    We need modernization, reconditioning, refurbishment, and replacement of our Strategic and Non-strategic Weapons Arsenal. We also need new Research and Development, Testing and Engineering Programs to include advanced improved warhead safety and delivery systems. Our storage and launch architecture is outdated and sorely in need of improved launch readiness and targeting-detection Technologies. We need DOE and DOD to prioritize and collaborate on immediate improvements, certification, and modernization objectives. Our Deterrent Strength and capability is at-risk.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Jerry's Public Comment
    ···
    12/18/2016
    I also agree with Countable member "UnapologeticallyAmerican", who said: "The U.S. can deter a nuclear attack in three ways. By land with intercontinental ballistic missiles, by air with nuclear weapons on bombers and fighter jets, and by sea with nuclear missiles roaming the oceans on submarines. These methods are more commonly known as the nuclear triad. The U.S. nuclear modernization program is 20 years behind the Chinese and Russian modernization programs. If we’re going to maintain a safe, secure, and effective force, we’re going to need to do something to replace the existing delivery systems and extend the life of the nuclear weapons that we have." I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not at all comfortable with the government letting us get behind the Russians, Chinese, or any other country in nuclear modernization. It makes me feel less secure! Especially considering the possibility of North Korea and Iran allying with Russia and China! That's why I also agree with Countable member Michael's reason for voting NAY: "It's obvious some live in a bubble and think everyone thinks like us [and shares our values]. They don't. China & Russia aren't spending billions on building their military and updating their nuclear weapons for no reason. We must keep in lockstep with them to insure security. You don't stop a schoolyard bully by showing weakness. The world is still a barbaric place, and not everyone wants to hold hands and sing kumbaya." The reason Russia and/or China haven't already attacked us with nukes is because they understand the principle of MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION! But if they thought they could knock out our nuclear capability before we could retaliate, I believe they would have done so by now - or might very well do so in the future. For the federal government to drag their feet and let our enemies get ahead of us weakens the assurance of MAD and leaves the United States INEXCUSABLY VULNERABLE! WE MUST ALSO HAVE A FIRST-CLASS SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR PROTECTING THE U.S. FROM AN EMP ATTACK! I'M HOPING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT DOWNPLAYING OR IGNORING THE LIKELY DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH AN ATTACK! Along with that we need to build up our military which is going to be down by president Donald John Trump.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Diego's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/18/2016
    Dismantle the majority and use the material to create smaller, safer nuclear power plants to provide free energy for all Americans and our neighbors. Convince other world powers to do the same through our example.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    Marines1994's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/18/2016
    If the world does it, we need to be 1 better.
    Like (2)
    Follow
    Share
    BeatBot's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/20/2016
    Could be an unclear sign to the world. People could think we are intend nuclear war
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    JayinNC's Opinion Against
    ···
    12/20/2016
    Unfortunately it does need to be done
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    David's Opinion In Favor
    ···
    12/18/2016
    This is a good idea. Blindly following the decades old policy of a "triad" approach (ground based missles, submarine and ship based missles, and bomber based missles) should rethought in today's realities.
    Like (1)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE