The House Armed Services Committee has passed a $733 billion version of the annual military spending bill. The vote was 33-24, largely along party lines, and will send this version to the House floor for a vote.
Once the House passes a version of this bill, it must be reconciled with
the Senate version. That’s going to be a big job this year, as there
are some major differences in the bills on some key subjects of debate.
One of the biggest issues is the question of low-yield nuclear weapons.
The House bill ends funding for the low-yield nuclear missiles, and bars
their deployment. A last minute Republican amendment in committee to preserve the weapons failed.
Low-yield nukes are intended by the Pentagon to be more usable, tactical
weapons, that would have a much lower threshold for deployment. This
was the source of support among hawks, but also the source of much
opposition, concern that more usable nukes would usher in an era where
nuclear warfare is more routine.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) angrily condemned the failure of the
amendment, saying that not having the option of tactical nuclear war
“does not make sense to me,” and that he didn’t understand abandoning
the plan after it had already been funded in the past. Strategic Forces
Subcommittee Chair Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN) said the tactical program is
such a tiny fraction of the US nuclear force that it isn’t even a
rounding error, so it is misleading for hawks to call it vital to the
arsenal.
The House bill also adopted a measure that would create a Space Corps as
a separate branch of the US military. The Senate bill also has a
similar force, but with different language and differences in approach
to establishing the force.
Articles like this act like this a some kind of new invention. Tactical nukes have been developed and deployed since the 50s, and Russia still has a crap load of them (not that I want bad relations with Russia).
The world according to Mac Thornberry:”Wasting money on something in the past is all the justification needed to continue wasting money on it in the future.”
The appalling ignorance of the members of the committee (and of course the Commander in Chief and most members of the public) must be the reason for it even to consider “usable nukes”, but the USA has never been on the receiving end of real invasions/violence like those it attacks.
how about use that money to rebuild the usa ,instead of looking for ways t destroy the world?