Peter Visclosky: “I, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would provide funding for the deployment of the…”

“I, again, strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment. This amendment would provide funding for the deployment of the ill-conceived low-yield nuclear warhead on Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines. I believe that deploying this warhead would amplify the risk of a devastating nuclear conflict with Russia by reducing the threshold of nuclear use and increasing the risk of miscalculation. Deploying the W76-2 warhead on ballistic missile submarines carries especially great risk. I would ask the Members of this body to consider, if we deploy a low- yield warhead aboard our nuclear submarines, would Russia regard such weapons as less of a threat than our existing submarine-launched nuclear missiles? If we were to use such a weapon, even in response to a Russian first use of low-yield weapons, would Russia be likely to act with restraint, or would Russian leaders instead assume that we have initiated a strategic nuclear attack, and respond in kind? Do we really believe that any nuclear exchange can avoid escalation by using low-yield weapons? The significant danger of miscalculation is greater than any marginal benefit we might gain from having another low-yield capability in our nuclear arsenal. I would point out that suggesting that barring the deployment of this is akin to unilateral disarmament is simply not true. This bill includes robust funding for maintaining and modernizing our nuclear arsenal.…”