One, of course, is what they're referring to as the negative assurances where in the Nuclear Posture Review they've included a statement where the President has taken off the table the prospects of using nuclear weapons in defense of this Nation in circumstances where we are attacked by a nation that is in compliance with the nonproliferation treaty, and even if that attack is with either chemical or biological weapons. Before we always had the posture of we'll do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to defend this Nation. And the President himself last May said--he clearly stated, I don't take options off the table when it comes to U.S. security. Period. Unfortunately, this administration's Nuclear Posture Review does just that. It delivers a muddled message to both our allies and our adversaries that only seeks to weaken the strength of our deterrent. It's really unclear as to why the administration has done this if you look at the issue of threat. Certainly the threat has not been reduced to the United States.
Editor's note · Context
Speaker addresses concerns about the Nuclear Posture Review and its implications for U.S. defense policy.
Share
More from Mike Turner
The House has passed these provisions several times, all of which I have voted for-- I think the Senate does need to move these provisions.
you can be America First and still understand that it doesn't have to be America alone.
I mean, this is this is part of a process, obviously, of where Iran has to be in a position where, as the president has set out, that the two goals and that is one—that they abandon their nuclear ambitions and certainly restarting their…
I think the president is- is certainly making a very good case as to how these provisions need to- to become law, and I think that they are ones that will ensure for the American public, you know, integrity in the- in voting.





