On the recordJune 7, 2018
I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy and her focusing on this. I agree wholeheartedly; we don't need to go down this path again. The Republican Congress in 2005 looked at a similar proposal and eliminated it from a spending bill. The notion that we have low-yield weapons that are going to enable us to advance forward from the submarine launch is troubling. This actually will make the submarine exposed for being able to know where it is and attack it. And the ``low-yield'' terminology is a little disquieting. Think of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. These are amazingly destructive. Being able to have gradations of response and buy into that notion I think is deeply troubling and is, in fact, destabilizing. The $1.6 trillion episode that we are embarked upon in terms of modernization and enhancement could be well spent in other ways, especially not in this direction.
