John Spratt: “We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence. This weapon is not necessary. It is not only…”

“We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence. This weapon is not necessary. It is not only unnecessary, it is counterproductive at a time when we are trying to get countries like Iran and North Korea and countless other want-to-be nuclear countries to give up their nuclear ambition. And it raises a fundamental question: How long can we move the world in one direction while we move in another direction, and do we want to backslide into an era that we finally emerged from where we had a nuclear weapon for every tactical mission? They are not practical, they are not necessary, and this weapon will not come close to destroying or hardening up the hardened, deep geological targets for which they are reputedly available. To the extent we want to go after a target like that, we have bombs for that effect, and you can dial a yield. In addition, we have conventional weapons that serve this purpose. This is not necessary. And anyone who thinks this is a minor item, the justification indicates that $480 million needs to be spent for this particular program over the next 5 years. This is a major item in the defense budget. This amendment should be adopted.”