Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1086

Should the U.S. Stop Developing a Low-Yield Nuclear Warhead?

Argument in favor

Low-yield nuclear weapons are unnecessary given what’s already in the U.S. arsenal. They also carry the risk of dragging the U.S. into a nuclear war, and are expensive to develop and maintain.

IllWill's Opinion
···
03/30/2019
Nuclear weapons need to be eradicated from the Earth. We should be working to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, not developing more of our own! If we actually care about the planet and the people on it, this is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Like (109)
Follow
Share
Kathi13's Opinion
···
03/30/2019
I grew up during the so-called Cold War when we lived daily with the threat of nuclear attack. I don’t want to go back.
Like (62)
Follow
Share
Kodiwodi's Opinion
···
03/30/2019
Escalate to deescalate cracks me up! Makes about as much sense as get fat to become skinny. It’s time to stop spending a dime on nuclear weapons. our goal should be peace. There’s enough out there to blow us up 50 or 60 times already but we will find a more creative way to kill ourselves in a short period of time. Pesticides, pollution, fossil fuel, climate change. Why waste money on nuclear weapons?
Like (55)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The U.S. needs low-yield nuclear weapons to deter adversaries, especially Russia. These weapons are part of an “escalate to deescalate” strategy that’d avoid all-out nuclear war.

Gopin2018's Opinion
···
03/30/2019
In the event of a Third World War low yielding weapons are crucial. They were developing for the large swarm tank attacks which the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries used. They are still critical today especially with China now being our main enemy. #MAGA
Like (67)
Follow
Share
Jarsh's Opinion
···
03/30/2019
Referring to Pentagon Strategy: The idea is that Russia — which retains a vast arsenal of small and nimble nuclear arms — could employ one against an American ally or partner in a “limited attack.” That would force the United States to choose between responding with a high-yield strategic nuclear warhead, all but guaranteeing full-scale nuclear war, or returning fire with a conventional weapon, risking embarrassment or defeat. -Paul Sonne Washington Post
Like (22)
Follow
Share
Cherie65's Opinion
···
04/01/2019
If anyone thinks other countries are not developing or haven't developed a similar weapon already, then you need your head checked. These countries don't know how to play nice. Nothing else works except peace through strength. Read. Your. History!
Like (20)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on Armed Services
      Strategic Forces
    IntroducedFebruary 7th, 2019
    I support Mr. Lieu 100% and hope Jahanna will co-sponsor this legislation.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    When we currently have missiles that can carry up to 14 individual MIRV warheads that can be deployed independently. Seems unlikely that the US would need any low yield devices. When we already have enough weaponry to destroy the planet many times over.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Our current conventional and nuclear forces are adequate for the task. More than adequate.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    The concept that nuclear weapons need to be developed for battlefield use is verging on psychosis. Leave treating delusional thoughts in the hands of mental health professionals. The Pentagon and weapons manufacturers can’t be allowed near this.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Nuclear weapons of any yield produce fallout when exploded. The fallout consists of elements that are strong alpha and beta emitting particles and AEROSOLIZED from the explosive force of the blast! These elements are especially hazardous to human life because they form compounds that are easily up taken into bodies through food chains and environmental exposure. Nuclear weapons POISON the earth so even victory tastes like defeat.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Fix flint first
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Hillary and Obama sold most of our Uranium to Russia “uranium one deal” so they are in mass production of nuclear weapons as well as Obama gave billions of cash to IRAN so they are mass producing nuclear weapons and then we have to where when he “Obama “ was in office he depleted our nuclear weapons,N Korea is still in play with nukes as well as China,we cannot and must not allow ourselves to be unable to counterattack our enemies,besides if we have the biggest as best in the world,no other super power would dare challenge us!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    We have plenty of destructive power. Why don’t we invest those dollars in education and turn out leaders smart enough to keep us away from nuclear confrontations? And gain an electorate smart enough to elect those leaders.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Make No miscalulation No Use of Nuclear Weapons is EVER Acceptable unlike any Other Weaponry truly Anihilation type Devices must Not consider Lowering the Threshold of Deployment ! No Nukes! Peace
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    As long as Russia, China, North Korea, and any other country that banishes nuclear weapons against other countries, we should have them. It’s said I have to say that, I would rather there be no nuclear weapons any where in the world. But we need to protect ourselves and other countries that we support.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Just use what we got. All this does is sanitized a war and makes it a friendly war. We have enough to kill everyone on this plant three times over!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes. The more usable a nuclear weapon is the less deterrent it is. This is madness
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    To assume that once we abandon our nuclear efforts, other countries like China and Russia will follow is absurd. Having a weapon is very different than using a weapon. We must remain militarily dominant in the world and deter our enemies from taking steps against our own interests which will occur more frequently if they view us as becoming weaker.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Peace through strength
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    All weapons of war and mass destruction should be destroyed and banned worldwide
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Enough already
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Who are we afraid of? And even if we are afraid of them why is solution to kill the enemy? Might sound pacifist and idealistic but there are better solutions to conflict.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    We don't need any more nuks.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Don’t be stupid! This place is more delicate than our egos; its the only home we have. Stop hiring fighters, look for the helpers.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    I am sure we have more than enough bombs....how many times can you blow up the earth?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE