They have spoken out most strongly about the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent (or GBSD), intercontinental ballistic weapon system, and the Long-Range Standoff (or LRSO) nuclear-armed cruise missile, among many other nuclear modernization programs. Garamendi and his associates have expressed concern about the high prices of these weapons, since the government awards contracts on a single-sourced basis for both.The House of Representatives has shown the most resistance to the Pentagon's plans, thanks to lawmakers like Garamendi, Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.Rep. John Garamendi (a moderate Democrat from California who heads the House Armed Services subcommittee for readiness) warned that Congress is firmly supporting the nuclear triad. Few are willing to vote to reduce, to address, to modify or even to abolish the nuclear triad. But I believe that we should.The Pentagon is determined to secure funds to create a new set of nuclear weapons. This includes spending $190 billion to modernize nuclear missiles, warheads and bombers originally designed during a nuclear arms race against the Soviet Union. The few Democrats that are opposed to the nuclear spending frenzy struggle to get support from their counterparts on Capitol Hill.Nuclear weapon skeptics have a difficult task in reining in their plans. They differ on how to prioritize reducing quantity, halting development of new weapons, and abandoning certain parts of the military's nuclear deterrence forces. A delayed budget proposal by the White House has made this year's appropriations process more efficient. They also have a shorter time frame to gather votes, which is further complicated by fearmongering about China.Northrop Grumman has been awarded the contract by the Defense Department to construct 600 new GBSD ICBMs. These will replace the 450 Minuteman III missiles from the 1960s. Only 400 ICBMs are allowed to be on alert under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (with Russia). The agreement has been extended by President Joe Biden until 2026. It will then have to be renewed again for GBSD. The GBSD is one the most costly weapons in U.S military history, with estimated costs of more than $80 Billion through 2030 and $260 Billion over a 50 year life cycle. The LRSO program is replacing the 1980s-era, air-launched cruise ballistic missile. Raytheon will be awarded that contract anytime. According to the Congressional Budget Office, cancelling LRSO could result in a savings of $11 billion for the government over the next ten years.Some Democrats suggested that GBSD could be replaced by Minuteman III's service life. However, a Pentagon analysis revealed that this would actually cost more than building a new system in the long-term. Supporters of GBSD are not shy about boasting about the savings that drove Smith, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus or CPC, who chairs the powerful House Armed Services Committee to move in a different direction.Smith stated that it would be wiser to debate the utility of the third leg. Are we required to build anything? Do we have to build everything? Perhaps we can do with less.Smith is more concerned with reducing the number of GBSD missiles and ditching ICBMs altogether, but Garamendi remains focused on Minuteman III for the future. Tuesday's Investing In Commonsense Ballistic Missiles Bill was introduced by Smith. It will halt development of GBSD missiles for 10 years and allow the current ICBMs to continue until at least 2040.Garamendi stated that only a military pencil pusher had used these numbers. He also spoke out about claims that Minuteman III would be more expensive than a new system. The Pentagon had compared Minuteman III's costs over 55 years, when the current ICBMs simply aren't able to last that long. He argued that the government could save $37billion by keeping them around for 20 more years.Smith didn't sign the Garamendis bill. Instead, Smith said he will be focusing on the immediate future to ensure that the government doesn't make long-term commitments to the country so that there is time to build support for the idea of less nuclear weapons.The chair of the committee is urging the White House to delay the LRSO contract that was due last month until the Defense Department completes its new Nuclear Posture Review. This recurring process determines the role nuclear weapons play in U.S. defence policy. Due to the White House's current focus on Covid-19 and economic recovery, he said he has struggled to get a meeting to discuss LRSO or GBSD with the new administration. The National Security Council and Defense Department didn't respond to a request for comment.Pocan, who is a chair emeriti in the CPC, and co-founder the Defense Spending Reduction Caucus said last week that he has had discussions with officials from the administration about the possibility of not only scaling back nuclear weapon development, but also redirecting funds towards higher priority national security concerns like pandemic relief and climate change.Although this transfer was not part of Garamendis' bill to pause GBSD, it was a crucial component of a bill Khanna (a deputy whip in CPC) introduced in March. His Investing in Cures Before Missiles Act would completely cancel the new ICBM system and redirect $1 million that the Pentagon had in its GBSD account for the development of a universal vaccine to combat any future coronavirus variants. Garamendi stated that current regulations prohibit the repurposing certain appropriated funds making Khanna's proposal technically impossible. Khanna was still a sponsor of Garamendis legislation. Khanna's office declined comment on this story.Khannas bill would have allowed for the transfer of funds already appropriated. However, Pocan is looking at the possibility of rerouting $715 billion that the White House requested to fund its fiscal year 2022 defense budget. According to him, he had submitted a Defense Department appropriations request in order to eliminate the GBSD program. He said that each warhead is 20 times more powerful then the Hiroshima atomic bomb. Pocan said that each warhead is about 20 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima.Legislators looking to move funds will be particularly interested in the fiscal year 2022 budget for LRSO programs, given that the proposal by the Biden administration requests $200 million more than the White House had projected. Jayapal, the chair of the CPC introduced last June an amendment to the House's fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills that sought to defund LRSO. The proposal was defeated by 138-289 votes.Jayapal stated that she doesn't understand why the administration did the things it did. Jayapal was referring to the number of nuclear weapons programs, such as LRSO, which saw higher numbers in the budget request. She said that it was unwise and that she would do all she could to reverse it. Jayapal also noted that she is leading a comprehensive letter to President Obama that focuses on the military's nuclear force position and investments.Pocan acknowledged that any program and funding cuts will not succeed this year since Biden's proposal was released at the end May, rather than the usual early March. With summer recesses in full swing, Congress has just four months to pass annual defense policy bills and spending bills before it must pass a continuing resolution to keep funds current.Smith stated that Trump's desire to keep power by all means possible has hampered our ability to move the budget process forward. (The previous administration apparently blocked Biden's transition team from receiving the usual Defense Department briefings.
