Bill Overview
Title: Bunker Buster Act
Description: This bill authorizes the President take certain actions to help Israel prepare for all contingencies if Iran seeks to develop a nuclear weapon, if certain conditions are met. The President may take such actions, including storing in Israel large ordnance systems designed to destroy underground nuclear infrastructure or supporting infrastructure construction in Israel to accommodate such ordnance systems only if, among other requirements, the President certifies to Congress that the action is vital to U.S. national security interests. The President may transfer such ordnance systems to Israel upon making additional certifications, including a certification that Israel has no other means of destroying Iran's underground nuclear infrastructure.
Sponsors: Rep. Gottheimer, Josh [D-NJ-5]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals affected by changes in military and security dynamics in the Middle East
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on aiding Israel in developing capabilities to counter potential nuclear threats from Iran, thus primarily impacting populations in Israel and Iran.
- As it involves military actions and decisions, it directly impacts defense personnel and related industries in the U.S., as they may be engaged in producing or maintaining these ordnance systems.
- There may be international ramifications, affecting diplomatic relations and security dynamics in the Middle East and potentially other regions.
- The general global population could also be indirectly impacted due to potential changes in security dynamics or escalation involving nuclear threats.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts U.S. military personnel and those involved in defense industries as these systems require manufacturing, transportation, and potentially modifications to existing infrastructure.
- Individuals involved in geopolitical analysis or international relations may feel the impact through shifts in diplomatic priorities and international security dynamics.
- Some U.S. citizens might feel indirect effects due to broader international tensions and military policy directions, potentially influencing public sentiment or opinions on national security.
- American taxpayers might consider the policy's financial costs, as its implementation affects federal spending priorities.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Contractor (Virginia)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could result in increased business for my company, but there are ethical concerns about escalating tensions in the Middle East.
- I hope our involvement is purely strategic and defensive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Military Analyst (Lawrence, Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could shift the balance of power in the region, potentially leading to increased stability if managed well, or possibly trigger an arms race.
- The implications for U.S. security policy are significant, and I am concerned about the strategic costs and benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Graduate Student (San Diego, California)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am concerned about the militarization and the possibility of escalating conflicts.
- While I understand the strategic reasoning, I hope it results in peaceful outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Congressional Staffer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A policy like this raises questions about long-term commitments and defense spending priorities.
- It's important that legislative oversight ensures the policy aligns with broader U.S. security goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Peace Activist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could lead to increased militarization and undermine diplomatic efforts.
- I advocate for diplomatic solutions over military interventions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Defense Industry Lawyer (New York, New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could mean substantial work for the industry but also raises ethical concerns about military escalation.
- It's crucial to balance legal obligations with moral considerations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Technology Engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone involved in technology, the advancements needed for such measures are fascinating but are a double-edged sword regarding their purpose.
- I support policies that secure national interests but am wary of unintended consequences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Professor (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Academic perspective often highlights potential risks associated with increased military actions.
- It's essential to weigh the consequences on regional stability and broader ethical standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
UN Diplomat (New York, New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies that strengthen military actions can complicate diplomatic engagements.
- It's critical to maintain a balance between defense capabilities and peace efforts for regional stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Civilian concerned about defense spending (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about the amount of spending on military initiatives, especially during times of other national needs.
- While understanding security priorities, I hope for more investments in peace-building efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- The geopolitical implications of this act are significant and could affect international relations, particularly U.S. relations with Iran and other Middle Eastern countries.
- Directly impacts U.S. defense spending and may require reallocating funds from other defense or national security priorities.
- The measure can alter market dynamics for defense contractors and suppliers, producing economic ripple effects.
- Potential ethical concerns, including the precedent set by equipping allies with advanced ordnance that could be used pre-emptively.