Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress before carrying out an order to use a nuclear weapon without a declaration of war by Congress.
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, and the minority leader of the Senate (in such order) upon the receipt of an order (and prior to implementation) by the President to use nuclear weapons without a declaration of war by Congress.
Sponsors: Rep. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially impacted by nuclear weapons use
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The potential use of nuclear weapons affects global peace and security, hence anyone living in regions potentially targeted or involved in a nuclear conflict is directly impacted.
- U.S. military personnel, especially in the nuclear chain of command, would be most directly involved and hence specifically impacted by the decision-making process.
- World population faces existential risks from nuclear weapons use, hence this legislation impacts global stability and security.
- The political leaders in the U.S. and other nuclear-armed states may be influenced by changes in U.S. policy regarding nuclear launch procedures.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts those directly involved in military operations and governance, however, indirectly, it offers a sense of increased security to the broader population by adding a layer of checks in the process for initiating nuclear actions.
- The budget limitations suggest the policy will not require significant allocations for infrastructure or non-personnel resources since it involves notifications to pre-existing defense and political leaders.
- Consideration of a wide array of perspectives from military personnel to civilians, including those who may live near military installations and major urban centers, to understand varied impacts of this legislative change.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy adds an extra layer of oversight which is crucial in contemporary geopolitical environments.
- It may lead to more cautious engagements given the requirement for political leadership updates before nuclear use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy seems crucial, I feel indifferent as my life is not deeply touched by it daily.
- It's reassuring but not something that I expect to affect my day-to-day wellbeing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Living in a major city, any policy that adds security oversight gives some comfort.
- It feels slightly reassuring knowing there's a broader review before significant military actions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Air Force Officer (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this brings more accountability to our actions, which is always needed.
- It places us under a more controlled framework but could limit speed of response.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems practical but doesn't change my daily concerns.
- As a teacher, I'm more focused on immediate community issues.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Economist (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy might stabilize certain risk perceptions, leading to more confident economic conditions.
- Geopolitical oversight can play a positive role for global market stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Civil Rights Lawyer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater checks on executive power are consistent with democratic ideals.
- This policy reflects an approach that values precaution over unfettered military decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It aligns with strategic interests I'm learning about, ensuring careful military engagement.
- Knowing there's another step in those processes feels secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Nurse (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Actions like this might prevent momentous consequences for public health.
- Knowing that steps are needed before nuclear deployment is somewhat relieving as a health worker.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Montana)
Age: 41 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy doesn't really intersect with my daily life.
- It's comforting to know there are checks, but I'm more concerned with local issues.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- The primary consideration is whether existing communication mechanisms within the Department of Defense can handle these new requirements efficiently.
- The bill's effect on international relations could indirectly influence U.S. defense and diplomatic strategies, although this is speculative.