Bill Overview
Title: A bill to prohibit the use of funds to reduce the nuclear forces of the United States.
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration from using funds for FY2022-FY2027 to reduce the nuclear forces of the United States. Specifically, no such funds may be obligated or expended to reduce (1) the total quantity of strategic delivery systems below the quantity of such systems as of January 1, 2021, (2) the quantity of deployed or non-deployed strategic delivery systems below quantities described as the Final New START Treaty Force Structure , or (3) the size of the nuclear weapons stockpile below the size of the stockpile as of January 1, 2021. Such prohibition does not apply to reductions made to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and credibility of the nuclear weapons stockpile and strategic delivery systems; temporary reductions in the quantity of nuclear weapons or deployed strategic delivery systems to facilitate the fielding of modernized replacements; nuclear weapons that are retired or awaiting dismantlement as of January 1, 2021; or reductions made pursuant to a treaty with respect to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent.
Sponsors: Sen. Hoeven, John [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by changes in U.S. nuclear force policies
Estimated Size: 330000000
- Maintaining or increasing nuclear forces can lead to changes in defense spending priorities, potentially affecting federal budget allocations.
- The presence or increase of nuclear forces impacts global security dynamics and can influence international relations.
- Individuals living in areas near nuclear facilities may be directly impacted by changes in nuclear stockpiles due to safety and environmental concerns.
- The bill impacts military personnel, contractors, and industries associated with nuclear forces.
- Taxpayers may be indirectly impacted by federal budget allocations towards nuclear forces.
- Nuclear policies in the United States can influence arms races or disarmament decisions in other countries.
Reasoning
- The bill specifically impacts the defense sector and those directly involved, but it also carries broader implications for federal budget allocation, which can indirectly affect the general population.
- Individuals working directly in defense and military sectors will have clear reactions based on job security and duty impact, while others might react based on philosophical or political beliefs about defense spending.
- People living near nuclear facilities may have heightened concerns about safety and security impacts stemming from policy changes.
- For a vast population like the U.S., the majority may not experience direct day-to-day changes but might perceive potential long-term effects on security and economy.
Simulated Interviews
Defense Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is necessary to maintain strategic stability.
- Concerned about the lack of flexibility in budgeting for other defense needs.
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 |
Nuclear Engineer (Los Alamos, NM)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy secures jobs and funding for essential maintenance and upgrades.
- Worried about potential environmental and safety concerns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Mayfield, KY)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy doesn't impact me directly.
- I feel secure about job prospects in the defense sector.
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 |
School Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried increased defense spending could reduce education budgets.
- National security is important but requires balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Retired Air Force Colonel (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent is crucial for national security.
- Retired life allows me to view these policies from an arm's length.
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 |
Peace Activist (Portland, OR)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step backward from disarmament goals.
- I fear it might spark an arms race.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Graduate Student (Richmond, VA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important for the U.S. to maintain its strategic capabilities.
- I'm concerned about the environmental impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Accountant (Plano, TX)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The government should focus on economic stability rather than nuclear expansion.
- Concerned about potential tax increases.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Military Base Manager (Thule, Greenland)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this influence our strategic operations.
- I feel it emphasizes our role in national security.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Augusta, GA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about environmental side-effects of increasing nuclear forces.
- Ensuring safety must be a top priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 3: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 5: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Key Considerations
- Monitoring costs and ensuring compliance might increase operational expenses.
- Opportunity costs could arise from the inability to reallocate resources to other priorities.
- Potential geopolitical impacts could alter future economic parameters.