{"id":24348,"date":"2019-03-12T17:09:36","date_gmt":"2019-03-12T17:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/uncategorized\/2019\/03\/12\/smith-trim-budget-fat-in-americas-nuclear-triad\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T22:44:45","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T22:44:45","slug":"smith-trim-budget-fat-in-americas-nuclear-triad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/federaltimes\/congress\/2019\/03\/12\/smith-trim-budget-fat-in-americas-nuclear-triad\/","title":{"rendered":"Smith: Trim budget fat in America\u2019s nuclear triad"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/atype-video-jwplayer>
Jeff Martin breaks down five things that Defense News learned from the Pentagon’s fiscal 2020 defense budget request.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 A powerful skeptic<\/a> of U.S. nuclear weapons spending, House Armed Services Committee chairman Adam Smith said Tuesday he was open to cutting back quantities of nuclear arms instead of one leg of the nation\u2019s nuclear triad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The comments, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace\u2019s annual nuclear arms forum, came days after Smith, D-Wash., triggered Republican pushback when he said publicly that the intercontinental ballistic missile leg of the triad is not necessary to deter Russia and China. On Tuesday, Smith seemed to soften on that argument, conceding he believes nuclear weapon systems ought to be modernized but maintaining his stance the U.S. needs fewer nuclear weapons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think a deterrent policy, having enough nuclear weapons to ensure that nobody launches a nuclear weapon at you because you have sufficient deterrent, I think we can do that with fewer warheads,\u201d Smith said. \u201cI\u2019m not sure whether that means getting rid of one leg of the triad or simply reducing the amount in each leg.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\t