There is some variance in the UMD study between *how* we should phase out the ICBMs (specifically on whether to maintain current warhead numbers or reduce them)––but the takeaway is clear:

69% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans want to phase out ICBMs entirely.
It makes sense that both Ds and Rs would agree on phasing out ICBMs:

- With a Cold War-style massive surprise attack *very* unlikely, they no longer hold much strategic value;
- They come with unique psychological pressures to launch in a crisis;
- They are expensive! ($100B) đź’¸
So why is the $100 billion ICBM replacement program ("GBSD") still going ahead? It's hard to say.

On a totally unrelated note, here's a page from a wonderful new @UCSUSA report about the cozy relationship between ICBM weapons contractors and the congressional "ICBM Caucus."
The UMD survey offers a tool to challenge the “business” of nuclear policy.

The only thing that beats dollars is votes. So by treating its respondents as neutral “policymakers,” the survey shows that without the presence of moneyed interests, Ds and Rs agree to phase out ICBMs.
You can follow @mattkorda.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: