Inside the nuclear posture review
David Sanger and Peter Baker have the goods on the administration's nuclear posture review:
It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with â??a series of graded options,â? a combination of old and new conventional weapons. â??Iâ??m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,â? he said in the interview in the Oval Office.
White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.
Mr. Obamaâ??s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United Statesâ?? most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, â??We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,â? and, he added, to â??make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.â?
Like the new START treaty, it's hard to see this having any effect on the nations we're most concerned about.
