Sunday, May 27th, 2012

No Nuclear First-Strike?

By Spencer Ackerman
Monday, March 01, 2010 at 8:47 am

The New York Times has a thorough overview of the Obama administration’s forthcoming nuclear-weapons policy. Anonymous administration officials tell the paper to expect “thousands” of weapons to be eliminated from the U.S. nuclear stockpile, commensurate with President Obama’s Prague speech outlining a nuclear-free world, and modernization of the remaining stockpile, sort of as a gambit to preempt calls for developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. As called for in the Quadrennial Defense Review issued last month by the Pentagon, the U.S. will develop missiles that carry a massive but non-nuclear explosive payload that give the president options for a huge, devastating strike that doesn’t cross the nuclear threshold.

But there’s still a debate about what the policy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, ought to say about military doctrine for the purpose and use of nuclear weapons. When the U.S. faced a nuclear-armed global adversary in the Soviet Union, there was general consensus that ambiguity about whether the U.S. would initiate a nuclear war benefited the greater cause of never fighting one, as the ambiguity created a more robust nuclear deterrent. Now, officials are wondering whether it makes sense to retain that ambiguity or changed global circumstances — and the need to hold the U.S. to the same non-nuclear standard it expects of the rest of the world — merit greater candor. Here’s how to tell what Obama will decide:

Some leading Democrats, led by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have asked Mr. Obama to declare that the “sole purpose” of the country’s nuclear arsenal is to deter nuclear attack. “We’re under considerable pressure on this one within our own party,” one of Mr. Obama’s national security advisers said recently.

But inside the Pentagon and among many officials in the White House, Mr. Obama has been urged to retain more ambiguous wording — declaring that deterring nuclear attack is the primary purpose of the American arsenal, not the only one. That would leave open the option of using nuclear weapons against foes that might threaten the United States with biological or chemical weapons or transfer nuclear material to terrorists.

Obama meets with Defense Secretary Robert Gates later today to discuss this and other issues.

Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter

Comments

14 Comments

Paris Hilton: Paris ~ you just have to make a tee shir… | Paris Hilton Celebrity Monitor
Pingback posted March 1, 2010 @ 9:23 am

[...] No Nuclear First-Strike? « The Washington Independent [...]

ccbird
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 10:13 am

If we disarm ourselves what will be our defense? Isn't the Soviet Union doing to us as to what we did to them? Destroying our economy and therefore, depleting our power. We need to get our heads out of the sand, and wake up and smell the coffee. Disarming of our weapons and depleting our economy by continuing a war that no longer serves its purpose reflects our arrogance and ignorance to reality of what is really going on. I cannot stand back and watch our country destroyed. I love this country and my luxury of freedom!

Go Bare! Body Waxing & Skincare Grand Opening | Exploration … | Spa Beauty Wisdom
Pingback posted March 1, 2010 @ 11:27 am

[...] No Nuclear First-Strike? « The Washington Independent [...]

21 Jump Street: The Complete First Season | Johnny Depp Celebrity Monitor
Pingback posted March 1, 2010 @ 11:33 am

[...] No Nuclear First-Strike? « The Washington Independent [...]

phil0sophic
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 12:56 pm

It says first strike, where did you read disarm ? The MAD response would still deter a first strike from our “enemies” except where it will come from in the form of terrorism.

uberVU - social comments
Trackback posted March 1, 2010 @ 2:24 pm

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by csisponi: More on the NPR RT @attackerman: RT @TWI_news: No Nuclear First-Strike? http://bit.ly/dtHZUo...

ccbird
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

If we disarm ourselves what will be our defense? Isn't the Soviet Union doing to us as to what we did to them? Destroying our economy and therefore, depleting our power. We need to get our heads out of the sand, and wake up and smell the coffee. Disarming of our weapons and depleting our economy by continuing a war that no longer serves its purpose reflects our arrogance and ignorance to reality of what is really going on. I cannot stand back and watch our country gradually be destroyed. I love this country and appreciate my luxury of freedom. Let's keep it that way!

Scientific Terms/ Nuclear Engineering JapaneseEnglish/ EnglishJapanese | Nuclear Engineering Addict
Pingback posted March 1, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

[...] No Nuclear First-Strike? « The Washington Independent [...]

phil0sophic
Comment posted March 1, 2010 @ 5:56 pm

It says first strike, where did you read disarm ? The MAD response would still deter a first strike from our “enemies” except where it will come from in the form of terrorism.

No Nuclear First-Strike?

Comments

14 Comments

Trending Now

Multimedia Highlights

AINN Affiliates

The American Independent News Network: