New, More Restrictive Nuclear Policy Unveiled

(CBS/ AP)  Updated at 1:30 p.m. ET

The Obama administration is narrowing the circumstances under which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, altering a decades-old policy that helped maintain the global balance of power during the tense days of the Cold War.

The administration revealed the new policy Tuesday in a document called a nuclear posture review, drafted after a year of deliberation led by the Pentagon in consultation with allied governments.

President Obama in a statement today called the new U.S. defense policy "a significant step forward" in reducing the nuclear weapon role in security strategy, which will ease the global threat posed by these arms.

At the same time, he said that the new strategy will maintain "a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent" for the United States as long as nuclear weapons exist in the world.

"Our national security and that of our allies and partners can be increasingly defended by America's unsurpassed conventional military capabilities and strong missile defenses," he said.

A Layman's Guide to the Nuclear Posture Review
Obama Goes Nuclear
Giuliani Calls Nuclear Policy "Left-Wing Dream"
Nuclear Posture Review Report(PDF)

The move seems certain to provoke a partisan debate. It is just one in a series of White House initiatives limiting the role of atomic warheads in national defense, following President Barack Obama's pledge last year to move toward a nuclear-free world.

The document alters the role of nuclear weapons in defense policy by reducing the number of potential U.S. nuclear targets. It asserts -- with caveats -- that the United States would not use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack.

That assurance would only apply to countries that had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and had met their obligations. Countries flouting the treaty remain a threat to U.S. security, the document says.

"The United States is therefore not prepared at the present time to adopt a universal policy that deterring nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons, but will work to establish conditions under which such a policy could be safely adopted," it says.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said today that the NPR has "a very strong message for both Iran and North Korea."

"If you're going to play by the rules... we will undertake certain obligations to you," he said. "But if you're not going to play by the rules, all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you."

The United States also said it might adjust the policy if biological weapons technology developed more catastrophic potential.

On Thursday, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are scheduled to sign a new START treaty, a bilateral agreement that will cut the number of strategic warheads and missiles maintained by the world's two largest nuclear powers.

The new nuclear policy comes ahead of a conference next month in which Obama will urge other nations to fight the spread of nuclear weapons. He needs to show that the United States is willing to take steps of its own, but the Senate is unlikely to ratify the new treaty with Russia for months and probably longer.

Obama also is hosting some 40 world leaders in Washington next week for a strategy session on nuclear security.

On Tuesday night, the White House will host a screening of the documentary "Nuclear Tipping Point" (a trailer for the film is available here). Those who will be in attendance for the screening include: former Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn.

The White House's nuclear initiatives are intended to encourage other nations to reduce their stockpiles of atomic weapons or forgo developing them, and the review is the first of its kind since 2001 and only the third since the end of the Cold War two decades ago.

Obama would commit not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons. Those threats, he told The New York Times in an interview, could be deterred with "a series of graded options" -- a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

The White House also plans to urge Russia to begin talks on adopting first-ever limits on shorter-range, tactical nuclear weapons, an arena in which Russia holds an advantage, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss details of the policy review prior to its release.

Moscow has shown little interest in cutting short-range nuclear arsenals, because the Russian military relies on tactical weapons to balance what it sees as a threat from NATO to the west and China to the east.

On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia shares Obama's goal of a nuclear-free world, but said other nations must join the disarmament process as well.

Lavrov also said Russia reserves the right to withdraw from the new START treaty if it decides a U.S. missile defense shield, now planned for Romania, threatens its security.

Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov reported from Moscow, and Jim Heintz from Kazakhstan.

[rockcutr]

It only takes one ego maniac to push that button. Just one. Having access to nucular weapons is just wrong.
Unless of course you would wish to rule the world. Be tha most powerful nation in the world, push your form of government on all in your way. Teach them to be bankers and lawyers. Teach the "trickle up" economics.
Basiclly return to the days of Kings and Queens. A close inner circle of power, then the rest of us surfs. With some of the cartoon charaters on the world stage today, I would think it very wise for each and every person make peace with their GOD and their mother in law. There isn't a prozac big enough to calm the crazys in charge.

[robham777]

I really can't see how this is a game changer. We have the weapons and everyone knows that we do. The last 8 years have proven that the U.S. can topple any country in the world (excluding Russia and China) in a matter of days with conventional weapons and a volunteer military, so what state does this embolden. Much of the danger we face originates from within the borders of countries that we would never nuke (due to the fact that we count these governments as allies), so I have a hard time understanding why people think this "new" policy puts us in greater peril than we already are.

[hateisafourletterword]

While we are at it, why not disarm the police and FBI too? Let's do away with all wire taps and spying on Americans by the government.


Seems like we are more worried about our enemies in the world than our citizens.

[Empire-George-]

by U_S_Drug_Addict April 6, 2010 4:28 PM EDT

Look up the phrase/term "Fifth Column"

That's what you and your liberal democrat party are, the fifth column, when it came to us finishing the job in Iraq.

[honest_pols]

WE'VE BEEN DUPED BEFORE, BUT NOW AMERICA IS GETTING THE ULTIMATE DUPING:

THE GRAND, ROYAL, HUSSEIN OBAMA "WEAKEN-AND-DESTROY-AMERICA" DUPING


Our country - our America - has been invaded in various ways and phases, and on a massive scale - from foreign, illegal, anti-American drug dealers and pimps, to those who remain ensconced within the underground or the 'Black Economy' - to the most serious types;
those who network here to cause and/or are PLANNING to cause, maximum hardship, maximum pain, maximum destruction, and maximum death to us and to our country.

What is perhaps MOST UNNERVING, is the 'fast-becoming-realized' fact, that our leader, Hussein Obama, who many of us were duped into electing, is working in other, FOREIGN, national, social, political,and other INTERESTS and against OUR COUNTRY'S best interests.

A relentless 'Dump Hussein Obama' campaign MUST BE coordinated without delay, in order that we prevent our enemy-leader from further weakening and destroying America!

[alphaa10000]

THE GRAND, ROYAL EMBARRASSMENT OF GOP HISTORY

As a Bush and McCain booster, you will be embarrassed to learn even Henry Kissinger (Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford) said the USSR kept its agreements, according to the principle that treaties work when they are in the interests of all parties.

Even George W. Bush left office after declaring diplomacy, not war, was the key with North Korea. More than a few Bush administration officials (including military leaders) were strongly opposed to a strike against Iran because (1) no strike is surgically perfect, but will miss weapons and facilities and (2) the strike, itself, provides an instant, iron-clad rationale for the hawks and militarists in Iran to proceed at full speed with a nuclear arms race.

As you point out, you've been duped before. Why not spend less of your time demonizing a president you know nothing about, and more time trying to learn about current events? You remind us of the fringe-paranoid politics of the rogue states of the world, driven by their own hatred and self-delusion.

[rock0223]

The sky is falling again? Uh-oh.

[Empire-George-]

by Zann-Zel April 6, 2010 4:24 PM EDT

Yes Equality is a Bad Bad Thing!
_________

See, perfect example above of Liberal Ideology, instead of enjoying our superpower status, you want to weaken us to everyone else's leve.....When equality means we have to lower ourselves, weaken ourselves to be on the level of our enemies.....this removes our advantage and puts us at risk.

[jgg000101]

yep. it's much harder to bring everybody else up to our level than it is to bring the US down to everybody else's level. It's disgusting.

[Empire-George-]

by U_S_Drug_Addict April 6, 2010 3:19 PM EDT

no joking huh. god forbid them Iraquis someday decide they want to invade us illegally as payback
___________

Why would the friendly democratically elected government of Iraq, want to invade us as payback for liberating them from a brutal dicator.....if anything, they would say "thanks", the Genocide has ended....Saddam is finally gone

You are really sick and have things backwards, commie

[Zann-Zel]

The brutal dictator Saddam has been gone for awhile now - what are we still doing there?

[U_S_Drug_Addict]

it took hundreds of thousands of innocent souls to liberate iraq from their electricity and well being,
that is total failure.
DEmocratically elected? more like bribed into voting.

[Empire-George-]

by ALL-KNOWING April 6, 2010 3:39 PM EDT

Let's put developement of nuclear weapons aside, since the Dept. of Defense report doesn't address his prior comments.....What is the purpose of telling non-nuclear countries that it's ok to attack us with biological weapons, and we won't retaliate with nuclear weapons ?

Why are we giving enemies our conditions of when we will or not use these weapons ?

Why does he feel he needs to give away our nuclear covert policy ?

Why, you want to know why, in my opinion ? because he was indoctrinated with Liberalism his whole lifetime, which teaches that America is too powerful, we are a bully, and we should NOT be stronger then anyone else, how dare we be better then others or have an advantage.....so Liberal ideology seeks to weaken America, "put her in her place" and put us on par with the rest of the world....that's the underlying ideology, in my opinion.

[Zann-Zel]

Yes Equality is a Bad Bad Thing!

[alphaa10000]

THE RATIONALE FOR THE NEW STRATEGIC POLICY

To ALL-KNOWING Empire-George, who said, "What is the purpose of telling non-nuclear countries that it's ok to attack us with biological weapons, and we won't retaliate with nuclear weapons?"
---

George, you missed most of the article-- read it again. (The problem with omniscience is you never know what you don't know.)

The justification for publicly committing to a non-nuclear response to a non-nuclear threat is --

(1) We can defend ourselves, but without threatening to use nuclear weapons at the slightest provocation. In fact, we are safer, since the newer posture helps "disarm" the Cold War-style hair-trigger that almost brought WW3 over Cuba in 1962.

Cold War nuclear policy (Mutual Assured Destruction) was actually a strategic hindrance, since it relied upon an all-or-nothing response, and Cuba dramatically demonstrated the awful limits of such a policy.

(2) Obama said the US can address a non-nuclear threat in a series of "graded" non-nuclear options. Anyone familiar with our history since 1962 will note we have relied upon exactly that policy 100 percent of the time. The new policy statement merely declares publicly what we already observe in practice.

(3) Making such a policy commitment to an Iran or a North Korean-type wannabe strategic nuclear power opens a door to nuclear non-proliferation negotiations that might otherwise never occur. The new policy materially reduces the incentives for spiraling, regional arms races.

The chief argument of North Korea-- that without at least the fiction of a deliverable nuclear arsenal, the US could and would wipe it off the map-- is completely bypassed and nullified. The new policy specifically declares that joining the NPT will protect a North Korea (or Iran) from a US nuclear strike.

Adherence to the NPT removes all incentive for further rogue, "self-defensive" behavior, when security comes so cheaply by international agreement.

Potentially, the new policy could be a breakthrough in bringing Iran and North Korea back into the world community, and their respective peoples now have much less to fear and more to gain by adhering to international protocols like the NPT.

If, for some reason, a rogue state does not elect to embrace NPT protections, both Obama and Gates remind us all defensive options remain in place.

[U_S_Drug_Addict]

We is a Crhistian Nation and we dezerve the right to bomb others in Jebuss name.
Ramen.

[Empire-George-]

by ALL-KNOWING April 6, 2010 3:39 PM EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

To set an example for other countries, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

[alphaa10000]

The "new nuclear weapons" include bunker-busters and other miniaturized warheads. The clear and present danger of taking nukes into a variety of sizes is combatants have no clear idea when tactical moves into strategic weaponry. Escalation happens in a flash, so to speak.