Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

[Faygo Kid]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons, even in self defense.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those adopted by his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China. . .


Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html?hp

---

Not sure what to make of this, but it sure looks like an invitation to Iran and North Korea to get with the program.

[bemildred]

1. It's good, he's admitting that making belligerent threats with the nukes does not work.

Even against little-bitty countries.

[whats_a_zip]

38. Take the big step...

unilaterally disarm. We have enough conventional military, who needs nukes?
Maybe President Obama could set the tone for a nuke free world?

[Ian David]

2. IIRC, America had a first-strike policy during The Cold War in certain situations.

For example, in the face of a large-scale Soviet invasion in Europe, we were to use theater nuclear weapons against conventional forces.

[sandnsea]

3. This is a stunning shift in military policy

Never thought I'd see this in my liftime, not even with Kerry. This is HUGE and I hope every anti-war activist gets how huge it is.

[grantcart]

4. agreed and for me the ponies just keep on coming

the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons

[TomCADem]

5. Under Bush, The U.S. Explored The Idea Of Using Nukes In Tactical Situations

This open the door the door to the idea that the use of nukes was acceptable, and the only issue was the appropriate scale of the use. Sadly, the right wing media will do its best to spin this into leaving the U.S. defenseless when it merely puts the U.S. on the same playing field that the U.S. has been advocating. Then again, Republicans never had a problem with hypocrisy.

[pasto76]

28. exactly! Nukes are not something rational folks want to use. NT

[Mithreal]

10. Since it has not been released yet, seems premature to say the least.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.

But I welcome you to elaborate.

[sandnsea]

11. Take it up with the Times

It's their headline.

I'm sure the report will be longer than a sentence. But you're, of course, free to sit in your pile of doom and gloom and wait for the report so you can find a sentence to support your pessimism.

[Mithreal]

14. Huh? The report hasn't been released yet and that's doom, gloom and pessimism?

How can I take your comment seriously? You're kidding, right?

:)

[tburnsten]

26. I can think of a couple of other uses

Namely, space mining, anti-asteroid global defense, anti-alien species defense should we ever meet any that are belligerent, anti-zombie use should an entire continent or major region become overrun, have I left out any other fine uses?

[24601]

12. It's a hit with the anti group. I have reservations that moderate independents

will be as receptive. As a political move, it plays more to international approval than domestic electoral success and likely will be linked to payback for the Nobel. Give it 3-5 days and see if it moves the Congressional generic ballot numbers for indicators.

[Jefferson23]

6. OBAMA, EXCELLENT. n/t

[jody]

7. From a military strategy perspective it's never wise for a commander to advertise when she will use

the ultimate weapon.

[bemildred]

9. In a nuclear MAD scenario it makes excellent sense.

In the sense of conventional military strategy, with conventional weapons, of course, it does not.

[jody]

30. This is a topic upon which military experts disagree. n/t

[Bette Noir]

15. You're wrong. He's giving non-nuclear states an incentive to *not* obtain nukes.

[jody]

29. But recent presidents have threatened Israel's enemies with nukes while allowing Israel to threaten

Iran with nukes. That encourages non-nuclear states to obtain nukes.

[unkachuck]

8. talk is cheap (and reversible)

"...renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons..."

....palin and the pukes would rescind this within three seconds after taking office....

....I'll believe it, when I see it, and only after a lapse of a few decades....there hasn't been a new weapons system ever the Pentagon and the war-mongers haven't loved and embraced....we're bankrupt today because of our unstoppable, uncontrollable, military machine; and there isn't anything out there with the power to change this....including the mighty Obama....

"...a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete..."

....it would only happen if everyone agreed to give up nuclear weapons, and we, first and foremost, would never agree to that....

[Bette Noir]

13. That's my guy. I sent him an "attaboy" email this afternoon.

[kpete]

16. After lengthy review, US plans to adopt a more restrictive policy on using nuclear weapons

Source: Associated Press

After lengthy review, US plans to adopt a more restrictive policy on using nuclear weapons
Desmond Butler,Robert Burns, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Apr 05, 2010 21:46:19 PM

WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is poised to adopt a new policy potentially restricting the nation's use of nuclear arms, U.S. officials said, and hopes to persuade Russia to agree to mutual cuts in nuclear arsenals that go beyond the arms treaty both sides will sign this week.

A policy review, expected to be released Tuesday, is likely to include language reducing U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons for its national defence. That reflects President Barack Obama's pledge to move toward a nuclear free world, and could strengthen U.S. arguments that other countries should either reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons or forego developing them.

The White House also planned to urge Russia to adopt first-ever limits on shorter-range, less powerful nuclear weapons, an arena in which Russia holds an advantage, said officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the policy review has not been released.

These officials said the administration's new policy would stop short of renouncing the use of nuclear weapons except in retaliation to atomic attack, as some activists have advocated. But it would describe the weapons' purpose as "primarily" or "fundamentally" to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

Read more: http://www.news957.com/news/world/article/42316--after-lengthy-review-us-plans-to-adopt-a-more-restrictive-policy-on-using-nuclear-weapons

[Mithreal]

17. Already posted, just a few stories down in LBN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4333530

But thanks as always for posting these.

[Kablooie]

18. That's going to make the crazy GOP extremists extremely crazy.

As does anything he does.

[ZombieHorde]

19. Seems like a very good step in the right direction. nt

[leveymg]

20. Did Obama just take another step toward war with Iran?

Is that what he means by, "Carving out an exception for an outlier"?

[jeff47]

24. It's an attempt to keep non-nuclear nations compliant with the NPT

By saying NPT-compliant non-nuclear countries wouldn't be hit by nukes, Obama's trying to make staying with the treaty look more appealing.

Iran and N. Korea aren't compliant with the treaty, so they aren't covered by this clause - but if they did comply with the treaty they would be covered.

[leveymg]

31. Guess Israel doesn't count because they already have nukes, but are noncompliant with the NPT

Aren't they an outlier, too? Hasn't Israel threatened to nuke Iran on numerous occasions?

By the way, the US isn't fully compliant with the NPT, either. Yet, we arrogate the right to impose it upon countries that aren't already nuclear powers. Tell us, where's the logic in that?

[jeff47]

33. Israel didn't sign the treaty

The difference is Iran and N. Korea signed and then broke the treaty.

Israel has never signed it. Neither has India nor Pakistan.

Also, the US is compliant, in that we're one of the 5 nuclear powers acknowledged in the NPT. The treaty says we can have nukes, we just agree not to help non-nuclear countries build nuclear weapons.

[lunatica]

21. Color me ignorant but did we actually have a policy to use nukes any old time

we wanted to? Really? Did we really reserve the right to use our nuclear weapons whenever the urge struck us?

I thought the reason we didn't use them to flatten the Tora Bora mountain range was because it was already our policy not to.

Or is President Obama just re-stating our existing policy?

[deminks]

22. Bush Doctrine for nuclear weapons

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

Bush wanted to use them preemptively, so yeah, Bush could use them any ole time he wanted.

[lunatica]

23. The article says the pentagon drew up a draft, not that it was already policy

Did it get approved as policy?

[deminks]

27. I can't find an article that definately says it was approved.

but here is one from 2008 that states the doctrine was being pushed to NATO.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/nato.nuclear

I don't have time right now to look further, but I am sure there is more out there.

[No Elephants]

25. Not sure what, if anything, this means.

What is current policy on use of nuclear weapons? When and against whom did we last use them?

And, as long as the U.S. gets to define "outlier".....

Yes, North Korea and Iran are two examples. Who else? Anyone else who is close to having a nuclear weapon? Anyone we choose to attack?

[jeff47]

34. Re: Not sure what, if anything, this means.

"What is current policy on use of nuclear weapons?"

Our policy was to use nukes in retaliation for attacks on the US or our allies using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Recently "devastating cyber attack" was added to that list, but not in any sort of official statement.

"When and against whom did we last use them?"
1945, Japan

"Who else? Anyone else who is close to having a nuclear weapon?"

Well, Iran and North Korea are so far the only countries that have signed and then abandoned the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The other countries with nukes are either allowed nukes by the treaty (5 countries, including the US), or are countries that didn't sign the NPT (notably Israel (rumored), India and Pakistan). So if one were to try and have a consistent framework, then one could expect any country that withdraws from the NPT to be in the 'outlier' group.

The reality is that nukes can be used whenever the president orders them used, as long as:
1) There's an attack underway against the US or it's allies, or
2) Another member of the cabinet concurs with the order.

[harun]

37. This isn't about military strategy, it is about politics. It is about setting

a tone. This new tone is making freeper heads explode. It is stating the world is changing and the U.S. is changing.

I am very pleased with this being announced. If this country is ever going to reverse itself from being run by the military industrial complex it is baby steps like this that is going to get us there.

[ecstatic]

32. k&r

[SpartanDem]

35. K&R

[Mr. Sparkle]

36. It is a good idea, but, why would Russia or any country entry into anther treaty

with the United states. We just watched Bush and his cronies rip up a few, during the last presidency because they were not convenient, or dated back to a "cold war mentality".

I am not sure Obama should have announced this without first getting an agreement, as it could be a tough sell.