Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

[0rphie]

This is my first post, please be merciful and if it is indeed repost, Mods please just delete it.
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.
Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
President Obama discussing on Monday his new nuclear strategy, which would limit the conditions for using such weapons.


Excerpts From Obama Interview (April 6, 2010)
Times Topic: Nuclear Weapons


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.

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 Non-Proliferation 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 “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” 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. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/world/06arms.html

[Kit]

Talking about nuclear war and then tribal advertisements pop up. Google's sense of irony is impeccable.

http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/5453/adsilly.png

[ISNJH]

Just my thoughts, if the USA will not respond with a small scale tactical nuke strike to take out enemy stock piles in the event that our allies are hit hard by a chem or bio attack how much are our security agreements worth with allies that they will be protected by our nuclear umbrella. In effect if this comes true we have just stated that we will not respond with exstreme force if our allies are attacked with chemical or bio weapons and will depend on conventinal means to strike back.

[skyeye]

Just my thoughts, if the USA will not respond with a small scale tactical nuke strike to take out enemy stock piles in the event that our allies are hit hard by a chem or bio attack how much are our security agreements worth with allies that they will be protected by our nuclear umbrella. In effect if this comes true we have just stated that we will not respond with exstreme force if our allies are attacked with chemical or bio weapons and will depend on conventinal means to strike back.

X2

Obama just can’t find enough ways to humiliate, undermine and cripple the United States.

It’s almost as though he wants to reduce the US to another failed socialist state.

[GlassHarp]

Is this an April fools joke? Did they actually think this through? What are our allies going to think about this?

[budgie]

X2

Obama just can’t find enough ways to humiliate, undermine and cripple the United States.

It’s almost as though he wants to reduce the US to another failed socialist state.

Oh cry me an effin river. Nuclear weapons are a last resort because they're obsolete. With stealth planes, bunker busters and precision guided munitions to do the job, America will have no need to wipe out millions just to prove a point.

[Rictor]

The only ones who are likely to attack with chemical/biological weapons are terrorist groups. However:

1. The likelihood that they would get their hands on enough of the stuff to kill more than a dozen people is small. In fact, the whole scenario is very improbable.

2. Who would the hypothetical retaliatory strike be directed against? Even assuming that there is a training camp of some sort (which there wasn't in the case of the London and Madrid bombings, for example), what's the difference between nuking it and simply flattening it conventionally? What is the special and urgent need for using nuclear weapons for the first time in 60 years?

[skyeye]

Oh cry me an effin river. Nuclear weapons are a last resort because they're obsolete. With stealth planes, bunker busters and precision guided munitions to do the job, America will have no need to wipe out millions just to prove a point.

Nukes are not obsolete until there are none left.


America will have no need to wipe out millions just to prove a point.

Good one budgie, first class response.

[ISNJH]

I am not saying they are a first use weapon in a response but by coming out and saying that we would never use them response to another country useing them on us or allies greatly weakens our nuclear force. Part of the success of us not useing nuclear weapons against another county since world war 2 is the un-stated threat of retaliation with complete force against unconventional force so enemies were never sure when a line would be crossed that would activate the use of these..


If you look at it in world war 2 chemical and bio weapons were not openly used since it was an unstated fact known to the world powers that a first use would open the pandora box for the use of these weapons. The the use of the atomic bombs on Japan to this day is debatable for some but the fact is by the end of Germanys surrender the people in the US were growing tired and fed up with war so many had died and bled in the battle fields of Europe and died in the sands of the pacific and the taking of mainland Japan would have taken many many more lives so it was a last resort. Up through the cold war to counter the USSR development of chemical and bio we depeneded on the threat that the use of these weapons would act as a trip line for the use of nuclear weapons ensuring that the USSR knew that if they attemped to use these weapons in a conflict, things would esculate beyond what they wanted.

[Confuse]

I would say that the nuke use limitations are a way to reduce chances of escalating into a nuclear war until the very LAST resort.. the wording was careful to say "those that signed the non-poliferation treaty" while try to lessen tensions with the real nuke power rivals russia and china but putting iran and NK on notice

[Ordie]

Nukes are not obsolete until there are none left. .

Then the goal is to make nukes irrelevant.

[wildcat]

Oh cry me an effin river. Nuclear weapons are a last resort because they're obsolete. With stealth planes, bunker busters and precision guided munitions to do the job, America will have no need to wipe out millions just to prove a point.

The point of having nukes is not to use them, it is to create peace, that is the whole purpose. They deter major world wars between superpowers. How ever I do like the idea of cutting our stock pile down as Obama has done.


Then the goal is to make nukes irrelevant.

is it possible.

[budgie]

Nukes are not obsolete until there are none left.



Good one budgie, first class response.

Your post was a bunch of kneejerk name-calling. It doesn't warrant a 'first class response'

[Atlantic Friend]

the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack

The first part of the sentence made sense, the second much less so (well, except for the crippling cyberattack). The way a country reacts to a chemical attack should be proportional to the type and gravity of the attack, but the release of a weaponized biological agent in the US of America or in allies' territory is an even worse scenario than the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon, why couldn't the US respond to a strategic attack with its strategic arsenal?

It's odd to see American and French doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons have become this different. What Pdt Obama has just stated is antipodal to what Pdt Chirac stated in 2006 about nuclear retaliation in case of major terrorist attacks. Have we become the simplistic gung-ho cowboys now?

[0rphie]

Personally, I agree that the continental US is not under threat to be invaded by another state. However, we have a number of territories that may be under such threat. Having a military doctrine that tells directly "if you dare to attack us or our friends by any means, we will exterminate all you citizens" makes us and allies safer. The commander in chief has to make his own decision when and how to use the nuclear weapons and should not be bound by some other conditions.

[Rictor]

The first part of the sentence made sense, the second much less so (well, except for the crippling cyberattack). The way a country reacts to a chemical attack should be proportional to the type and gravity of the attack, but the release of a weaponized biological agent in the US of America or in allies' territory is an even worse scenario than the detonation of a tactical nuclear weapon, why couldn't the US respond to a strategic attack with its strategic arsenal?

Huh? The worst chemical attack in recent decades that I am aware of was the Halabja massacre by Saddam. As I recall, some 5,000 people died. Any nuclear weapon, tactical or not, is likely to yield far more casualties than that.

A real bio/chemical attack, as far-fetched as it is, is more likely to resemble the Aum Shinrikyo attack on the Tokyo subway, which killed 13 people. In other words, really small-scale stuff. No need to nuke anyone for that kind of thing.

[Atlantic Friend]

Huh? The worst chemical attack in recent decades that I am aware of was the Halabja massacre by Saddam. As I recall, some 5,000 people died. Any nuclear weapon, tactical or not, is likely to yield far more casualties than that.

A real bio/chemical attack, as far-fetched as it is, is more likely to resemble the Aum Shinrikyo attack on the Tokyo subway, which killed 13 people. In other words, really small-scale stuff. No need to nuke anyone for that kind of thing.

With "just" 3,000 victims, the WTC was lethal enough to initiate a war in Afghanistan (and in Iraq, one might say) whose total casualties might compete favorably with those of a nuclear warhead, so I'm not sure 5,000 dead civilians can be considered as too low for a WMD response.

I don't suggest nuclear weapons are to be treated like any other weapon of the US arsenal, but I don't think there's any need to exclude them either, when you cannot say in advance what would be the scale and lethality of a chemical/biological attack. Not so long ago, nobody would have thought that you could kill several thousand people by hijacking three airplanes either, so it might be best to be prudent about the kind of losses an attack of any type would entail.

I personally think the use of nuclear weapons should remain an option at all times - as in, one option among others, to be used under certain circumstances, and to be discarded if the prerequisites are not met. What exclude it from the get-go, and run the risk of still having to use one after having sworn you wouldn't?

Better to have all options on the table, and to choose them wisely, IMHO.

[seraosha]

Imo, this is a reflection of our changing policy in regards to non-state specific threats, or trans-national terrorist organizations. We aren't neccesarily going to lob ICBMs at a few terrorist training camps in Yeman for sh!ts and giggles.

[Atlantic Friend]

Imo, this is a reflection of our changing policy in regards to non-state specific threats, or trans-national terrorist organizations. We aren't neccesarily going to lob ICBMs at a few terrorist training camps in Yeman for sh!ts and giggles.

But who does that anyway?

[LineDoggie]

I'm not a fan of Nuclear Weapons usage (with 2 exceptions) and frankly don't see the USA using them again unless we are hit by a Nation with that same capability. how do you nuke a Ben Laden in a complex in someones country? There are far better alternatives to the Nuclear Option for scenarios like that. Options that also don't entail the Bad PR from using Nuclear Weapons.

That said, broadcasting our decision framework to use them is silly IMO and shows how Naive he is.

[FullMetalJackass]

Policy will be changed in 2.5 years once Carter 2.0 is out of office. The world full of unicorns and rainbows view that zero holds doesn't fit with reality.

[Soldat_Américain]

MAD still applies today.

[Jobu]

C'mon people don't be duped so easily.

This announcement means nothing when it comes to the actual use of nuclear weapons.
It's simply a PR stunt so Obama can go to the other members of the Security Council and say "look we took a step back when it comes to nuclear weapons, now help us with this Iran situation."

[Atlantic Friend]

C'mon people don't be duped so easily.

This announcement means nothing when it comes to the actual use of nuclear weapons.
It's simply a PR stunt so Obama can go to the other members of the Security Council and say "look we took a step back when it comes to nuclear weapons, now help us with this Iran situation."

It's not as if the other UNSC members were presently in deep fear the US is about to nuke Iran out of frustration - if anything the UNSC is in a punitive mood already. So I doubt this statement is for UNSC consumers.

Nor is Iran, who so far has played its cards decently, going to do a major blunder by detonating a nuclear warhead on US soil. So it's not about deterrence.

The whole "we won't strike a non-nuclear state with nuclear weapons " could be a very soft-spoken warning that if Iran develops the bomb, then it will find itself in a no-holds barred situation, but I'm pretty sure the Iranians have no illusion about it already.

The statement comes shortly after that news item about the Iranian nuclear scientist who defected. So is it a sign Iran is closer to nuclear weapons than initially thought?

[leloup46]

the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.which means practically everybody (189 states) except (besides allies including sharing allies)

Russia and China (compliant but nuclear)
Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea (non compliant and nuclear)

and Iran of couse if it becomes nuclear.

So it's OK for some weirdos like Chavez for example as long he doesn't have nukes. Or the Saudis.

Regarding the potential attacks mentioned :

- few have the possibility to launch a biological attack causing major direct damage, if any. Unless somebody has an airborne "doomsday virus".
- a chemical attack doesn't have to be of the "sarin in the subway" type or vectored by missiles etc... but can locally be devastating if engineered by specialists.
- a cyberattack can be devastating if targeting key facilities and causes thousands of indirect deaths. One of the worst scenarios would be to provoke a meltdown in a nuclear plant.

just some thoughts

[GlassHarp]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235884

According to a knowledgeable source who would not be identified discussing sensitive national-security matters, President Obama wasn't briefed on the U.S. nuclear-strike plan against Russia and China until some months after he had taken office. "He thought it was insane," says the source. (The reason for the delay is unclear; the White House did not respond to repeated inquiries.)



123456789012234456

[skyeye]

I wonder how this decision will affect existing mutual defense treaties.

Our allies have to be asking themselves if they can depend on the US, especially after the Polish missile defense betrayal.

[XShipRider]

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.


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.

IMO. A noble cause but misguided. I say, the more the merrier in the nuke club. Lessen the number of players and eventually someone will, again, use them.