Obama to limit potential scenarios where nuclear weapons could be used.

[Statistical]

President Obama will today announce that he is to dramatically narrow the conditions under which the United States will use nuclear weapons, even for self-defence. In an interview with The New York Times ahead of the unveiling of his much anticipated revamped nuclear policy, Mr Obama said an exception would be made for "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But in a striking departure from the position taken by his predecessors, he said that the US would explicitly commit for the first time to not using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that adhere to the nuclear treaty, even if they attack with biological or chemical weapons.

...

In the interview, he stopped short of the hoped-for blanket declaration that the US would never be the first to use nuclear weapons — no first-use, as it is called. Arguing instead for a slower course of action, he said: “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons, to make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

...

He said threats such as biological or chemical attacks 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,which took place in the Oval Office.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7088561.ece

Good to see limit on "first use scenarios". Pre-emption is a dangerous policy and pre-emption with nuclear weapons even worse.

However I am not sure I agree on the no nuclear response even for a chemical/biological attack. US has ended chemical & biological weapons research in favor of nuclear weapons. All three are weapons of mass destruction. IMHO the President should have the *option* of retaliation with nuclear weapons in responding to an attack resulting in mass casualties from chemical or biological weapons.

[Silent3]

1. How about endless filibustering?

Would that be a justifiable condition? :)

[Statistical]

2. Now that would be a true nuclear option.

:)

[Orrex]

3. But what about the nukular option?

[charlie and algernon]

4. I think this might have been something he needed to say in light of the treaty

But I agree with you in that if New York or Washington is hit by a chemical or biological attack, you can be sure that whatever nation that attack came from is getting turned to glass.

[GKirk]

5. I'm not sure I understand...

...the reason for telling our enemies what we might do.

[Steve20]

6. nuclear policy

There are alot of bad players that would love to take advantage of this.

[DefenseLawyer]

7. Especially if they have the Doomsday Machine.

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine shaft gap!