RSS
The Obama administration has ruled out pledging in a forthcoming U.S. nuclear strategy review that the United States will never initiate a nuclear first strike against another power, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 17).
(Mar. 1) -
U.S. B-61 nuclear bombs. The Obama administration has reportedly dismissed calls to adopt a nuclear "no first use" policy in a pending U.S. nuclear strategy review (U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration photo).
U.S. President Barack Obama was set to hear alternatives from Defense Secretary Robert Gates today for addressing remaining concerns over the Nuclear Posture Review, officials told the Times. The issues to be discussed included the possibility of redefining the purpose of the U.S. strategic arsenal by specifying situations in which the country might use its nuclear weapons.
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and other ranking Democrats have called on the president to state in the review that the "sole purpose" of the nation's nuclear weapons is to prevent a nuclear strike. Defense Department officials and a large contingent of White House staffers, though, have sought language specifying deterrence of nuclear strikes more generally as the leading reason for the arsenal (Sanger/Shanker, New York Times, Feb. 28).
Obama has reportedly hoped to rule out the initial use of nuclear weapons as well as the employment of nuclear weapons against nations that possess only conventional arsenals, according to the Atlantic magazine.
U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden has opposed Gates' stance on making little change to the existing policy, while the State Department's position is "somewhere in-between," Foreign Policy reported. The remaining disputes are expected are to prevent the release of the Nuclear Posture Review until late this month, the Atlantic reported.
"There are intense internal divisions over the core thrust of the NPR," said one administration official.
The ultimate outcome of the debate could shape international perceptions of Obama's ultimate commitment to moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons (Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic, Feb. 26).
Obama's National Security Council doubts the president's contention that global nuclear disarmament is an attainable goal, the London Guardian reported (Peter Beaumont, London Guardian, Feb. 28).
Obama's opponents have contended that his nuclear disarmament agenda could make the country vulnerable to emerging nuclear threats in Iran, North Korea and elsewhere. Backers of the president, though, have expressed concern that Obama has failed in the last year to take decisive action on his agenda, and that Washington could leave open the potential for using nuclear weapons in retaliation to a biological or chemical weapons attack, possibility by a nation that lacks its own nuclear deterrent.
“It will be clear in the document that there will be very dramatic reductions -- in the thousands [of weapons] -- as relates to the stockpile,” one high-level administration official said. A large portion of the reductions would be drawn from the nation's nondeployed nuclear arsenal, according to the Times (see related GSN story, today).
The administration has also been weighing whether to pull U.S. nonstrategic nuclear weapons from European nations, other officials said (see GSN, Feb. 19; Sanger/Shanker, New York Times).