New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack?

Another day, another swing of the wrecking ball on America.

mobydutch on April 5, 2010 at 11:10 PM

New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack?posted at 9:57 pm on April 5, 2010 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly Drudge’s breathless red-font headline: “NO NUKES: EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE!” As I read the story, though, the new policy still leaves open the possibility that we might initiate a nuclear exchange. It all depends on whether the target country has nukes of its own and whether it’s in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Let’s explore the nuance.
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 non-nuclear 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…
White House officials said that the new strategy will leave open the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reaches a level that makes 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 America’s most potent deterrent, and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Unless I’ve misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000 people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold.
The idea here, of course, is deterrence — comply with the NPT and you have nothing to fear — but (a) no one, least of all Iran, thinks Barack Obama’s going to use nuclear weapons against targets inside a non-nuclear state whether it’s following the NPT or not, and (b) everyone, including Iran, understands that a devastating attack on the U.S. by whatever means will create such unbearable pressure on the president to retaliate that these rules will be revisited instantly. It’s the nuclear equivalent of his interrogation protocol, essentially. America does not and will not torture captured terrorists as a matter of national policy — but if the CIA really, truly believed that a bomb was about to go off somewhere, don’t be surprised to see that policy politely ignored, to great public acclaim for Obama afterwards for having done what he needed to do to try to get the information.
All this is, really, is a symbolic gesture of good faith to put pressure on Russia and China to reduce their own stockpiles. Why we think they can be trusted to do that, especially when the United States is handing them a tactical advantage by reducing its own stockpiles unilaterally, is beyond me. But then it’s also beyond me why Obama would suspend development on any new forms of nuclear weapons, which the new policy also demands. New weapons, I assume, would be smaller and more precise, in the bunker-buster mold; there’s certainly no pressing need for state-of-the-art 100-megaton monsters when the chief nuclear threat at the moment comes from small non-state groups like Al Qaeda.
Exit question one: In limiting the nuclear deterrent to nuclear weapons (and, in certain cases, biological attacks) instead of WMD generally, doesn’t this create an incentive to focus on developing bio and chemical weapons? In most cases those are less dangerous than nukes, but nukes are also harder to develop and more easy to monitor. Do we really want tomorrow’s A.Q. Khans focusing on smallpox instead? Exit question two: If the point here is to raise the taboo on using nuclear weapons, doesn’t that actually make them more enticing for jihadi fanatics?

BlowbackNote from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Un-F***ing-believable – Obama Publicly Rules Out Use of Nukes in Response To Chemical, Biological or Crippling Cyber Attack « A Conservative Shemale
Obama’s plan for “revamping” U.S. nuclear policy – No nukes even in self-defense! : Fire Andrea Mitchell!
New Obama Policy: No Nukes Even for Self-Defense | The American Pundit
Hyscience
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2

Well,I guess this won`t happen under Obama`s watch!!
=========================================================
Last update – 08:09 18/03/2007
U.S., IDF hold joint exercise on response to nuclear
attack
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
—————————————-

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/838752.html

canopfor on April 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM

“What are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?!”

– Frost

*ironically, Frost would meet his end with many of his mates – after they had just been ordered to disarm themselves. Funny how the aliens didn’t care that their nest was located right under the primary heat exchangers…*

catmman on April 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Remember this???

IrishTexan on April 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM

Arrgh. What happened to the link…………

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtwRcZXrz0k

IrishTexan on April 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM

It’s a good thing Obama doesn’t stop by here to answer exit questions.

We’d be here all night.

This must be one of those things that we just don’t understand because of all the misinformation and misapprehension.

SlaveDog on April 5, 2010 at 10:43 PM

“What are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?!”

– Frost

*ironically, Frost would meet his end with many of his mates – after they had just been ordered to disarm themselves. Funny how the aliens didn’t care that their nest was located right under the primary heat exchangers…*

catmman on April 5, 2010 at 10:42 PM
Long as racial, ethnic, sexist, or homophobic terms aren’t available. You know–limiting the verbal ‘nuclear option’.

Liam on April 5, 2010 at 10:44 PM

canopfor on April 5, 2010 at 10:41 PM
good times….good times…

cmsinaz on April 5, 2010 at 10:44 PM

Hasn’t been said in a while….FUBO.

ElectricPhase on April 5, 2010 at 10:45 PM

While Chairman ObaMao may be patting himself on the back as he visualizes “whirled peas,” I see a number of hostile nations building their arms and flexing their muscles.

onlineanalyst on April 5, 2010 at 10:46 PM

Hans Brix!

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 5, 2010 at 10:36 PM

Dr.Cwac.Cwac: Yup,*sigh*,don`t know whether to laugh or

God loves his children.
He is looking over and protecting our nation.
As long as we ask His mercy, we will receive it.

carbon_footprint on April 5, 2010 at 10:49 PM
I do believe that God loves his children, but I do believe that he has given us free will. Unfortunately, that free will led to the election of Barack Obama.

mobydutch on April 5, 2010 at 11:14 PM