Obama Unveils New Nuclear Doctrine

Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that under Obama's new 'Nuclear Posture Review,' released today, the US will foreswear the use of the nuclear weapons against nonnuclear countries, in contrast to previous administrations, which indicated they might use nuclear arms against nonnuclear states in retaliation for a biological or chemical attack. But the new policy included a major caveat: The countries must be in compliance with their nonproliferation obligations under international treaties. The problem for Iran and North Korea is that the pledge does not cover them because the US regards them as in non-compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The new policy will also describe the purpose of US weapons as being fundamentally for deterrence. Some Democratic legislators had urged Obama to go further and declare that the United States would not use nuclear weapons first in a conflict, but officials worried that such a change could unnerve allies protected by the US nuclear 'umbrella.' The president of the Ploughshares Fund said of the new stance, 'It orients US policy towards dramatically fewer weapons and greatly reduced roles.'"

Comments

Good publicity move

[pwnies]

...but to be honest it really doesn't limit the options of available targets. If we want to nuke someone, you'd best be sure we'll find a way to show that they're in "non-compliance".

Re:Good publicity move

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear weapons have turned into something of a penis waving contest.

Hence why we need more women in leadership. Just think what they'd wave.

Re:Good publicity move

[khallow]

It's like a Mexican standoff with RPGs at point blank range. Nobody in their right mind is going to shoot so the only sane option is to put them fuck down, but mankind isn't mature enough for this, so everyone wants to keep pointing them and making threats because it makes them feel powerful, and again, because of stupidity, people take the threat seriously.

Spoken like someone who doesn't have a clue about game theory. You know what's worse than a Mexican standoff with RPGs? One person with a RPG and no repercussions for its use.

To be blunt, there's millennia of history where groups take what they want by force of arms. They don't invade a weaker country because it makes them feel powerful. They do it because they are more powerful. As long as you have groups with differ levels of power, you're going to have situations where in the absence of repercussions, it'll be convenient for the stronger group to take by force from the weaker group. Nuclear weapons provide consequences for a variety of really nasty and brutal nation-level actions.

As long as you're dwelling on the psychology of force and reprisal, you're going to miss the fundamental thing, cost versus benefit. As long as war has a big payout for its cost (for the perpetrators, not the masses), it'll continue to occur, no matter how "mature" the involved parties are.

Re:Heres the thing...

[Wyatt Earp]

The US is crazy dynamite monkey.

Re:Good and Bad

[MozeeToby]

The problem with putting conventional warheads on an ICBM is that no one would know for sure that it isn't a nuke until much too late. Technologically, it's possible to launch a missile from the continental US and have it hit a specific house halfway around the world within 3 hours. But if the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans/Iranians think you've just launched a nuke against someone, things could get very dicey, very fast.

Cold war is over!

[LostCluster]

The Mutually Assured Destruction plans of the Cold War are outdated... we're no longer fighting states with a homeland, we're fighting a mobile group that will go wherever lawlessness is tolerated and don't care what happens to innocents around them. Scorched Earth isn't the idea, it's really just a question of law enforcement. Gotta use different tactics for a different enemy.

Re:Weak on National Defense

[AuMatar]

Yes, because Venezuela is the country we need to worry about. Riiiiiiight.

First off, these pronouncements aren't worth the paper they're written on- they can be changed at a whim.

Secondly, this is just an announcement to the world of the administration's view of nuclear weapons. Which is unchanged in reality from our stance since the Russians got the bomb. We aren't going to start a nuclear war because someone could retaliate, and noone would win that fight. Not to mention the morality of indisciminately slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent non-combatants.

So don't worry- you're no safer or less safe than you were 12 hours ago. If you feel differently I suggest you consult the nearest psychiatrist about your paranoia.

Re:Heres the thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia and possibly China are the only countries that could blow America to oblivion and it wouldn't do them much good. Apart from anything else, the US could comfortably scrap 1000 nuclear weapons and still have enough to reduce any and all aggressors to dust. Obama's moves on weapons reduction just take America on it's first steps away from Strangelove country. There's still a hell of a long way to go before you need to start worrying about what the other monkeys are doing*.

*(but, FYI, it rhymes with plaster slating)

Re:Pledge does cover Iran...

[Trepidity]

Signatories to the NPT are required to sign a "safeguards agreement" with the IAEA, which lays out how the IAEA will monitor the country's compliance with the NPT. Iran did so, and then in 2005 the IAEA, after several warnings, concluded that Iran was not in compliance with its safeguards agreement.

According to the Chairman of IAEA Standing Advisory Group on Safeguards Implementation, this is in effect a declaration of NPT violation:

Formally IAEA Board of Governors (BOG) decisions concern compliance with safeguards agreements, rather than the NPT as such, but in practical terms non-compliance with a safeguards agreement constitutes non-compliance with the NPT.

Iran was then referred to the UN Security Council for the violation, as provided for in the NPT. Incidentally, as a signatory of the UN Charter, Iran also agrees to abide by all decisions of the UN Security Council. Security Council resolution 1696 demanded that Iran halt its uranium enrichment program; resolutions 1737 and 1747 have followed up and imposed sanctions for noncompliance (the two follow-up resolutions passed unanimously). Iran has so far violated all three resolutions.