iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Nuclear Policy Overhaul: Limits Use Of Nukes, Renounces Development Of New Ones

ROBERT BURNS and ANNE FLAHERTY   04/ 6/10 11:24 PM ET   AP

Obama Nuclear Weapons

WASHINGTON — Rewriting America's nuclear strategy, the White House on Tuesday announced a fundamental shift that calls the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists a worse threat than the nuclear Armageddon feared during the Cold War.

The Obama administration is suddenly moving on multiple fronts with a goal of limiting the threat of a catastrophic international conflict, although it's not yet clear how far and how fast the rest of the world is ready to follow.

In releasing the results of an in-depth nuclear strategy review, President Barack Obama said his administration would narrow the circumstances in which the U.S. might launch a nuclear strike, that it would forgo the development of new nuclear warheads and would seek even deeper reductions in American and Russian arsenals.

His defense secretary, Robert Gates, said the focus would now be on terror groups such as al-Qaida as well as North Korea's nuclear buildup and Iran's nuclear ambitions.

"For the first time, preventing nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is now at the top of America's nuclear agenda," Obama said, distancing his administration from the decades-long U.S. focus on arms competition with Russia and on the threat posed by nuclear missiles on hair-trigger alert.

"The greatest threat to U.S. and global security is no longer a nuclear exchange between nations, but nuclear terrorism by violent extremists and nuclear proliferation to an increasing number of states," he said, spelling out the core theme of the new strategy.

Obama's announcement set the stage for his trip to Prague Thursday to sign a new arms reduction agreement with Russia. And it precedes a gathering in Washington next Monday of government leaders from more than 40 countries to discuss improving safeguards against terrorists acquiring nuclear bombs.

In May, the White House will once again help lead the call for disarmament at the United Nations in New York during an international conference on strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congressional Democrats hailed Tuesday's announcement, but some Republicans said it could weaken the nation's defense.

Rep. Buck McKeon of California, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the policy change could carry "clear consequences" for security and he was troubled by "some of the language and perceived signals imbedded" in the policy.

Two leading Senate voices on nuclear strategy, Arizona Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl, criticized the Obama policy's restrictions on using nuclear arms to retaliate against a chemical or biological attack.

"The Obama Administration must clarify that we will take no option off the table to deter attacks against the American people and our allies," the senators said in a joint statement.

From the start of his term in office, Obama has put halting the spread of atomic arms near the top of his defense priorities. But during his first year he failed to achieve a significant breakthrough on arguably the two biggest threats: Iran and North Korea.

Obama's current push for arms control initiatives is designed to strengthen international support for strengthened nonproliferation efforts.

"Given al-Qaida's continued quest for nuclear weapons, Iran's ongoing nuclear efforts and North Korea's proliferation, this focus is appropriate and, indeed, an essential change from previous" policy, Gates said.

In presenting the results of the administration's policy review, Gates said a central aim was to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. defense strategy.

That will include removing some of the intentional ambiguity about the circumstances under which the U.S. would launch a nuclear strike, Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

"If a non-nuclear weapons state is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its obligations, the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it," Gates said. If, however, such a state were to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. or its allies, "it would face the prospect of a devastating conventional," or non-nuclear, military response.

That is not a major departure from the policy of past administrations, but it is slightly more forthright about which potential aggressors might fear a nuclear strike, and which might not.

"This is not a breakthrough; it's a common-sense refinement" of U.S. policy, said Daryl Kimball, president of the Arms Control Association.

Gates said Iran and North Korea in particular should view the new U.S. policy as a strong message about their behavior.

"If you're not going to play by the rules, if you're going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you," he said.

The major review of nuclear policy was the first since 2001 and only the third since the end of the Cold War. The version produced in December 2001 came just three months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

With the threat of terrorism in mind, Gates said the U.S. is not closing the door to the nuclear option.

"Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons," the defense chief said.

Some private nuclear weapons experts said Obama should have gone further to reduce reliance on U.S. nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

"There's no real indication of the deep shifts in thinking necessary to begin giving up the nuclear fix," said Paul Ingram, executive director of the British American Security Information Council.

U.S. allies, however, welcomed the outcome.

"The right signal at the right time," said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.

Sharon Squassoni, a nonproliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the administration's overall approach to nuclear policy, as spelled out by Obama and Gates, is clearer than those of previous administrations.

The reworked policy, she said, is a "significant but not radical departure."

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, appearing at the Pentagon news conference with Gates, said Obama has instructed his national security team to pursue another round of arms reduction talks with Russia, to follow up on the recently concluded replacement for the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START agreement.

The aim would be to conduct wider talks to include for the first time short-range U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons as well as weapons held in reserve or in storage.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,807
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:35 AM on 04/07/2010
To imagine that nuclear arms can possibly be eliminated once they have existed is naive beyond measure. It may be unfortunate but that will never happen. They are here, they are here to stay and the best we can hope for is a sort of Mexican stand-off. Surrender is not an option here. Weakness is not an option, there is no security in weakness, only in strength can we achieve any security and safety.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:12 AM on 04/07/2010
Mr. Obama worked on reducing Nuclear Arms when he was in Congress. He talked about it all during the Campaign for President. He is keeping another PROMISE, one of 102 that he has kept ! Not bad for a guy with no experience", is it? Now the Barracudas from across the isle can start the Hate Rhetoric. The stuff about , how weak he is making the States look, putting America in danger, bla bla bla bla . How terribly tiresome !
jerryatthebeach
Till Death Do You Barrier Island...
09:00 PM on 04/06/2010
I wish President Reagan was alive and in office right now...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MaybeMilo
"You can't fight in here. This is the War room!"
10:15 PM on 04/06/2010
You miss his crimes, huh?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ckfan
Conduct business honestly; spend money wisely
10:48 PM on 04/06/2010
And using a teleprompter, no doubt!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
05:48 PM on 04/06/2010
Republican politicians.

The silence on this issue is deafening.
photo
rbchilds
In times of deceit, the truth will set you free
07:20 PM on 04/06/2010
When Ike left office the US had just over 200 nukes, when LBJ left office the US had over 2000 with an unknown amount of MIRVs. It was Truman's policy of containment that caused the Cold War and the race to increased nuclear arsenals.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:03 PM on 04/06/2010
Something being overlooked, but should not be, is the amount of depleted uranium weapons we have been using, and continue to use. I am glad we are moving towards a more sane nuclear weapons policy, but this sanity should be extended to ending our use of depleted uranium weapons. The harm it causes to the innocent, including our own soldiers, is too great.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mensch99
05:29 PM on 04/06/2010
Yet another reason the US is viewed as a rogue nation.
12:46 PM on 04/07/2010
By who?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keepemhonest
04:59 PM on 04/06/2010
HAHAHA Teabaggers are SO ignorant ... they think nukes will deter turrurists ... HAHAHAHA

We've had nukes since 1954 -
Did having nukes deter 9/11?
Did having nukes deter Cuban missile?
How about Bay of Pigs?
Did having nukes deter North Vietnam?
Did having nukes deter Libya Conflict?
Did having nukes deter Kuwait invasion?
Did having nukes deter Granada?
Did having nukes deter any conflict we've been involved in since 1945

ANSWER: NO!!!! NOT ONE BIT!!!!

Not ONE of you teabaggers complained when Reagan signed Treaties that would ELIMINATE nukes and DISMANTLE MISSILE DEFENSE IN EUROPE:
1) INF Treaty - DISMANTLED missile defense in Europe

2.) START I Treaty - eliminate nukes in the world.

Hey - how many Teabaggers accused Reagan of waving a white flag when those TWO TREATIES were signed for the whole world to see?

Obama is saying & doing the same thing Reagan did - did YOU complain when Reagan did those things?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keepemhonest
05:00 PM on 04/06/2010
typo above ... USA has had nukes since 1945
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
05:13 PM on 04/06/2010
And so you left out the Korean War.

Interesting note of history. MacArthur wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War, one of the reasons he was removed from command by Truman and the use of nuclear weapons has to be approved by the President of the United States.

Barry Goldwater actually ran on a campaign that we should use tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam in 1964. He was defeated in a landslide by LBJ. Here's the "Daisy Ad" from that campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-MEdAPhYA&feature=related
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
celere
Get corporations OUT of government
05:01 PM on 04/06/2010
Baggers don't think.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:41 PM on 04/06/2010
This amounts to standing on top of the chicken coop and waving a white flag while the wolves on the surrounding hills sharpen their fangs and wink at one another. This is what happens when history's most important lessons are replaced by ideology and naivete.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keepemhonest
04:49 PM on 04/06/2010
Did YOU say that when Reagan showed HIS world HIS poker hand by signing TWO Treaties with Russia?

Did you say Reagan waved a white flag when Reagan DISMANTLED missile defense in Europe for the WHOLE WORLD TO SEE.

Reagan signed TWO Treaties:
1) INF Treaty - DISMANTLED missile defense in Europe

2.) START I Treaty - eliminate nukes in the world.

Did YOU accuse Reagan of waving a white flag when those TWO TREATIES were signed for the whole world to see?

Obama is saying & doing the same thing Reagan did - did YOU complain when Reagan did those things?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Icantbelieveher
I'm for the separation of church and hate!
12:13 AM on 04/07/2010
It's not about the white flag -- it's about the white man! Anyone knows that a black democrat can't do the same thing as a white republican and have it be considered good!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:22 AM on 04/07/2010
Reagan made a token gesture by reducing his arsenal but he didn't throw up his hands in surrender. To over-simplify for your benefit, it could be compared to an armed homeowner with ten loaded guns in his house who says he will eliminate one of those guns but will still use one of the other nine to blow the head off of anyone who sets foot in his house while Obama is saying that he has ten loaded guns in his house but he won't use them under any circumstance so anyone can come on in and kill his dog, murder his kids, and rape his wife knowing he won't have the guts to push the button.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
celere
Get corporations OUT of government
04:56 PM on 04/06/2010
Oh grow up.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ckfan
Conduct business honestly; spend money wisely
10:53 PM on 04/06/2010
LOL.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mensch99
04:30 PM on 04/06/2010
Do people here know that the US is looked at by "friendly" countries as a "rogue nation" exactly because of the policies Obama is changing?
Wake up America!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:16 AM on 04/07/2010
Well it's just that since MCcain is no longer, or never has been, a MAVERICk, president Obama is !! America needs it's Mavericks, c'mon ! Love you President Obama !!!!!!
01:00 PM on 04/07/2010
I keep hearing that, but I can't find any proof.
04:09 PM on 04/06/2010
Russia can opt out of treaty...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_us_nuclear
photo
niko73
Dem belly full but we hungry
03:53 PM on 04/06/2010
The right’s attacks on this strategy tweak are ludicrous. The argument that we’re losing a deterrent and looking weak is baseless.

1) Nukes might have been a deterrent in the 1950’s but now we have many more weapons that can level cities just as easily. With our huge military and all its massive weapons, we still have a deterrent. Which nation would be foolish enough to commit suicide?

2) Nations never did think we would nuke them if they misbehaved. Do these critics actually think that some countries were afraid of us using nuclear weapons on them? They know this would be the absolute last thing we would do. They know the US isn’t going to go dropping nukes on bad guys willy-nilly. All Obama did was state the obvious. Nothing has changed in the perceptions of other countries.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
celere
Get corporations OUT of government
04:13 PM on 04/06/2010
The Right never got out of the 1950s.

They hated the 1960s so much that they had to go back.

So it's Cold War! forever, for them.

And a Pinko under every bed.

Let's shed a tear for the Right. May they RIP.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Mensch99
04:38 PM on 04/06/2010
Good points.
However, our long-standing refusal to "state the obvoius" causes concern among our allies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:52 PM on 04/06/2010
Here is my attempt at RW wharrgarbl...

Spending is bad. Healthcare will bankrupt the country!

Wait...keep spending on nukes we'll never need or use! That is a good use of our taxes, which are bad. Helping your countrymen is bad. Nukes are good.

Socialism!
photo
Foxxy
Trust but verify
03:50 PM on 04/06/2010
Demonstrates what a naive?, reckless? calculating? ( not sure yet) man we have in the white house. This move has great potential to harm the security of our citizens and others around the world. Despite wishfull thinking, unilateral disarmament has historically not worked and will not work even for the great Obama.....not sure if he really cares?????

Jimmy Carter on steroids.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:55 PM on 04/06/2010
We could only hope he is as good at making policy as Carter. Executing, I'd prefer someone a little tougher on the opposition so those good policies would be enacted without being watered down by RW garbage.
photo
Foxxy
Trust but verify
04:01 PM on 04/06/2010
We're still dealing with the destructive legacy of Carter and his appeasement of all the world's two bit dictators and repressive totalitarian regimes.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SIMPLICIMUSS
Kampf gegen Dummheit !
09:08 PM on 04/06/2010
So... exactly what polciesdid Carter espouse ?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:56 PM on 04/06/2010
We have nuclear subs that can destroy Russia and China. We have conventional weapons that can level most other nations. What else does Puppy need to sleep at night ?
04:19 PM on 04/06/2010
When was the last time we used our firepower? Sorry sir, but we can't "level most other nations", when our own soldiers are being charged with war crimes during war because of the rules of engagement. It is like having a shiny new Bentley in the garage, and all you do is shine it once per week, but don't drive it. What good is advanced weaponry if we are too squeamish to use it?
03:48 PM on 04/06/2010
Save a few for Pakistan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Elbrando
The dream shall never die - Ted Kennedy
03:34 PM on 04/06/2010
Seems worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize to me. Who else has managed to get rid of thousands of nuclear weapons?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keepemhonest
04:51 PM on 04/06/2010
Reagan did .. the teabaggers didn't say a word about Reagan when he did it ... guess it pays to be white?
photo
Foxxy
Trust but verify
09:00 PM on 04/06/2010
Reagan, when it really meant something, and GWBush. This Obama thing is a joke. He's trying to be a transitional President like Reagan but Reagan had more ability in his pinky than Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Icantbelieveher
I'm for the separation of church and hate!
12:10 AM on 04/07/2010
Because Reagan was white?
03:22 PM on 04/06/2010
Guess he will take a "bow" on that one too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
celere
Get corporations OUT of government
03:23 PM on 04/06/2010
Teamommy, a strong man with good manners never goes out of style.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ralph Boyd
Look, . . right behind you!
03:30 PM on 04/06/2010
Don't see many at Tea Party rallies.
03:31 PM on 04/06/2010
keep on dreamin in Utopia
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
keepemhonest
04:52 PM on 04/06/2010
teabaggermom

He should ... he should take a bow ... just as Reagan did when HE signed TWO Treaties:
1) INF Treaty - DISMANTLED missile defense in Europe

2.) START I Treaty - eliminate nukes in the world.

Did YOU accuse Reagan of waving a white flag when those TWO TREATIES were signed for the whole world to see?

Obama is saying & doing the same thing Reagan did - did YOU complain when Reagan did those things?