Skip to comments.US nuclear doctrine 'could go further'
Posted on 04/06/2010 10:42:56 PM PDT by myknowledge
A top Australian nuclear disarmament diplomat has welcomed the new United States doctrine limiting the potential use of its nuclear weapons, but says it could have gone further.
The US says it will only use atomic weapons in "extreme circumstances", will not attack non-nuclear states and has pledged that no new nuclear weapons will be developed.
The former Australian foreign minister and co-chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Gareth Evans, says the new US doctrine takes a step in the right direction by ending a long-standing policy of ambiguity and states clear limits to US nuclear weapons use.
But Professor Evans says the doctrine would have been better if it declared that US nuclear weapons existed only to deter their use by others.
"The US stopped short of that unhappily in this agreement, whereas it would have been a big step forward if it had gone the extra mile," he said.
"But that said, we do have in president (Barack) Obama, and in the shape and the flavour and most of the content of this latest statement, a quite different approach to these issues than we've seen in the past."
Professor Evans says the new US policy is one of several important steps aimed at eventually eliminating the world's 23,000 nuclear weapons.
"I think it's very positive, particularly when you look at it in the context of what's also happening in the next week - the signing of the US-Russia bilateral agreement and the Nuclear Security Summit," he said.
Professor Evans says countries like China need to be more transparent about their nuclear arsenal.
"It's one thing for China to say it has embraced a no first use doctrine, which is very important. It's one thing for China to say that it's very committed to a nuclear weapon-free world," he said.
"But who can get into any kind of serious dialogue with the Chinese when they won't acknowledge the number of weapons they have or the nature of their deployment?"
Message for Iran
It is the first time a US administration has held an unclassified review of its nuclear posture and is in keeping with Mr Obama's promise to move towards a world without nuclear weapons.
US defence secretary Robert Gates says the doctrine supports countries in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
But he says it sends a message to countries such as Iran and North Korea, who are not in compliance.
"If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is ... 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," Mr Gates said.
New doctrine: the US says it will only use atomic weapons in "extreme circumstances"
Actually, Obama's new nuclear policy may stipulate no use of nukes at all, not even if the whole of the United States was nuked off the face of the earth (Revelation 18???).
Coming soon to a planet near you ... IMH(but well studied)O.
Yeah, Right. Further insanity. (I wasn't sure it was possible)
So, we’re not going to nuke Malawi or Nepal, no matter what they do to us?
We already knew that.
What’s new? Nothing.
Oh, there is one thing — brocko is going to telegraph all our moves so the terrorists and all real and potential enemies will know that they can do whatever they want and all we’ll do is get a roomful of lawyers together to work up a statement about it.
When they no longer fear us, they will try us.
We will soon need those W88’s with the made in Texas label.
Stupid Traitor Obozo.
Exactly. How much “further” does this arrogant prick want? I dont see anything “further’ than “nuke us and we wont nuke you back...would you like a flower?” syndrome.
And dangerous globalist elite.
Our reserving the right of first use during the Cold War was to deter the Soviets from using their overwhelming conventional superiority in Europe.
Since that superiority no longer exists and the Russian army is not presently capable of launching an invasion of Western Europe, I’m having difficulty thinking of a scenario in which first use of nukes would be appropriate.
It's only fair to point out that Reagan was a huge proponent of getting rid of all nukes, even shocking the Russkies and his own administration by proposing it to Gorby as a goal.
So stupid. Why make these rules in the first place? The only nations that want a nuclear war with us are suicidal states like Iran and North Korea!
Obama’s defense strategy in the event of a thermonuclear attack is to mobilize an emergency drum circle and then televise it to the enemy.
He won’t be happy until 100 million Americans lie dead. This rodent just wants us dead. The attack will happen when he is vacationing on an island somewhere.
Also, we used the threat of nukes to keep Saddam from using chemical/nerve gas on our troops during Gulf War I.
Imagine I put a sign in my front yard: “The owner of this house is heavily armed, but he has no intention of ever using said weapons. Instead, he hopes would-be intruders are intimidated by the very fact that he’s heavily armed.”
Yeah, that’ll keep the robbers away.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled US nuclear doctrine ‘could go further’, Constitutionalist Conservative wrote:
Imagine I put a sign in my front yard: The owner of this house is heavily armed, but he has no intention of ever using said weapons. Instead, he hopes would-be intruders are intimidated by the very fact that hes heavily armed.
Yeah, thatll keep the robbers away.
It’s going to be even worse when the sign reads:
“The owner of this house is no longer heavily armed and will respond to any would be intruder that his intentions are not suitable in a benighted Euro-socialist society.”