Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Considers New US Nuclear Strategy: Report
WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama is making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States that will permanently reduce the US nuclear arsenal by thousands of weapons, The New York Times reported Monday.
File photo of the USS Newport News submarine departing Souda Bay harbour in Greece. US President Barack Obama is making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States that will permanently reduce the US nuclear arsenal by thousands of weapons, The New York Times reported Monday. (AFP/US Navy/Ho/File/Paul Farley) But citing unnamed senior presidential aides, the newspaper said the administration had rejected proposals that the United States declare it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Obama's new strategy -- which would cancel or reverse several initiatives undertaken by the administration of former president George W. Bush -- will be contained in a nearly completed document called the Nuclear Posture Review, the report said.
Aides said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will present Obama with several options on Monday.
Obama's critics argue that his embrace of a new movement to eliminate nuclear weapons around the world is naive and dangerous, especially at a time of new nuclear threats, particularly from Iran and North Korea, the paper said.
But many of his supporters fear that over the past year he has moved too cautiously, and worry that he will retain the existing US policy by leaving open the possibility that the United States might use nuclear weapons in response to a biological or chemical attack, perhaps against a nation that does not possess a nuclear arsenal, the paper noted.
That is one of the central debates Obama must resolve in the next few weeks, according to his aides.
Many elements of the new strategy have already been completed. As described by senior administration and military officials, the strategy commits the United States to developing no new nuclear weapons, including the nuclear bunker-busters advocated by the Bush administration, The Times said.
Obama has already announced that he will spend billions of dollars more on updating America's weapons laboratories to assure the reliability of what he intends to be a much smaller arsenal, the paper recalled.
Other officials say that in back-channel discussions with allies, the administration has also been quietly broaching the question of whether to withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe, where they provide more political reassurance than actual defense, The Times said.
Those weapons are now believed to be in Germany, Italy, Belgium, Turkey and the Netherlands.
At the same time, the new document will steer the United States toward more non-nuclear defenses, according to the report. It relies more heavily on missile defense, much of it arrayed within striking distance of the Gulf, focused on the emerging threat from Iran.
Obama?s recently published Quadrennial Defense Review also includes support for a new class of non-nuclear weapons, called "Prompt Global Strike," that could be fired from the United States and hit a target anywhere in less than an hour, The Times said.
The idea would be to give the president a non-nuclear option for, say, a large strike on the leadership of Al-Qaeda in the mountains of Pakistan, or a pre-emptive attack on an impending missile launch from North Korea, the report pointed out.
But under Obama's strategy, the missiles would be based at new sites around the United States that might even be open to inspection, so that Russia and China would know that a missile launched from those sites was not nuclear, The Times said.
- Posted in



8 Comments so far
Show AllThe USA ought to cut its nuke arsenal to 1000 warheads, immediately; then challenge the rest of the world to proportionally cut their arsenals likewise.
But, knowing Mr. Obamageddon this is a head fake. Somehow he will increase the number and quality of warheads and call it disarmament.
When it Happens we will believe it.
Currently, the Obama administration is ringing Russia with Anti Missile weapons systems. Coventional theory has it that in order to maintain the abilility to maintain the retaliatory capacity that would ensure the "Other Side" does not launch a first strike , Russia would have to INCREASE its stockpiles of Nuclear Warheads in order to overwhelm intercept capability.
In other words Obamas words are hollow. He wants Russia and China to disarm and then will have the capability to launch his first strike while counting on the ring of interceptor systems to ensure Russia and China can not respond.
Obama can not be trusted. You can not on one hand ramp up Military spending to unprecedented levels, try to expand Nato to East European nations, install missiles bases and Military bases the world over and claim you are seeking peace.
Were I Russia or China, I would refuse any initiative to cut my stockpiles of Nuclear weapons unless the USA cut conventional Military spending, pulled bases out of East Europe, disbanded Nato and removed those anti-missile bases they have been installing the world over.
To be BLUNT.
If the USA was the only nation with Nuclear strike capabilities they would READILY (and eagerly) use it.
GwNorth:
Excellent post.
It couldn't have been said any better!
Very good points. Of course, the SDI is just a boondoggle to begin with. There is no way that even if the states were able to ring the Russians and Chinese with enough anti missile systems to outnumber their missiles by a factor of 100:1 they'd still not have enough of the anti missile systems to shoot down even a fraction of the possible nukes.
The Russians wouldn't even have to build more nukes, just build decoys and make sure they launched them first. A follow up strike with the main nukes would be guaranteed to land in the states in spite of all the money shoveled into Reagan's money pit.
It's a shame that Obama is so shallow. He's still better than Mcsame would have been, but at this point that can be called damning with very faint praise.
How's about a hundred or less (enough to DESTROY civilization); and Then (one way or another) NONE!
One of the intro lines to the Times article reads:
"His critics argue that his embrace of a new movement to eliminate nuclear weapons around the world is naïve and dangerous, especially at a time of new nuclear threats, particularly from Iran and North Korea."
What critics are these? Why does the Times even mention such criticism? It's a fare guess that it is Bill Kristol or some other such weak minded neocon. We have thousands of nukes. The North Koreans have a couple of kiloton devices that probably can't be deliver except by truck (FedEx anyone). The Iranians have nothing, and even if they have intentions to build one, it still probably would take years. We have tens of thousands of thermonukes that we can deliver anywhere. The whole idea of a correlation between the US nuke arsenal and Iran or North Korea is absurd.
Obama betrayed his voters by expanding the war in Afghanistan rather than ending it, and also by giving in to the Nuclear Industry by OKing money for the new Georgia nuke. Maybe this time he will get it right and stand up to the Mil-Industrial boys and actually drastically reduce our arsenal of nukes. Start by getting them out of the submarines, then out of other countries. I would sleep much easier if he did that. The whole world could sleep more peacefully. I know, I'm a dreamer.But I'm not the only one.