The U.S. military appears to believe it can somehow prevail in a nuclear war, according to a Pentagon document that was briefly made public, and has plans for using atomic weapons in \u0022small and limited\u0022 capacities in order to create \u0022strategic stability\u0022 for itself in the world.The document,\u0026nbsp;Nuclear Operations (pdf), describes the current political and military environment and the challenges faced by the Pentagon in strategizing how to most effectively deploy nuclear weapons in war. It was first reported on by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which downloaded and released the document on June 19.The Pentagon published the document on June 11 and removed it earlier this week. In a statement to\u0026nbsp;The Guardian, a Defense Department official said the document was made private \u0022because it was determined that this publication, as is with other joint staff publications, should be for official use only.\u0022\u0022Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,\u0022 the document reads. \u0022Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.\u0022That passage was referred to as \u0022Strangelovian\u0022 by FAS government secrecy project director Steven Aftergood. It\u0026#039;s an appropriate descriptor given the report\u0026#039;s third chapter, \u0022Planning and Targeting,\u0022 opens with a quote from\u0026nbsp;cold war theorist Herman Kahn:My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.Kahn was an inspiration for the title character in Stanley Kubrick\u0026#039;s classic film\u0026nbsp;Dr. Strangelove.\u0026nbsp;In comment to\u0026nbsp;The Guardian, Aftergood said that the document is \u0022unsettling\u0022 in its approach to nuclear weapons because the language of the report indicates the Pentagon is treating nuclear weapons as an offensive tactical advantage, not simply as a deterrent.\u0026nbsp;\u0022That kind of thinking itself can be hazardous,\u0022 said Aftergood. \u0022It can make that sort of eventuality more likely instead of deterring it.\u0022FAS\u0026#039;s publication of the Pentagon document comes just days after the\u0026nbsp;Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) released a report (pdf) on the state of military armaments and weaponry across the world. SIPRI found that \u0022despite an overall decrease in the number of nuclear warheads in 2018, all nuclear weapon-possessing states continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals,\u0022 making nuclear conflict more likely than than the year before.\u0026nbsp;\u0022We are no longer in the classic strategy of deterrence by the accumulation of nuclear warheads,\u0022 SIPRI fellow\u0026nbsp;Hans M. Kristensen told\u0026nbsp;Euronews.\u0026nbsp;In his comments to the continental news outlet,\u0026nbsp;Kristensen ticked off a number of threats to world peace presented by nuclear weapons:The US withdrawal from the Middle East Non-Proliferation Treaty and the new plans for the renewal of the nuclear arsenal that President Donald Trump has brought to Congress, as well as the conflict between Washington and Iran, are mentioned as other elements of instability in the global balance, prompting Kristensen to believe that the risk of a potential nuclear conflict has increased.In remarks to The Guardian,\u0026nbsp;Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation senior policy director Alexandra Bell said the document\u0026#039;s publication was \u0022both tone-deaf and disorganized\u0022 and that the current climate of tension between the U.S. and Iran made the release of the report potentially dangerous and destabilizing.\u0022Posting a document about nuclear operations and then promptly deleting it shows a lack of messaging discipline and a lack of strategy,\u0022 said Bell. \u0022Further, at a time of rising nuclear tensions, casually postulating about the potential upsides of a nuclear attack is obtuse in the extreme.\u0022In a tweet,\u0026nbsp;GrayZone founder and journalist Max Blumenthal sarcastically reflected on what the document revealed about U.S. foreign policy.\u0022Very reassuring that the Pentagon thinks it could win a nuclear war,\u0022 Blumenthal wrote.