Nuclear Deterrence?

There are now rules on when the US may or may not use nuclear weapons. Rather than allow the uncertainty to deter enemies, we have spelled out when nukes are appropriate. As it turns out, a chemical or biological attack would not call for a nuclear response, except in the case of a country that is not current on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So, you better watch yourselves North Korea and Iran! We reserve the right to nuke you. However, if Jihadistan isn't proliferating nukes, we will refrain from a nuclear response as long as attacks are limited to biological or chemical or just plain conventional.

This policy is preposterous. The whole point of a nuclear deterrence is to deter aggression. One does not then explain what sort of aggression is to be covered. Imagine Teddy Roosevelt walking down the street with his big stick. Who wants to mess with Teddy and risk being cracked on the head with the stick? Nobody. Well, now let's suppose that Teddy says he won't use the stick if someone kicks him in the shin. Do you think that will result in Teddy being kicked in the shin more or less often?

Western Europe was protected from Soviet tanks thanks to the potential nuclear response by the United States. The new policy declares that, provided the Soviets refrained from using nukes and were not proliferating, their tanks could roll across Europe and the US response would be limited to conventional weapons. That is a gamble the Soviets were much more likely to risk.

Obama has stated his desire to have a nuclear-free world. This is so painfully unrealistic that it is scary that the leader of the free world would express it. Pacifism is great until one warmonger shows up to enslave the pacifists.

If you want peace, prepare for war.