[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"Obama is rolling back the Bush administration's more hawkish policy set out
in its 2002 review threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt or
respond to chemical or biological attack, even from non-nuclear countries.

An exception under Obama's plan would allow an option of reconsidering the
use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack if there is reason to
believe the United States were vulnerable to a devastating attack."

So in Obama's playbook Israel cannot deter Arab chemical attacks with nukes?

And in Obama's playbook, Israel can only deter "devastating" Arab
biological attacks - but biological attacks that might not be "devastating"
could not be deterred by the threat of a nuclear response? Is it
"devastating" to take out Ashdod? How about Petach Tikvah?, Is Raanana too
small to matter? Or would Mr. Obama insist that we do complete a body
count - perhaps under American monitoring - before establishing that an
attack was, indeed, "devastating"?

It wasn't so long ago that tactical nuclear weapons were considered an
obvious tool for NATO forces to use in the European theatre as the only
possibly viable way to hold back a Russian invasion.

In Obama's playbook Israel cannot deter an overwhelming invasion with the
threat of a nuclear response?

Finally: does stripping down deterrence encourage stability or lead to
devastation.?]

Obama to limit U.S. use of nuclear arms, but not on Iran

By Reuters Last update - 14:40 06/04/2010
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1161120.html

The Obama administration will formally unveil a new policy on Tuesday
restricting U.S. use of nuclear arms, renouncing development of new atomic
weapons and heralding further cuts in America's stockpile.

But even as President Barack Obama limits the conditions under which the
United States would resort to a nuclear strike, he is making clear that
nuclear-defiant states like Iran and North Korea will remain potential
targets.

"I'm going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make
sure that the American people are safe and secure," Obama told The New York
Times in an interview that previewed his revamped nuclear strategy.

Obama insisted "outliers like Iran and North Korea" that have violated or
renounced the treaty would not be protected.

The policy shift, calling for reduced U.S. reliance on its nuclear
deterrent, could build momentum before Obama signs a landmark arms control
treaty with Russia in Prague on Thursday and hosts a nuclear security summit
in Washington next week.

But it is also likely to draw fire from conservative critics who say his
approach is naive and compromises U.S. national security.

The Nuclear Posture Review is required by Congress from every U.S.
administration but Obama set expectations high after he vowed to end "Cold
War thinking" and won the Nobel Peace Prize in part for his vision of a
nuclear-free world.

Under the new strategy, the United States would commit for the first time
not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if it is attacked with
biological or chemical weapons, according to The New York Times and a U.S.
official who confirmed the details.

Those threats, Obama said, could be deterred with "a series of graded
options" - a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

Still, Obama is rolling back the Bush administration's more hawkish policy
set out in its 2002 review threatening the use of nuclear weapons to preempt
or respond to chemical or biological attack, even from non-nuclear
countries.

An exception under Obama's plan would allow an option of reconsidering the
use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack if there is reason to
believe the United States were vulnerable to a devastating attack.

To set an example for global arms control, Obama's strategy - another
departure from Bush-era policy - commits the United States to no new atomic
arms development, U.S. officials said.

The United States will, however, increase investment in upgrading its
weapons infrastructure, which one White House official said would
"facilitate further nuclear reductions."

Arms control experts see potential for significant cuts in the U.S.
stockpile by upgrading weapons laboratories to weed out older, ineffective
warheads.

Obama now faces the challenge of lending credibility to his arms control
push while not alarming allies under the U.S. defense umbrella or limiting
room to maneuver in dealing with emerging nuclear threats from Iran and
North Korea.

The review is a test of Obama's effort to make controlling nuclear arms
worldwide a signature foreign policy initiative. It is also important
because it will affect defense budgets and Weapons deployment and retirement
for years to come.

The strategy was developed after a lengthy debate among Obama's aides and
military officials over whether to declare that the United States would
never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis but would act only in
response to attack.

Obama appeared unlikely to go as far as forswearing the first-strike option,
which will disappoint some liberals.

The review comes a day before Obama leaves for Prague, where he and Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev will sign a new START pact to slash nuclear
arsenals by a third.

The signing ceremony will occur nearly a year after Obama's Prague speech
laying out his vision for eventually ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
Obama acknowledged it might not be completed in his lifetime.