United States

"We need new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces. Deterrence can no longer be based solely on the threat of nuclear retaliation. Defenses can strengthen deterrence by reducing the incentive for proliferation. We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter the different threats of today's world. To do so, we must move beyond the constraints of the 30-year-old ABM Treaty."
President George Bush, May 1, 2001

In January 2002, the US Administration completed a Nuclear Posture Review. In many respects the NPR continues policies outlined in more detail in the 1996 US Joint Chiefs of Staff Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations. Key points in the document included:
·         A strong US nuclear capability is necessary to deter aggression
·         Nuclear weapons could be used for political or military reasons
·         Nuclear weapons are not just to deter a nuclear strike, but have a role in deterring, or pre-emptively destroying, any weapons of mass destruction. This appears to contradict previous US assurances not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
·         The US requires a wide range of nuclear systems tailored for a variety of military and political objectives.

The 1996 Doctrine includes detailed plans for nuclear strikes and describes targets for such strikes including: WMD, their delivery systems and support units; ground combat units; air defense facilties; naval installations and vessels; on-state actors that possess WMD; and underground facilties. In order to be capable of delivering such strikes at a moment’s notice, the US maintains over 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert status.

In May 2001, US President George Bush outlined “new concepts of deterrence that rely on both offensive and defensive forces."  The new policy was an admission that nuclear deterrence was not infallible, but the solution was not to abandon the current nuclear policy but supplement it with missile defence and conventional forces.  The 2002 Nuclear Policy Review confirmed this “New Triad” of capabilities, as well as the intention of the US to modernise nuclear delivery systems and maintain a strong nuclear stockpile indefinitely. Thus the contradiction between US policy and its NPT commitments remains.

See:

US Nuclear Doctrine

Nuclear Posture Review, BASIC

- Senators Rip Nuclear Policy The Washington Times. March 5, 2003

- United States Nuclear Posture Review, January 2002

- U.S. Senate Challenge to Development of New Nuclear Weapons

- U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program: Nuclear Weapons for the 21st Century

- U.S. Senator Biden on new small nuclear weapons

- Rep. King: Nukes should be an option in Afghanistan October 21, 2001

- Rep. Kyl: Chemical Biological Attack Deserves Nuclear Retaliation September 30, 2001

- Indiana Congressman Rep. Buyer: U.S. Should consider Nukes October 18, 2001

- Pentagon recommends use of Nuclear Weapons September 19, 2001

PNND Briefing Book online- Nuclear Doctrine, US

For Information on specific topic areas click here.

For Information on Congressional Resolutions click here.