The following Washington Post article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400071.html
about a change in US First Strike Nuclear Policy is a must read.
This is a very dangerous policy change for everyone. This policy change and the reaction to it by other nuclear powers greatly increases the risk of nuclear war. Several risks are present here:
First, it allows a US Nuclear First Strike based upon threat assessments and intelligence. The recent intelligence failures concerning the WMD in Iraq should highlight the risks. These intelligence failures are not isolated occurrences. What if a Nuclear First Strike had been pursued based upon the evidence of WMD in Iraq. This policy change would allow it. Intelligence can be manipulated to support administration goals as has been documented recently in the Downing Street Memo.
Second, it increases the risk of escalation. While many here and abroad believe that nuclear weapons would only be used in dire circumstances, military planners and policy makers abroad will view it differently. Military planners and policy makers will have to look at the worst case scenario in their planning and therefore will have to assume that, because we have stated we can launch a Nuclear First Strike, that we will do so. Any US military actions, especially in Iran or North Korea, will trigger a nuclear alert by other nuclear powers. Relative to North Korea, this is especially dangerous, as a Nuclear First Strike, a mishap in operations, or miscommunications could trigger a nuclear retaliation by China which does have real ICBMs
Third, it increases the risk of a nuclear mishap during operations. Two items here: STRATCOM is now responsible for Global Strike which means they will be flying both nuclear and conventional weapons. This increases the risk. Second, we can assume STRATCOM is and will be flying nuclear weapons ready which will also increase the risk. A mishap can lead to escalation. This policy has to weaken the chain of nuclear failsafes designed to prevent nuclear war.
Finally, it increases the risk that a Nuclear First Strike situation will occur. North Korea and Iran may believe that their nuclear programs prevented and invasion by the US, like in Iraq. This would strengthen their resolve to pursue nuclear programs which is the scenario in which the policy change may lead to a US Nuclear First Strike. It also further decreases our already damaged standing in the world. The war in Iraq, the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and now this have damaged our national reputation and increased the desire of others to attack the US. Furthermore, those that do want to attack the US may use this as further justification for attacks or for using WMD that may not have had broader support. US retaliation for another terrorist attack would increase the risk of a nuclear exchange for the reasons stated above
We have the right to protect ourselves and our country. This policy change does little to advance that protection though. What it does do though is expose legitimate and conventional actions to protect ourselves to the risk that those actions can escalate into a nuclear exchange. The increased risk far greater than the increased protection this policy change offers.
This policy change needs more attention and discussion than it has gotten so far.