"All options are on the table..."
For the love of God, can we please eliminate this statement? It is nothing more than a threat to possibly use anything, up to and including nuclear weapons in dealing with another people or nation. It is equally condescending to the "carrot and stick" talk which implies the US ability to determine what is moral and or proper in the realm of international relations. Can we please agree that this is actually an unartful threat which is NEVER misinterpreted abroad, but is often seen in domestic political environments as something more innocuous than it actually is?
Don't get we wrong, as an Arms Control and Disarmament (AC & D) student I recognize the clear break Obama's nuclear policy announcements made yesterday. However, Secretary Gates' statements completely undercut a significant part of the message and the justified attempt to reach a higher moral ground.
Gates quote from the ABC News article:
"is that if you're going to play by the rules, if you're going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you, and that's covered in the NPR. But if you're not going to play by the rules, if you're going to be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you."
Full article here: April 6, 2010
Obama's policy announcement seemed to affirm that the US would only use nuclear weapons in a second strike capacity, but Gates' connection of the use of nuclear weapons with NPT compliance is more inane than Eisenhower's policy of "Massive Retaliation" in the 1950s. Were we really going to respond to conventional strikes with nukes in the 50s? Doubtful, and Ike probably would have even privately admitted that, but his "Massive Retaliation" policy allowed him to maintain the appearance of strong military options that were ultimately cheap. He kept the military budget within reason. The recent connection of nuclear weapons and NPT compliance by Gates is nuts.
The US should clearly announce and commit to not using nuclear weapons in a first strike capacity ever. Didn't Iraq show us that the whole concept of "pre-emptive" war was totally morally and practically bankrupt?
If Gates' statements do not truly reflect US policy, then he has to go. This is one of the biggest international issues of our time. If this is an accurate statement of our policy, then we have changed frighteningly little.