Analysis: Obama Sticks to Middle Ground on Nukes

WASHINGTON (April 6) -- President Obama, who issued a stirring call in Prague last year to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world, is reining in the potential for the U.S. to use them, sharply reversing the direction set by his predecessor.

But the nuclear policy announced today does not forswear all first strikes with the nuclear arsenal, as some in Congress had pressed for and nonproliferation experts had hoped.

Obama is sticking to the middle ground as he treads among the sometimes competing interests of military officials, politicians, NATO and Asian allies, and Russia, which will sign an arms control treaty with the U.S. on Thursday as the president returns to Prague. Obama will need votes in the Senate to ratify that agreement.

Changing Course

The nuclear policy of President George W. Bush reserved the right to pre-emptively attack a foe planning to use chemical or biological weapons against Americans. The Bush administration also sought funding, though the effort was unsuccessful, to develop new "bunker-busting" nuclear weapons.

For the first time, the Obama White House is promising it will not use - or even threaten to use -- nuclear weapons at all against any nation that does not possess its own atomic arsenal. (There are five declared nuclear powers: the U.S., Russia, Britain, France and China.) Chemical or biological warfare against this country or an ally would instead result in "a devastating conventional military response," according to excerpts of the new policy published in The New York Times.

But big loopholes are written in. The pledge does not extend to any country that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- such as North Korea, which renounced the pact in 2003, or Pakistan, India and Israel, which will not sign. It also does not extend to violators such as Iran, which has been cited by the United Nations for concealing evidence of nuclear plants and for refusing to answer questions. These countries thus remain possible targets (although there is little chance that Israel would ever be one).

"Those nations that fail to meet their obligations will therefore find themselves more isolated, and will recognize that the pursuit of nuclear weapons will not make them more secure," Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

The policy also notes that "the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment" in its promise because the capability of biological weapons is evolving

No New Nukes?

The Obama administration says the "fundamental" purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to nuclear attacks. More than a dozen lawmakers, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, had urged an ironclad commitment not to use the nuclear arsenal for any other purpose.

The U.S. also promises not to build new nuclear weapons, despite statements last year by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the policy would probably include "in one or two cases ... new designs that will be safer and more reliable."

In an apparent effort to appease Gates and congressional conservatives, the policy seeks more funding to modernize the U.S. nuclear production complex and refurbish warheads, which some experts believe leaves the door open to a re-engineering of their components. Some critics are concerned that plans to invest billions in such weapons modernization sends a signal that the nuclear arsenal will play a significant role for many decades.

The U.S. will not conduct nuclear testing (a moratorium has been in place for nearly 20 years). Still, Pentagon officials told reporters, weapons not yet built, but based on designs that have already been tested, could be added to the stockpile.

European Arsenal

Another issue that is sidestepped is the estimated 200 tactical nuclear bombs based at installations across Western Europe. Questions have been raised about security, which is provided by host countries, and about the rationale for keeping them now that the Cold War is over. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a Pentagon briefing that members of the NATO alliance would decide the fate of these weapons together.

The policy review is required by Congress at the start of each administration to justify budget requests over the next five to 10 years. Obama's review is only the third (Bill Clinton's was the first), and it was delayed four months while advisers debated how far the president should go on a signature issue that led to his Nobel Peace Prize.

"It's a big first step. It's a major improvement over where we were," Stephen Schwartz, editor of The Nonproliferation Review, told AOL News. But, he added, "it's not sufficient by itself to change the status quo."

Unfinished Business

Some additional markers to look for in the weeks and months ahead:

-- The outcome of a summit meeting with some 47 nations next week in Washington to discuss nuclear security.

-- The outcome of broader talks on the Non-proliferation Treaty, the main mechanism for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, in New York in May.

-- Whether the Senate ratifies the treaty signed with Russia on Thursday.

-- Whether the Senate ratifies a comprehensive test ban treaty.

-- Whether tougher sanctions on Iran are imposed by the United Nations.

-- Whether talks resume with North Korea.