Possible to deter, reduce together

Regarding Charles Krauthammer’s Friday column, “Nuclear posturing, Obama-style”:

Krauthammer states that “Under President Obama’s new policy, if the state that just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) … then the U.S. pledges not to sue or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.” He appears to be quoting Defense Secretary Bob Gates. Not surprisingly, however, Krauthammer omits an important caveat:

According to the Nuclear Posture Review (which oversees U.S. nuclear policy), the U.S. reserves the right to adjust this policy, “Given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid rate of bio-technology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment in the assurance that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of the biological weapons threat and the U.S. capacities to counter that threat.” In other words, all bets are off regarding the use of the U.S. nuclear arsenal in response to a biological or chemical attack. Seems like an impressive deterrent, which is what we are going for, right? We can deter and reduce at the same time.

The START treaty is fully endorsed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense (President Bush’s nominee). It is difficult to challenge their expertise and experience vs. the deliberate or accidental distortions of a columnist.

Dawn Sittauer

Everett