Has the U.S. war on terrorism changed the nuclear equation?
The U.S. has changed its nuclear posture. It just recently produced a nuclear posture review, which suggests that the U.S. could attack those states that have nuclear weapons if there is an imminent nuclear attack on the U.S. or its forces abroad. It also says that the U.S. may use them to prevent an attack with chemical or biological weapons. Do you think that’s a bluff? It is quite a bluff, but it has a deterrent value. For instance, if the U.S. and Iraq get into a conflict, and Iraq threatens the use of chemical weapons against U.S. troops, it could be an effective deterrent. The other factor is the development of miniature nuclear weapons. “Mini nukes” could be used for bunker busting or destroying caves, targeting Sadaam Hussein’s bunker, for example. That would be a small attack, but still a setback to the nuclear taboo. Even with mini nukes, the U.S. would be constrained, because once you use them, the taboo is broken, and it would be very hard to tell someone else not to. So th
