US President Joe Biden stepped away from his vow toward a campaign, embracing a longstanding US approach of using a potential nuclear threat in response to conventional and non-nuclear dangers in addition to nuclear ones, US officials stated on Thursday. 

Biden vowed during a 2020 campaign toward a policy in which the purpose of the US nuclear arsenal would focus on deterring an enemy nuclear attack.

The decision made earlier this week under pressure from allies holds that the “fundamental role” of the US nuclear arsenal will be to deter nuclear attacks. However, this leaves the possibility that nuclear weapons could also be used in “extreme circumstances” to deter enemy conventional, biological, chemical, and possibly cyberattacks, said the officials.

After Biden met with his allies in Europe, the decision was made to maintain a unified Western stance against Putin’s operation in Ukraine. A spokeswoman for the President’s National Security Council declined to comment.

Biden’s nuclear policy follows an extensive Nuclear Posture Review, in which administration officials examined US nuclear strategy and programs.

According to US sources, the administration's study is also expected to result in cuts to two nuclear systems that Trump's administration supported. If Congress agrees, the program to create a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile would be canceled, and the B83 thermonuclear bomb would be retired.

The review, on the other hand, favors the massive upgrade of the United States' nuclear triad of land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles, and bombers, which is expected to cost more than a trillion dollars.

During the Cold War, the United States reserved the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional strike to compensate for the Soviet bloc's numerical advantage in conventional troops. After handing up its chemical and biological weapons following arms-control accords, the United States later stated that it would reserve the right to deploy nuclear weapons in certain circumstances to prevent attacks with poison gas and germ weapons.

NATO allies have been particularly concerned about transitioning to a "single-purpose" doctrine, fearing that it may weaken deterrence against Russia in the face of the alliance. 

Nuclear doctrine 

Related News

After 2 yrs. of genocide, Gaza deal backed regionally, internationally

Senate rejects bid to curb Trump’s military power in Caribbean

In January, the ranking Republican members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama urged Mr. Biden to stick with the US nuclear doctrine, which they said had deterred major wars and the use of nuclear weapons for more than 70 years.

Several Democratic arms-control proponents, on the other hand, pushed Biden to downplay the role of nuclear weapons in the Pentagon's policy and to state unequivocally that the United States would never deploy nuclear weapons first in a battle.

“Allies were concerned that moving too far away from current posture would leave them vulnerable—in theory, or practice—to Russian threats,” said Jon Wolfsthal, who served as the senior arms control and nonproliferation official on President Obama’s National Security Council.

Wolfsthal, who advised Biden as vice president, said it would be unfortunate but not surprising if the president scrapped his "single purpose" approach.

According to some Biden administration insiders, his decision does not affect his long-term goal of reducing the United States' reliance on nuclear weapons and reflects the necessity to unite alliance support in the face of Russian threats and a growing China.

These sources also point out that Biden has supported other arms-control measures, including extending the New START deal, which limits US and Russian long-range missiles, for another five years.

Deterrence; US sole purpose 

During the 2020 campaign, Biden wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine that he believed “the sole purpose of the US nuclear arsenal should be deterring—and, if necessary, retaliating against—a nuclear attack.”

Biden went on to say that if elected president, he would work "to put that philosophy into practice, in consultation with the US military and US allies." Before stepping down as Vice President in 2017, Biden had staked out a similar position.

“Given our non-nuclear capabilities and the nature of today’s threats, it’s hard to envision a plausible scenario in which the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States would be necessary,” Biden said at the time.

His "sole purpose" plan was intended to limit the circumstances under which the United States would consider using nuclear weapons by removing the prospect that they may be used in response to a conventional attack or other non-nuclear threats.

According to foreign diplomats and US officials, Biden's plan to change US doctrine and strategy was met with strong opposition from ally states, who were concerned that it would damage the US and allies' ability to deter a conventional Russian or Chinese military onslaught.

The phrase "fundamental role" used by the Biden administration is reminiscent of the Nuclear Posture Review done by the Obama administration in 2010.

But it differs somewhat from the more specific language in the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, which underscored the role of nuclear weapons to “hedge against an uncertain future.”