Nuclear Arms for Deterrence or Fighting? Responding to the furor over the leaked nuclear posture review, Pentagon spokespeople have begun, quite confusedly, to suggest that their talk of first use of tactical nuclear weapons against subnuclear “situations” is deterrence talk, obscuring the fundamental line they’ve crossed to the acceptability of certain uses of these weapons. At the same time, they maintain the importance of not ruling out any options for targets “able to withstand nonnuclear attack.” This New York Times news analysis points out another administration attempt to obfuscate by positing a distinction between a “policy review” and an “operational plan.” I’ve heard and read credulous journalists considering the implications of the Pentagon analysis take this bait already. But, as the essay points out, “The Pentagon review, however, clearly points to important changes by touting the need for new variable- yield or reduced-yield nuclear weapons, and improved targeting systems so they could be rapidly used in war.” An added, worrisome point is that this change in American posture sends a message to third world countries that there can be acceptable defense policy reasons to develop and consider using nuclear weapons; in so doing, it undermines nonproliferation.