PLAIN SPEAKING
Nicolas Kralev of the Washington Times breaks the story that the Administration has changed its national security strategy to say that the US will consider using nuclear weapons in response to an attack with chemical or biological weapons. (Lead headline on Drudge right now).
While this will fuel more “Bush is a cowboy” talk, I prefer the more direct rhetorical approach–if our policy is that we’d consider using nucs if hit by chem/bio weapons, why not say so?
I think clarity is a better deterrent than ambiguity in this case; if our policy were the opposite–we’d only use nucs if hit by nucs first–then ambiguity would be more advantageous.
