The Pentagon may be having second thoughts about proposed revisions to its nuclear weapons doctrine that would allow commanders to seek presidential approval for using atomic arms against nations or terrorists who intend to use chemical, biological or nuclear weapons against the United States, its troops or allies.

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Wade Huntley criticizes the Bush administration?s interest in new, more useable nuclear weapons and wider roles for their use as a ?dramatic departure? not only from the general thrust of past U.S. postures but also from the administration's own conservative progenitors.?

Lobbying Congress for funds to research and develop new nuclear weapons, Bush has opened the back door to the doctrine of a "fightable" nuclear war, one in which the use of small or limited nuclear weapons would be possible or even desirable to defeat ruthless and unconventional enemies.

The French newspaper Liberation has reported that France is preparing to change its nuclear weapons doctrine to include the possible use of first strikes against rogue states.

Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov has said his country does not rule out a pre-emptive military strike anywhere in the world if the national interest demands it.

Well argued essay for re-thinking using the threat of nuclear force to deter nuclear proliferation.

"Let's start talking about nukes, not with them."

A secret 1967 government study on the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Vietnam War that was declassified and released yesterday found that the political cost of using such devices far outweighed its military benefits.

Michael Levi observes that threats of preemptive nuclear strikes against Iraq have alarmed the public and hurt America's image--and for no good reason: Tactical nuclear weapons have little if any military value.

The author argues that if the U.S. uses nuclear weapons against a nonnuclear state - or even seriously entertains the idea - it will "only convince rogue nations that they need atomic weapons to protect themselves from the US."