Follow us on social

google cta
50934678471_2ec727763f_o-scaled

Biden’s nuclear weapons policy carries ‘the seeds of a new nuclear arms race’

Experts say the White House’s new nuclear strategy is a major missed opportunity to change American policy for the better.

Reporting | Europe
google cta
google cta

Following months of delays, the Biden administration released its Nuclear Posture Review Thursday. The document declares that “the fundamental role of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our Allies, and partners,” while also stating that America’s nuclear arsenal could be used to deter conventional “attacks that have a strategic effect against the United States or its Allies and partners.”

The policy falls short of what some hoped would be a significant shift to American nuclear posture following President Joe Biden’s statements on the campaign trail, according to Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association.

“This broad and ambiguous nuclear weapons declaratory policy walks back President Biden's earlier position and pledge to narrow the role of U.S. nuclear weapons,” Kimball said in a statement, adding that “policies that threaten the first use of nuclear weapons” carry “unacceptable risks.”

The policy document’s release comes amid a spike in concern about the potential for nuclear war. Notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested on multiple occasions that he would use nuclear weapons in order to “defend” territory that he has attempted to wrest from Ukraine, and the United States reportedly plans to move a more accurate version of its primary nuclear weapon to Europe.

During a press conference Thursday, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin emphasized the importance of maintaining open channels of communication with Moscow in order to avoid escalation. 

“As long as we have the channels of communication open, and we're able to communicate what's important to us, then I think we have an opportunity to manage escalation,” Austin said.

In the spirit of de-escalation, the new posture review also called for efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons in the long term and expressed Biden’s desire to end a submarine-launched tactical nuke program, which Kimball called a “destabilizing and very expensive new capability.”

However, the document also endorses the multi-trillion dollar plan to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal and maintains a different tactical nuclear program, a pair of moves that “carry the seeds of a new nuclear arms race,” according to Bill Hartung of the Quincy Institute.

“The current U.S. arsenal is more than sufficient to deter any nation from attacking the United States,” Hartung said. “Building more nuclear weapons is both excessive and dangerous.”


President Joe Biden delivers remarks to Department of Defense personnel, with Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 2021. (DoD photo by Lisa Ferdinando)
google cta
Reporting | Europe
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.