The Pentagon is working on a significant revision of the U.S. nuclear strategy, with plans that will change the country’s response in the event of a conflict with China or Russia, according to a report by NBC News.
The new approach involves a greater emphasis on low-yield tactical nuclear weapons that can be used in regional conflicts involving U.S. allies, rather than relying predominantly on long-range intercontinental nuclear missiles. The review is led by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, who is expected to discuss this proposal during a closed military event in Nebraska while visiting the U.S. Strategic Command (US Strategic Command) — the command responsible for the country’s nuclear forces.
Expanding options for the president
Officials familiar with the proposal note that the goal is to prepare for situations where allies come under attack from Russia or China, and to provide U.S. President Donald Trump with a wider range of military options. A senior U.S. Department of Defense official told NBC: “Our view is that we need reliable nuclear options.” The official added that the strategy will not limit Trump’s decisions during a conflict, but “will expand the space of options for the president, providing him with realistic and reliable options, and thereby strengthen deterrence.” Another official noted that the revised doctrine will increase Trump’s choices during nuclear crises, rather than forcing him into an “all or nothing” response.
Elbridge Colby has long argued that America’s nuclear policy relies too heavily on the threat of launching devastating long-range weapons capable of destroying an adversary’s nuclear arsenal. Instead, he supports tactical nuclear weapons, which are smaller, short-range warheads designed for use against military targets or on the battlefield, rather than against entire cities. Defending this approach, a senior defense official stated: “If you really want extended deterrence to be reliable, you have to provide the country’s political leadership with nuclear capabilities that, in good conscience, you could actually use.” The official added: “Otherwise, you reduce our leadership’s options to extreme choices that the adversary will not consider reliable — and this will not benefit deterrence.”
Debates over the nuclear threshold
This proposal has revived long-standing debates over U.S. nuclear policy. Proponents argue that more flexible options could strengthen deterrence, while critics fear the opposite. Some experts warn that incorporating tactical nuclear weapons to a greater extent into military planning could lower the threshold for their use, making them more practical in conventional wars. Others argue that an excessive focus on battlefield nuclear weapons could weaken preparedness for situations where the president might need to rely on long-range strategic missiles.
The proposal has already drawn criticism on Capitol Hill. A senior congressional aide familiar with the review told NBC: “It is hard to imagine a study that more contradicts President Trump’s stated position on making our nuclear deterrence great again.” The aide added: “He clearly wants more options and capabilities, not fewer. This seems like an extremely weak concept.”
Nuclear weapons have not been used in combat since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Those attacks forced Japan to surrender and ended World War II, making any change in U.S. nuclear policy a subject of global attention.
Source: NBC News
