Why did the United States decide to abandon the use of nuclear weapons first?

On November 5, the authoritative American publication Politico reported that the national security team of US President Joe Biden would soon consider the conditions under which Washington would commit itself not to use nuclear weapons first. In addition, according to the sources of the publication, Biden's aides will also analyze the possibility of declaring the containment of a potential nuclear conflict "the only goal" facing the American nuclear arsenal. As a result, the use of atomic bombs as a retaliatory measure in the course of conventional hostilities or other negative impacts of a strategic nature (for example, large-scale cyberattacks) on the American side should be completely ruled out.

It is important to note that not only the initiative of the Biden administration itself is remarkable here, but also the subsequent reaction of the American satellites to it. According to the British newspaper Financial Times, the allies are asking Washington not to change the current nuclear doctrine. Britain, France, Germany, Japan and Australia were extremely concerned about possible changes in the Pentagon's military concept. And, perhaps, the point is not only in their content, but also in the form in which they are communicated to these countries.

Allied reaction and US arrogance

According to sources, the American side literally sent out a questionnaire on the future nuclear policy the leaderships of the allied states to assess their reaction. However, most of them, of course, reacted sharply negatively to the new idea, moreover expressing fears that the American leader might not be told about their opinion personally. As was the case with the flight of the American army from Afghanistan in August this year, for example. Then Washington, in fact, unilaterally decided that there would no longer be a Pentagon soldier in the Middle East country, having put all the other members of the mission in Afghanistan not only with a fact, but also with the most severe deadline for curtailing the operation.

It is significant that the United States values ​​the opinion of its so-called "allies" so low, for some of whom the term "vassal" would sound much more logical, that they do not even put up such important issues as the end of a twenty-year joint military operation or ensuring nuclear security for general discussion. ... Although something, and Washington has plenty of platforms for interaction with allies. You can always talk with France and Germany through the structures of the North Atlantic Alliance, whose headquarters are located in the capital of the united Europe - Brussels. It is possible to conduct a dialogue with Japan through the newly created quadripartite dialogue on security - QUAD, which the experts call “Asian” NATO. For communication with Australia, there is another new American military unit - AUKUS. Well, and the United States has so many channels of interaction with Great Britain that it’s time to get confused: NATO, AUKUS and a separate bilateral Mutual Defense Treaty between London and Washington, first signed in 1958 and extended several times since then. Apparently, in order for the whole world to finally understand - the United States will not give offense to Britain.

Paradoxically, in the presence of all these structures, blocs and agreements in such a key issue as ensuring nuclear security, Washington relies on some kind of questionnaires sent out almost according to the principles of network marketing. And this despite the fact that the United States is tacitly responsible for the nuclear "umbrella" in the collective West (although France and Great Britain also have their own nuclear weapons). The conclusion here for the countries of the collective West suggests itself is very disappointing: the United States is indeed behaving arrogantly, not putting any priority on their leadership, or their interests, or even their opinion. Although the Americans nevertheless decided to familiarize themselves with the latter. For the sake of form.

Yet the reaction of American allies is truly surprising. First of all, the fact that they express dissatisfaction in a situation where there is no talk of refusing to defend their territory. The only question is that the current American administration wants to consolidate the fact of a purely retaliatory, that is, defensive nature of the use of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, Washington's partners are obviously extremely concerned that the United States will not, at the first opportunity, bombard the territory of a potential adversary with nuclear warheads and unleash World War III. Apparently, they bloodthirsty expected that if something happened - no matter a border skirmish or a minor provocation, the American "nuclear baton" would immediately deliver a quick and decisive, and most importantly, an offensive nuclear strike. After all, the current military-political doctrine of the Pentagon fully admits this, just the decision of the Supreme Commander who has access to the "nuclear briefcase" is enough. And it is here, with a high degree of probability, that the real reason for the sudden manifestation of nuclear “appeasement” on the part of the Biden administration lies.

The Trump Factor and Nuclear Weapons

During the final period of Donald Trump's presidency, the head of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milli, undertook a series of covert measures aimed at depriving the American president of the opportunity to order the use of nuclear weapons against the PRC. This is precisely the situation described in the book "The Threat" by the American journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Moreover, it is important to note that it is not some little-known hacks who parasitize on famous personalities and "fried" facts who write about this, but the same Woodward, who, as an employee of the Washington Post, in 1972, together with Karl Bernstein, was the first to learn and write about the famous the Watergate scandal that prompted the resignation of then US President Richard Nixon. So it is still possible to say that he, as a political journalist, has a certain credit of trust.

According to Woodward's book, General Millie "was convinced that Trump was going into a serious mental decline, and he was almost distraught, yelling at officials, building his own alternate reality about endless election conspiracies." The head of the US staff committee was so worried that Trump might "get out of control" that he even organized a secret meeting at the Pentagon in early January 2021, during which he indicated to the top officials in charge of the United States National Military Command Center which whatsoever orders without his approval are strictly prohibited.


- the words of the general are quoted in the book.

Moreover, as noted by The New York Times, referring to her, in October 2020 and January 2021, Milli called his Chinese counterpart Li Zuocheng twice in order to assure him that the United States did not intend to attack the PRC. In addition, Milli assured him that if the strike did take place, he would warn the Chinese side ahead of time. That is, in fact, the head of the United States headquarters, who is "part of the procedure" for launching strategic warheads by a nuclear power, assures the officially recognized enemy of Washington (and China, like Russia, is precisely it according to the American leadership) that he is ready to provide information about the delivery of a nuclear strike by the United States in advance. Of course, on the one hand, this is good: it is always nice to know that there are officials in the top military leadership of a rival world power who are ready for various kinds of cooperation. However, from the point of view of the United States itself, this is real treason. And the fact that Millie was not condemned for this today can only say one thing: the current leadership of the United States fully approves of his actions. Apparently, the American establishment is so afraid of Donald Trump and what may happen to the country during his rule that it simply pays no attention to such trifles as treason in the military leadership.

Thus, the true prerequisites for the US striving to limit the use of its nuclear arsenal to purely defensive purposes lie in the field of domestic, not foreign policy. The current American leadership is actually trying to "spread straw" and protect itself from "nuclear" surprises in the event that Trump wins the elections in 2024. After all, Joe Biden will be 82 by the end of his term, and there are no other politicians to stand up to Trump on the Democratic political horizon. Of course, no one has any guarantees that Donald Trump will become the new "old" US president, but the American deep state is too afraid of this. So much so that it is ready to flare up all the allies with new nuclear initiatives, which for almost the first time in the history of the United States can at least declaratively be deployed in the direction not of attack, but of defense.