> >Allies Unperturbed By U.S. Nuclear List
> >Iranians, Russians Criticize Report
> >
> >By Sharon LaFraniere
> >Washington Post Foreign Service
> >Monday, March 11, 2002; Page A14
>
> Well they would say that, wouldn't they? That's not what the foreign
> press is saying, is it?
I don't know. If European diplomats think the US is doing something scary, they say they're "troubled" or "concerned." They're not saying that now. Since this question seems to turn on the relationship between public rhetoric and actual policy, I don't think the foreign press is much help. The foreign press often has trouble disentangling rhetoric from reality.
I'm not saying it's impossible that this is a major shift. But it's possible it's just a difference of light and shade. I don't really know enough about nuclear policy to say which it is. My guess is that under Clinton, the US maintained an official posture that nuclear weapons were strictly a strategic deterrent, but it also gave subtle signals to potential adversaries that we might use nuclear weapons against them if we were really pissed off. Whereas under Bush, the signals are no longer subtle and have become official policy.
The real question is, what would they do in the breach? It seems to me the Bush crowd is balancing the same concerns as the Clinton people were - reserving the nuke option in the event we got into a sticky battlefield situation vs. the prospect of morally discrediting the US and breaking up its alliances as a consequence. I don't think the Bush people would end up acting much differently than the Clinton people.
Seth