ABSTRACT
Open discussion of the possible first use of nuclear weapons, against terrorists or other targets, is becoming more acceptable in U.S., NATO, and Russian policy circles. Presumably intended on all sides as an example of rhetorical deterrence or reassurance, declaratory policies of nuclear first use or first strike carry prospective costs and risks. These costs and risks might increase if the spread of nuclear weapons, especially in Asia, is not contained within present (early 2009) boundaries. In addition, the unfortunate possibility of ambiguous lines between nuclear first use and first strike, and equally indistinct boundaries between preemption and preventive war, has the potential to turn one state’s deterrent into another’s provocation. Is nuclear first use, especially as a matter of declaratory policy, a necessary option or an unacceptable risk – or both?
