Agencies | Washington:
The Pentagon is reviewing a major overhaul of the United States’ nuclear strategy that could significantly reshape its response to potential conflicts involving China or Russia, according to an NBC News report.
The proposed strategy would shift greater emphasis from long-range strategic nuclear weapons to shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, aimed at providing the US President with a broader range of military options during regional conflicts involving American allies.
The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s policy chief, who is expected to outline the proposal during a closed-door military event in Nebraska while visiting the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), which oversees the country’s nuclear forces.
According to officials familiar with the review, the objective is to strengthen deterrence by equipping the United States with more flexible nuclear response options in the event of aggression by China or Russia.
“Our view is that we need credible nuclear options,” a senior US Department of Defense official was quoted as saying by NBC News.
The official said the proposed strategy is intended to expand President Donald Trump’s range of choices during a crisis rather than limit them.
“The objective is to expand the president’s option space by providing realistic and credible alternatives, thereby strengthening deterrence,” the official said.
Another official told the network that the revised doctrine seeks to provide the President with a wider spectrum of responses during a nuclear crisis, instead of presenting only extreme strategic options.
Greater Focus on Tactical Nuclear Weapons
The proposed review reflects Colby’s long-held view that US nuclear doctrine relies too heavily on the threat of large-scale strategic strikes capable of destroying an adversary’s nuclear arsenal.
He has argued in favour of expanding the role of tactical nuclear weapons—smaller, lower-yield warheads designed for use against military targets and battlefield objectives rather than cities.
“If extended deterrence is to remain credible, national leadership must have nuclear capabilities that are realistically usable,” the senior defence official said.
The official added that relying solely on strategic weapons leaves policymakers with limited choices that adversaries may consider less credible, potentially weakening deterrence.
Proposal Sparks Debate
The reported shift has reignited debate among defence experts and lawmakers over the future of US nuclear policy.
Supporters argue that a broader range of nuclear options could reinforce deterrence by making US responses more credible during regional conflicts.
Critics, however, warn that increasing reliance on tactical nuclear weapons could lower the threshold for nuclear use by making such weapons appear more practical in conventional military engagements. Others caution that excessive focus on battlefield nuclear capabilities could come at the expense of preparedness for large-scale strategic threats.
The proposal has also attracted criticism on Capitol Hill.
A senior congressional aide familiar with the review told NBC News that the recommendations appeared inconsistent with President Trump’s stated objective of strengthening America’s nuclear deterrent.
“It’s hard to imagine a study that is more out of line with President Trump’s stated position of making our nuclear deterrent great again,” the aide was quoted as saying, adding that the President had consistently called for expanding, rather than limiting, the country’s nuclear capabilities.
First Major Review Since Renewed Global Tensions
The reported review comes amid heightened geopolitical tensions involving the United States, China and Russia and reflects growing concern over evolving nuclear deterrence strategies.
Nuclear weapons have not been used in armed conflict since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, bringing World War II to an end. Any significant revision to US nuclear doctrine is therefore expected to have far-reaching implications for global security and strategic stability.
