Editing No first use (section)

==Countries against no-first-use policy==
{{See also|Mutual assured destruction}}
[[Pakistan]], [[Russia]], the [[United Kingdom]], the [[United States]],<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/26/wnuke26.xml |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031204104612/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F10%2F26%2Fwnuke26.xml |url-status=dead |archive-date=4 December 2003 |title=Pentagon wants 'mini-nukes' to fight terrorists |work=The Telegraph |access-date=2007-09-14 |date=<!-- 12:39am BST --> 26 October 2003 |first=Julian |last=Coman |location=London }}</ref> and [[France]]<ref>{{cite book|last=Heuser|first=Beatrice|title=NATO, Britain, France, and the FRG nuclear strategies and forces for Europe, 1949-2000|date=1997|publisher=St. Martin's Press|location=New York|isbn=9780230377622|pages=120–121|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=niaGDAAAQBAJ&q=france+nuclear+strategy|access-date=30 March 2017}}</ref> say that they will use nuclear weapons against either nuclear or non-nuclear states only in the case of invasion or other attack against their territory or against one of their allies. Historically, [[NATO]] military strategy, taking into account the numerical superiority of [[Warsaw Pact]] conventional forces, assumed that [[tactical nuclear weapon]]s would have to be used to defeat a Soviet invasion.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The East-West Strategic Balance |year=1982}}</ref>{{fcn|date=August 2023}}<ref name="LA Times 1987">{{Cite journal|title=Senate Permits Study for New Tactical Nuclear Missile |journal=[[The Los Angeles Times]] |first=Melissa |last=Healy |date=October 3, 1987 |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-10-03-mn-2950-story.html |access-date=2012-08-08}}</ref>

At the [[1999 Washington summit|16th NATO summit]] in April 1999, [[Germany]] proposed that NATO adopt a no-first-use policy, but the proposal was rejected.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_11-12/grnd98 |title=Germany Raises No-First-Use Issue at NATO Meeting |publisher=Arms Control Association |access-date=2013-04-30}}</ref> In 2022, leaders of the five NPT nuclear-weapon states issued a statement on prevention of nuclear war, saying "We affirm that a [[Nuclear warfare|nuclear war]] cannot be won and must never be fought."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-01-04 |title=Russia, China, Britain, U.S. and France say no one can win nuclear war |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/china/russia-china-britain-us-france-say-no-one-can-win-nuclear-war-2022-01-03/ |access-date=2022-03-20}}</ref>

=== Soviet Union/Russia ===
In its final years, the [[Soviet Union]] adopted a formal no-first-use in 1982 when Foreign Minister [[Andrei Gromyko]] read out at the [[United Nations]] a pledge by General Secretary [[Leonid Brezhnev]] not to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Goshko |first=John M. |date=1982-06-16 |title=Soviet Chief Renounces First Use of A-Weapons |language=en-US |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1982/06/16/soviet-chief-renounces-first-use-of-a-weapons/69fde24a-b92c-4bba-b253-4693dfbda9f7/ |access-date=2022-03-19 |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> However, this pledge was not taken seriously, and later leaked [[Soviet Armed Forces]] documents confirmed that the military had plans for a pre-emptive nuclear strike and considered launching one during the [[Able Archer 83]] crisis.<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |title='No First Use' and Nuclear Weapons |url=https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/no-first-use-and-nuclear-weapons |access-date=2022-03-19 |publisher=Council on Foreign Relations |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |title=Soviet plan for WW3 nuclear attack unearthed |first=Henry |last=Samuel |date=20 September 2007  |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563692/Soviet-plan-for-WW3-nuclear-attack-unearthed.html |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=The Telegraph}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Able Archer 83: the Nato war-game that nearly spelled nuclear disaster |url=https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/able-archer-83-what-happened-nato-war-gamecold-war-nuclear-disaster/ |access-date=2022-03-20 |website=History Extra |language=en}}</ref> After the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]], the [[Russia|Russian Federation]] formally reversed this policy in 1993 due to the weakness of the [[Russian Armed Forces]] in the [[Post-Soviet states|post-Soviet era]].<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite news |last=Efron |first=Sonni |date=1993-11-04 |title=Russia Discards Soviet Legacy of No First Use of A-Weapons |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-04-mn-53224-story.html |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=The Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref> Russia describes its entire military doctrine as defensive [[Military doctrine of Russia#2010 Military Doctrine|military doctrine]].
With regard to nuclear weapons specifically, Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons:
* in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it or its allies, and also
* in case of aggression against Russia with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.<ref name="Policy2010">{{cite web|orig-year=presidential decree 2010-06-25|date=2010-06-25|script-title=ru:Военная доктрина Российской Федерации|title=Voyennaya doktrina Rossiyskoy Federatsii|trans-title=Military doctrine of the Russian Federation|language=ru|location=Moscow|publisher=[[Security Council of the Russian Federation]]|url=http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/33.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110504070127/http://www.scrf.gov.ru/documents/33.html|archive-date=2011-05-04|url-status=dead}} The same URL is used for various revisions with different presidential decree dates.</ref>
The military doctrine of 2014 did not depart from this stance.<ref>[http://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029 Military doctrine of the Russian Federation of 2014], paragraph 27</ref> The 2020 Presidential Executive Order on Nuclear Deterrence in Article 4 uses the following wording: "deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies."{{cn|date=October 2024}} This has been interpreted as describing non-nuclear scenarios where Russia might use nuclear weapons to achieve its military goals.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.sipri.org/commentary/blog/2020/russias-nuclear-doctrine-moves-focus-non-western-threats |title=Russia's nuclear doctrine moves the focus from non-Western threats |date=October 1, 2020|first=Petr |last=Topychkanov| publisher=Stockholm International Peace Research Institute}}</ref> During the [[2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]], observers expressed concern that Russia would preemptively use [[tactical nuclear weapon]]s after President [[Vladimir Putin]] announced the mobilization of Russian nuclear forces to "combat-ready" status.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-03-16 |title=Ukraine war: Could Russia use tactical nuclear weapons? |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-60664169 |access-date=2022-03-19}}</ref> In December 2022, Putin claimed that Russia would not be the first to use nuclear weapons or the second, and that "Russian nuclear doctrine is premised on self-defense."<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-12-07 |title=Putin: Nuclear risk is rising, but we are not mad |language=en-GB |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63893316 |access-date=2022-12-07}}</ref><ref name= isw7Dec2022 >{{cite web|first1=Karolina |last1=Hird |first2=Riley |last2=Bailey |first3=George |last3=Barros |first4=Madison |last4=Williams |first5=Yekaterina |last5=Klepanchuk |first6=Frederick W. |last6=Kagan |publisher=Institute for the Study of War |url=https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-december-7 |date=7 December 2022 |title=Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, December 7}}</ref><ref name="videoconference">{{cite web |first=Vladimir |last=Putin |url=http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/70046 |date=7 December 2022 |script-title=ru:Заседание Совета по развитию гражданского общества и правам человека|trans-title=Meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights |format=videoconference}}</ref>

Russia and China do maintain a mutual agreement to have a no first use policy which was developed under the [[2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship|Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation]]. Under the second paragraph of article two, China and Russia agreed that "The contracting parties reaffirm their commitment that they will not be the first to use nuclear weapons against each other nor target strategic nuclear missiles against each other."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://pg.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t47618.htm |title=Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation |at=Article 2, second paragraph}}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
In March 2002, the [[Secretary of State for Defence]] [[Geoff Hoon]] stated that the UK was prepared to use [[Nuclear weapons of the United Kingdom|nuclear weapons]] against "[[rogue state]]s" such as [[Ba'athist Iraq]] if they ever used "weapons of mass destruction" against [[British Armed Forces]] troops in the field.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883258.stm |work=BBC News |title=UK 'prepared to use nuclear weapons' |access-date=2007-09-14 |date= 20 March 2002<!--, 14:49 GMT--> |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20021020052015/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1883258.stm |archive-date = 2002-10-20}}</ref> This policy was restated in February 2003 and again under the [[Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)|Ministry of Defence]]'s [[Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010]].<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2717939.stm |date= 2 February 2003<!--, 19:25 GMT -->|work=BBC News |title=UK restates nuclear threat |access-date=2007-09-14}}</ref> In April 2017 Defence Secretary [[Michael Fallon]] confirmed that the UK would use nuclear weapons in a "[[Pre-emptive nuclear strike|pre-emptive initial strike]]" in "the most extreme circumstances".<ref name=independent-20170424>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html |title=Theresa May would fire UK's nuclear weapons as a 'first strike', says Defence Secretary Michael Fallon |first=Rob |last=Merrick |newspaper=The Independent |date=24 April 2017 |access-date=24 April 2017 |archive-date=25 April 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170425031826/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> Fallon stated in a parliamentary answer that the UK has neither a 'first use' or 'no first use' in its nuclear weapon policy so that its adversaries would not know when the UK would launch nuclear strikes.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2017-09-05/8502/ |title=Nuclear Weapons:Written question – 8502  |first=Michael |last=Fallon |publisher=UK Parliament |date=5 September 2017 |access-date=18 November 2018}}</ref>

===United States===
The United States has refused to adopt a no first use policy and says that it "reserves the right to use" nuclear weapons first in the case of conflict. This was partially to provide a [[nuclear umbrella]] over its allies in [[NATO]] as a deterrent against a conventional [[Warsaw Pact]] attack during the [[Cold War]], and NATO continues to oppose a no-first-use policy.<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=NATO's Nuclear Weapons: The Rationale for 'No First Use' |publisher=Arms Control Association |url=https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-07/features/natos-nuclear-weapons-rationale-first-use |access-date=2022-03-19}}</ref> Not only did the United States and NATO refuse to adopt a no first use policy, but until 1967 they maintained a nuclear doctrine of "[[massive retaliation]]" in which nuclear weapons would explicitly be used to defend North America or Western Europe against a conventional attack. Although this strategy was revised, they both reserved the right to use nuclear weapons first under the new doctrine of "[[flexible response]]".<ref>{{Cite web |title=NATO's Nuclear Weapons: The Rationale for 'No First Use' |publisher=Arms Control Association |url=https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-07/features/natos-nuclear-weapons-rationale-first-use |access-date=2022-03-20}}</ref>

Released on April 6, 2010, the 2010 [[Nuclear Posture Review]] reduces the role of [[Nuclear weapons of the United States|U.S. nuclear weapons]]: "The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear weapons, which will continue as long as nuclear weapons exist, is to deter nuclear attack on the United States, our allies, and partners." The U.S. doctrine also includes the following assurance to other states: "The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the [[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty|NPT]] and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations."<ref name="nuclposreview">{{cite web |url=http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-04-06_NPR%20201%20Briefing%20-%201032.pdf |title=Nuclear Posture Review Report |publisher=[[U.S. Department of Defense]] |date=April 2010 |access-date=2019-07-08 |archive-date=2012-12-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121227050836/http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-04-06_NPR%20201%20Briefing%20-%201032.pdf |url-status=bot: unknown }}</ref>

For states eligible for the assurance, the United States would not use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack but states that those responsible for such an attack would be held accountable and would face the prospect of a devastating conventional military response. Even for states that are not eligible for the assurance, the United States would consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. The Nuclear Posture Review also notes, "It is in the U.S. interest and that of all other nations that the nearly 65-year record of nuclear non-use be extended forever."<ref name="nuclposreview"/>

This supersedes the doctrine of the [[George W. Bush administration]] set forth in "[[Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations]]" and written under the direction of Air Force General [[Richard Myers]], chairman of the [[Joint Chiefs of Staff]]. That now superseded doctrine envisioned commanders requesting presidential approval to use nuclear weapons to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction.{{cn|date=October 2024}} The now superseded doctrine also included the option of using nuclear weapons to destroy known enemy stockpiles of [[nuclear weapon|nuclear]], [[biological weapon|biological]], or [[chemical weapon]]s.{{cn|date=October 2024}}

In August 2016, President [[Barack Obama]] reportedly considered adopting a no first use policy.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/nuclear-weapons-no-first-use-debate-214300|title=The Flimsy Case Against No-First-Use of Nuclear Weapons|first=Bruce|last=Blair|website=Politico |date=28 September 2016 |access-date=19 June 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://thebulletin.org/2016/08/the-dangers-of-no-first-use/|title=The dangers of no-first-use|first1=Franklin C. |last1=Miller |first2=Keith B. |last2=Payne |work=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists|date=22 August 2016|access-date=19 June 2019}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite news|last1=Sonne|first1=Paul|last2=Lubold|first2=Gordon|last3=Lee|first3=Carol E.|date=12 August 2016|title='No First Use' Nuclear Policy Proposal Assailed by U.S. Cabinet Officials, Allies|language=en-US|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-first-use-nuclear-policyproposal-assailed-by-u-s-cabinet-officials-allies-1471042014|issn=0099-9660}}</ref> Obama was persuaded by several Cabinet officials such as Secretary of State [[John Kerry]], Secretary of Defense [[Ash Carter]], and Secretary of Energy [[Ernest Moniz]] that 'no first use' would rattle U.S. allies and decided not to take up the policy.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/obama-unlikely-to-vow-no-first-use-of-nuclear-weapons.html|title=Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons|first1=David E.|last1=Sanger|first2=William J.|last2=Broad|date=5 September 2016|access-date=19 June 2019|newspaper=The New York Times}}</ref><ref name="Tierney 2016" />

During the [[2017–2018 North Korea crisis]], there were efforts to either require congressional approval for a pre-emptive nuclear strike<ref>{{cite news 
| last = Mitchell | first = Ellen | date = 2017-05-03
| title = Lawmakers back push to curtail Trump's nuclear strike ability
| work = The Hill 
| url = https://thehill.com/policy/defense/331798-lawmakers-back-push-to-curtail-trumps-nuclear-strike-ability/
| access-date = 2018-01-07}}</ref> or to ban it altogether and impose an NFU policy.<ref>{{cite news
| last = Lillis | first = Mike | date = 2017-10-12
| title = Pelosi urges new law to limit president's use of nuclear weapons
| work = The Hill 
| url = https://thehill.com/policy/defense/355186-pelosi-urges-new-law-to-limit-presidents-use-of-nuclear-weapons/
| access-date = 2018-01-07}}</ref> The [[United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations|Senate Foreign Relations Committee]] chaired by [[Bob Corker]] held its first meeting on the President's authority to use nuclear weapons in 41 years.<ref>{{Cite news |date=2017-11-14 |title=Senate committee questions Trump's nuclear authority |language=en |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-usa-senate-idUSKBN1DE2ON |access-date=2022-03-19}}</ref> Since 2017, [[Ted Lieu]], [[Ed Markey]], [[Elizabeth Warren]], and [[Adam Smith (Washington politician)|Adam Smith]] all introduced bills to limit the President's ability to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Senator Warren, Chairman Smith Unveil Legislation to Establish 'No-First-Use' Nuclear Weapons Policy |first=Elizabeth |last=Warren |author-link=Elizabeth Warren|url=https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-chairman-smith-unveil-legislation-to-establish-no-first-use-nuclear-weapons-policy |access-date=2022-03-20 |publisher=United States Senate |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-01-24 |title=Congressman Lieu, Senator Markey Introduce the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 |url=https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-lieu-senator-markey-introduce-restricting-first-use-0 |access-date=2022-03-19 |author-link=Ted Lieu |first=Ted |last=Lieu |publisher=United States House of Representatives |language=en}}</ref> Calls to limit the [[President of the United States]]' ability to unilaterally launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike increased after the [[January 6 United States Capitol attack]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Invasion of Ukraine proves the U.S. must Trump-proof the nuclear codes – fast |date=March 12, 2022 |first=Jordan |last=Gans-Morse |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/u-s-must-trump-proof-nuclear-codes-2024-ncna1291705 |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Trump-inspired insurrection prompts concern over control of nuclear weapons |first=Rachel |last=Oswald |date=January 8, 2021 |url=https://www.rollcall.com/2021/01/08/trump-nuclear-strike-codes-capitol-riot/ |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=Roll Call |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first1=Elizabeth |last1=Warren |last2=Perry |first2=William J. |title=No president should have unilateral power to use nuclear weapons: Sen. Warren and Sec. Perry |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/01/25/after-trump-end-nuclear-launch-authority-for-presidents-column/4235023001/ |access-date=2022-03-19 |website=USA Today |language=en-US}}</ref> During the [[2020 United States presidential election]] the eventual victor [[Joe Biden]] expressed support for a "sole purpose" declaration confirming that the only use of U.S. nuclear weapons would be as a deterrent, although this is distinct from a "no first use" declaration identifying that the United States would not unilaterally use them.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Woolf |first=Amy F. |url=https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IN10553.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210916133326/https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/IN10553.pdf |archive-date=2021-09-16 |url-status=live |title=U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Considering 'No First Use' |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |year=2021 |location=Washington DC |oclc=1097538161}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Sole Purpose Is Not No First Use: Nuclear Weapons and Declaratory Policy |first1=Ankit |last1=Panda |first2=Vipin |last2=Narang |date=February 22, 2021 |url=http://warontherocks.com/2021/02/sole-purpose-is-not-no-first-use-nuclear-weapons-and-declaratory-policy/ |access-date=2022-03-20 |website=War on the Rocks |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last1=Biden |first1=Joseph R. Jr. |author-link=Joe Biden |date=2022-03-10 |title=Why America Must Lead Again |magazine=Foreign Affairs|language=en-US |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-23/why-america-must-lead-again |access-date=2022-03-20 |issn=0015-7120}}</ref>

===Pakistan===
{{see also|N-deterrence}}
Pakistan's Foreign Minister [[Shamshad Ahmad]] warned that if Pakistan is ever invaded or attacked, it will use "any weapon in its arsenal" to defend itself.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mdWCAgAAQBAJ&q=pakistan+will+use+any+weapon+in+its+arsenal&pg=PA343|title=India-Pakistan in War and Peace |via=Google Books|date=2003-09-02|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781134407583|last1=Dixit|first1=J. N. |page=343}}</ref>

Pakistan refuses to adopt a no first use doctrine and indicates that it would launch nuclear weapons even if the other side did not use such weapons first. Pakistan's asymmetric nuclear posture has significant influence on India's ability to retaliate, as shown in [[2001 India Pakistan standoff|2001]] and [[2008 India Pakistan standoff|2008 crises]], when [[non-state actor]]s carried out deadly terrorist attacks on India, only to be met with a relatively subdued response from India. A military spokesperson stated that "Pakistan's threat of nuclear first-use deterred India from seriously considering conventional military strikes."<ref name="Narang Policy Brief">{{cite news|last=Narang|first=Vipin|title=Pakistan's Nuclear Posture: Implications for South Asian Stability|url=http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Pakistans_Nuclear_Posture_policy_brief.pdf|access-date=4 January 2013|newspaper=Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Policy Brief|date=January 2010|archive-date=3 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303183022/http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Pakistans_Nuclear_Posture_policy_brief.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Pakistan's [[Pakistan National Security Council|National Security Advisor]] [[Sartaj Aziz]] defended the [[Pakistan and its Nuclear Deterrent Program|policy of first use]].<ref name="Council of Foreign Relations"/> Aziz stated that Pakistan's first use doctrine is entirely deterrent in nature. He explained that it was effective after the [[2001 Indian Parliament attack]] and argued that if Pakistan had a no first use policy, there would have been a major war between the two countries.<ref name="Council of Foreign Relations">{{cite web|last1=Boies|first1=Mary McInnis|title=Promoting U.S.-Pakistan Relations: Future Challenges and Opportunities|url=http://www.cfr.org/pakistan/promoting-us-pakistan-relations-future-challenges-opportunities/p33514|publisher=Council on Foreign Relations|access-date=6 October 2014}}</ref>

===North Korea===
{{main|North Korea and weapons of mass destruction}}
North Korea's stated policy position is that nuclear weapons "will never be abused or used as a means for preemptive strike", but if there is an "attempt to have recourse to military force against us" North Korea may use their "most powerful offensive strength in advance to punish them".<ref name=38north-20201013>{{cite news |url=https://www.38north.org/2020/10/kjuspeech101320/ |title=Kim Jong Un's October 10 Speech: More Than Missiles |publisher=The Henry L. Stimson Center |work=38 North |date=13 October 2020 |access-date=15 October 2020}}</ref>