Editing No first use (section)

===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>