Obama Administration Backtracking on New Nuclear Deterrent Policy

Eliminating Much of The Intentional Ambiguity in Nuclear Deterrent Policy, something which has causes a verbal sparing match between Palin and Obama, apparently still needs some tweaking. Gates and Clinton seemed to say that the exception from nuclear retaliation just days ago given to countries who launch a chemical or biological attack against us, may have just been restricted to chemical attacks. That means biological attacks may face a nuclear retaliation. I still can not understand how it is a good idea to tell people 'go ahead an gas one of our cities; and do not worry about having one of yours flattened in a mushroom cloud'. If I had to choose which to deter between chemical and biological attacks, I would choose biological; but we do not have to choose. Why is the Obama administration choosing; just let foreign countries know that if they launch an WMD attack against us our retaliation will be swift and could be visible from miles away.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/10/ftn/main6383530.shtml

""We were concerned about the biological weapons," Gates said, "and that's why the president was very clear ... if we see states developing biological weapons that we begin to think endanger us or create serious concerns, that he reserves the right to revise this policy."

Clinton added, "If we can prove that a biological attack originated in a country that attacked us, then all bets are off."

Gates also pointed out that the policy dictates that any country that uses chemical or biological weapons against the U.S. will "suffer a devastating conventional retaliation.""