War on Sale

If a leader were foolish enough to want to encourage a tactical-weapon attack upon their country, what would such a leader do? Well, they would essentially put war on sale, by lowering the cost to the aggressor. On the other hand, if one wanted to discourage any sort of attack upon itself, one would keep all options on the table for retaliation, and would make that policy known to all the world, repeatedly. They would reinforce the high cost of such a mistake.

Well, President Obama has issued a revision to our policy for nuclear weapons use, clarifying that we will not resort to nukes when attacked by a non-nuclear aggressor. So you decide: is he discouraging attack, or encouraging it?

Now, you might say that those foolish enough to attack the U.S. wouldn't be the sort to worry about retaliation anyway. Nukes or no, they would attack regardless. So then Obama's policy change brings no benefit. It brings only increased risk, and unnecessarily. Risk that is upon his head.