U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Considering
“No First Use”
Updated April 16, 2021
On April 15, 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Adam Smith introduced legislation that
declared, “It is the policy of the United States to not use nuclear weapons first.” Other Members of
Congress are divided on this issue. Senator Dianne Feinstein has argued that the only moral use for U.S.
nuclear weapons is as a deterrent to their use. Senator Deb Fischer, on the other hand, has said that the
proposal “betrays a naïve and disturbed world view.” President Biden has spoken, in the past, about his
support for a “sole purpose” policy for nuclear weapons, which some see as similar to “no first use,” but
the President has not yet taken steps to review or alter U.S. nuclear policy.
A “no first use” policy would represent a change from current policy, where the United States has pledged
to refrain from using nuclear weapons against most non-nuclear weapon states, but has neither ruled out
their first use in all cases nor specified the circumstances under which it would use them. This policy of
“calculated ambiguity” addressed U.S. concerns during the Cold War, when the United States and NATO
faced numerically superior Soviet and Warsaw Pact conventional forces in Europe. At the time, the United
States not only developed plans to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield to disrupt or defeat attacking
tanks and troops, but it also hoped that the risk of a nuclear response would deter the Soviet Union from
initiating a conventional attack. This is not because the United States believed it could defeat the Soviet
Union in a nuclear war, but because it hoped the Soviet Union would know that the use of these weapons
would likely escalate to all-out nuclear war, with both sides suffering massive destruction.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has modified its declaratory policy to reduce the apparent
role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security, but it still has not declared that it would not use them
first. In the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review Report, the Obama Administration stated that the United States
“would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances” and would not threaten or
use nuclear weapons, under any circumstances, “against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” But
the Administration was not prepared to state that the “sole purpose” of U.S. nuclear weapons was to deter
nuclear attack because it could envision “a narrow range of contingencies” where nuclear weapons might
play a role in deterring conventional, chemical, or biological attacks.
The Trump Administration, in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) Report, also rejected the idea that
the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attack, and, therefore, also did not adopt a “no first
use” policy. It noted that “the United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in
extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners” but stated
that nuclear weapons contribute to “deterrence of nuclear and non-nuclear attack; assurance of allies and
partners; achievement of U.S. objectives if deterrence fails; and the capacity to hedge against an uncertain
future.”

---

Congressional Research Service
2
“No First Use” or Not?
Although the United States does not rule out the first use of nuclear weapons, the absence of a “no first
use” pledge is less about the perceived need to employ these weapons first in a conflict than it is about the
view that the threat of nuclear escalation continues to serve as a deterrent to large-scale conventional war
or the use of chemical and biological weapons. Supporters of the current policy argue that removing the
threat of nuclear escalation could embolden countries like North Korea, China, or Russia, who might
believe that they could overwhelm U.S. allies in their regions and take advantage of local or regional
conventional advantages before the United States or its allies could respond. In such a scenario, some
argue, the “no first use” pledge would not only undermine deterrence, but could also increase the risk that
a conventional war could escalate and involve nuclear weapons use. Moreover, because the United States
has pledged to use all means necessary, including nuclear weapons, to defend allies in Europe and Asia,
this change in U.S. declaratory policy could undermine allies’ confidence in the U.S. commitment to their
defense and possibly spur them to acquire their own nuclear weapons. As a result, in this view, a “no first
use” policy could undermine U.S. nuclear nonproliferation goals.
Some analysts outside government dispute these conclusions. Some assert that there is a lack of evidence
that the threat of nuclear escalation can deter conventional war, while others note that U.S. nuclear first-
use might spark a nuclear response and an all-out nuclear exchange. Moreover, some contend that a “no
first use” policy would not undermine the U.S. commitment to its allies because those states have faith in
U.S. conventional forces for their defense, as well as knowledge of the U.S. willingness to retaliate with
nuclear weapons in response to nuclear attacks. Others, including Senator Warren and Representative
Smith, note that a “no first use” pledge could reduce the chances of nuclear miscalculation by assuring
adversaries that the United States was not about to launch a preemptive nuclear attack. Hence, many
conclude that the possible first use of nuclear weapons is not only unnecessary, but also might turn
conventional war into a nuclear catastrophe.
Press reports indicate that the Obama Administration considered adopting a “no first use” policy in 2016.
However, these reports indicate that both military and civilian officials opposed this change. Air Force
officials argued that a policy of calculated ambiguity provided the President with options in a crisis.
Admiral Haney, then the Commander in Chief of Strategic Command, noted that the shift could
undermine deterrence and stability in an uncertain security environment. Secretary of State Kerry and
Secretary of Defense Carter also raised concerns that a “no first use” policy could undermine the
confidence and security of U.S. allies. Secretary of Energy Moniz also expressed opposition. Reports
indicate that several allies also weighed in against the change in policy.


Author Information

Amy F. Woolf

Specialist in Nuclear Weapons Policy




Disclaimer

---

Congressional Research Service
3
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN10553 · VERSION 4 · UPDATED

---