I don't think it can get much clearer than this.

The Pentagon has formally cancelled a controversial revision of its Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations after the document was exposed last year in an article in Arms Control Today and described in the Washington Post.

The revised draft doctrine included for the first time descriptions of preemptive use of U.S. nuclear weapons, which prompted the Senate Armed Services Committee to ask the Pentagon for a briefing, and 16 lawmakers to protest to President Bush.

The decision to cancel Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, and with it three other related nuclear documents, was confirmed today by the Pentagon. The cancellation of the documents does not change U.S. nuclear policy which continues to include options for nuclear preemption.

Source: http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/02/pentagon_cancels_controversial.php

And here is an analysis and copies of the doctrine documents:

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/jp.htm

The U.S. currently has a policy that includes first strike preemptive nuclear attacks against other countries that may not have nuclear weapons.

After public exposure, the Pentagon has hidden the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and three related documents, referring to this as "cancelling" the documents. The decision to "cancel" the documents simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from the Pentagon's internal reading list. The White House and Pentagon guidance that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by the cancellation.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Guidance, last update March 16, 2006, FAS(1)

http://www.nukestrat.com/us/guidance.htm

(1) Note: The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) [1]is a non-profit organization formed in 1945 by scientists from the Manhattan Project who felt that scientists, engineers and other innovators had an ethical obligation to bring their knowledge and experience to bear on critical national decisions. Their first projects focused on controlling nuclear weapons and research on civilian nuclear power, issues that remain prominent to FAS today.

Endorsed by 67 Nobel Laureates [2]in chemistry, economics, medicine and physics, FAS now addresses a range of issues where science and technology analysis is critical. FAS members build on a long history of insisting that rational, evidence-based arguments form the basis of national policy.

Again, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

And remember, we are the only ones who have ever used them in warfare. And we are threatening to do it again.

Lynx,

A few things:

Back in 2005 there was this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053_pf.html

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office.

And now we have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations

The doctrine cites 8 reasons under which field commanders can ask for permission to use nuclear weapons:

* An enemy using or threatening to use WMD against US, multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations.

* To prevent an imminent biological attack.

* To attack enemy WMD or its deep hardened bunkers containing WMD that could be used to target US or its allies.

* To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.

* To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.

* To make sure US and international operations are successful.

* To show US intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy from using WMDs.

* To react to enemy-supplied WMD use by proxies against US and international forces or civilians.

To my mind, these are the "blank checks":

* To stop potentially overwhelming conventional enemy forces.

* To rapidly end a war on favorable US terms.

We (the U.S.) have become the primary motivation for nuclear proliferation.

Pure unselfish commonsense reason.

I've learned this about you. You help keep us honest.