Our Guest Blogger is Alexandra Bell, a researcher on nuclear weapons policy in Washington DC.

Though lost in the fray of other national security topics, Governor Palin’s response to Gwen Ifill’s question about triggers for nuclear use deserves some attention.  Either Governor Palin heard the term “nuclear weapons†and immediately launched into a pre-set talking point on the issue or she doesn’t understand the grave importance of a nuclear use policy.  Either way, Palin’s response did not instill the idea that she has the appropriate familiarity with nuclear weapons policy.   

Governor Palin stated that “our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.† First of all, there is nothing safe about nuclear weapons.  Our own Air Force lost track of six warheads for over a day.  There are currently 60-100 nuclear weapons being used as deterrents in Pakistan, but safe and stable they are not.  That however, was not the question.  The question was about the United States using nuclear weapons. 

Ifill’s question is not easily answered, to be sure.  Unleashing the force of our nuclear arsenal would irrevocably change the world as we know it.  It is a worst-case scenario and one that would require the most serious consideration.  The Bush Administration seemed to disagree.  They maintained an ambiguous policy with regards to the use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries and refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack.  In their 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, they attempted to blur the line between nuclear and conventional weapons by pushing for the development of the more “usable†weapons like lower-yield tactical weapons, and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (aka the nuclear bunker buster).

Perhaps Governor Palin did not want to cover this since her running mate, despite a recent change of heart, supported the development of these new nuclear weapons. He voted against eliminating funding for further development of the nuclear bunker buster in 2004 and 2005.  He now says that they don’t make strategic or political sense.  Senators

Obama and Biden never supported the creation of “usable†low-yield nuclear weapons. 
Senator Biden did not get to the nuclear use question either, though it could be due to the fact the Governor Palin switched the conversation to the war in Afghanistan. Senator Biden was able to convey that he understands the importance of the arms control regime and its role in national security. 

It is imperative that the next administration creates a nuclear posture review - one that clearly defines the parameters of use. This is every bit as important as our other national security needs. Both candidates should be asked about this in the next debate and hopefully neither will attempt to change the subject.