The US policy has never ruled out the possibility of escalation to full countervalue targeting and is unlikely to do so.
But the 2013 DoD report says “The United States will not intentionally target civilian populations or civilian objects”. That of course doesn’t prove that the US actuallywouldn’t engage in countervalue targeting, but doesn’t it indicate that US policy at that time ruled out engaging in countervalue targeting?
This is a genuine rather than rhetorical question. I feel I might be just missing something, because, as you note, the paper you cited says:
Did this mean that the United States was discarding its ultimate assured destruction threat for deterring nuclear war? Clearly not. The guidance was carefully drafted. Does not rely on is different from will not resort to
...and yet, as far as I can see, the paper just doesn’t address the “will not intentionally target” line. So I feel confused by the paper’s analysis. (Though I haven’t read the paper in full.)
Thanks for this post; I found it useful.
But the 2013 DoD report says “The United States will not intentionally target civilian populations or civilian objects”. That of course doesn’t prove that the US actually wouldn’t engage in countervalue targeting, but doesn’t it indicate that US policy at that time ruled out engaging in countervalue targeting?
This is a genuine rather than rhetorical question. I feel I might be just missing something, because, as you note, the paper you cited says:
...and yet, as far as I can see, the paper just doesn’t address the “will not intentionally target” line. So I feel confused by the paper’s analysis. (Though I haven’t read the paper in full.)