But it was the awkwardly named Nuclear Posture Review that angered many arms control advocates, who argue that Mr. Biden is backing away from suggestions during his presidential campaign that he would move toward a declaration that the United States would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
In a 2020 Foreign Affairs article titled “Why America Must Lead Again,” Mr. Biden wrote that he believed “the sole purpose” of the nation’s nuclear arms should be to deter — and, if necessary, to retaliate against — a nuclear strike. “As president,” he said, “I will work to put that belief into practice.”
But after he was in office, European and Asian allies complained that the “sole purpose” language might put them in danger, because the protection of the American nuclear umbrella, in their view, could deter an adversary like North Korea or China from mounting a conventionally armed invasion. Mr. Biden relented.
The Nuclear Posture Review released Thursday retained the Pentagon’s customary language. It said deterring an attack was “the fundamental role,” not the sole purpose, of the weapons.
That left open the possibility that in some circumstances, Washington might decide to strike first with nuclear arms.
“It’s a muddled message,” said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. The document “has the fingerprints of the Pentagon” on it, he said, adding that it comes “at time when we should be de-emphasizing the role of nuclear arms.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group based in Cambridge, Mass., also criticized the new policy statement. “It not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk,” said Stephen Young, the group’s senior Washington official, but also in many ways “increases that risk.”