Editing Nuclear utilization target selection (section)

==NUTS and US nuclear strategy==
NUTS theory can be seen in the US adoption of a number of first-strike weapons, such as the [[Trident II]] and [[Minuteman III]] nuclear missiles, which both have an extremely low [[circular error probable]] (CEP) of about 90 meters for the former and 120 meters for the latter.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/ |title=MissileThreat :: Ballistic Missiles of the World |access-date=2008-06-30 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708193823/http://missilethreat.com/missilesoftheworld/ |archive-date=2008-07-08 }}</ref> These weapons are accurate enough to almost certainly destroy a missile silo if it is targeted.

Additionally, the US has proceeded with a number of programs which improve its strategic situation in a nuclear confrontation. The [[B-2 Spirit|Stealth bomber]] has the capacity to carry a large number of stealthy cruise missiles, which could be nuclear-tipped, and due to its low probability of detection and long range would be an excellent weapon with which to deliver a first strike.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v06n3p24.htm|title=Peace Magazine v06n3p24: Hidden Capabilities of B-2 Stealth Bomber Threaten START Talks|website=archive.peacemagazine.org|access-date=2016-10-03}}</ref>

During the late 1970s and the 1980s, the Pentagon began to adopt strategies for limited nuclear options to make it possible to control escalation and reduce the risk of all-out nuclear war, hence accepting NUTS.  In 1980, President Jimmy Carter signed [[Presidential Directive 59]] which endorsed the NUTS strategic posture committed to fight and win a nuclear war, and accepted escalation dominance and flexible response.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Prisoners of Reason|last=Amadae|first=S.M.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|isbn=9-781107-064034|location=New York|pages=105–111}}</ref> The Soviets, however, were skeptical of limited options or the possibility of controlling escalation. While Soviet deterrence doctrine posited massive responses to any nuclear use ("all against any"), military officials considered the possibility of proportionate responses to a limited US attack, although they "doubted that nuclear war could remain limited for long."<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv//nukevault/ebb285/|title=Candid Interviews with Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades|website=www.gwu.edu|access-date=2016-10-03}}</ref>

Like several other nuclear powers, but unlike China and India, the United States has never made a "[[no first use]]" pledge, maintaining that pledging not to use nuclear weapons before an opponent would undermine their deterrent.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Prisoners of Reason|last=Amadae|first=S.M.|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2016|isbn=9-781107-064034|location=New York|page=21}}</ref> NATO plans for war with the USSR called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in order to counter Soviet numerical superiority.

Rather than making extensive preparations for battlefield nuclear combat in Central Europe, the Soviet General Staff emphasized conventional military operations and believing that they had an advantage there. "The Soviet military leadership believed that conventional superiority provided the Warsaw Pact with the means to approximate the effects of nuclear weapons and achieve victory in Europe without resort to those weapons."<ref name=":0" />

In criticising US policy on nuclear weapons as contradictory, leftist philosopher [[Slavoj Zizek]] has suggested that NUTS is the policy of the US with respect to [[Iran]] and [[North Korea]] while its policy with respect to [[Russia]] and [[China]] is one of [[mutual assured destruction]] (MAD).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-america-north-korea-kim-jong-un-nuclear-war-contradictory-strategies-zizek-a8131176.html|title = The US is pursuing two contradictory strategies with North Korea and it could lead to nuclear war|website = [[Independent.co.uk]]|date = 28 December 2017}}</ref>