Russia changed it's policy of NO FIRST STRIKE long after gw said he would pre-emptively strike any country he considered an enemy.
So, your position is that Russia never had a first strike scenario in it's repertoire?
How naive.
Just to be clear, Bush never made a threat as direct and specific as the Russian General did against the deployment of a missile shield.
Or as direct as the Chinese threat to nuke "hundreds of American cities" if we defended Taiwan.
Where did the Bush stance originate from?
After 9/11, several scenarios were drawn up and discussed by the Pentagon concerning all aspects of defense, after all, that's what they are payed for.
In January 2002, the Bush Administration issued its Nuclear Posture Review, a Congressionally mandated report on the U.S. nuclear weapons program. For the first time, the 2002 report openly discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons, naming seven countries that could be targets of the American nuclear arsenal: Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria.
On Feb. 22, 2002, John Bolton, a leading Administration official, (before he went to the UN), who at the time ran the arms control and disarmament office at the State Department, gave an interview to the Washington Times, in which he talked about the Bush Administration's intent to use nuclear weapons,
under certain circumstances. He candidly told the Times that the world had changed so dramatically on Sept. 11, 2001, that it was no longer unthinkable to use nuclear arms against rogue states thought to possess weapons of mass destruction.
Bolton told the Washington Times that to continue with the doctrine of no first use of nuclear weapons reflected "an unrealistic view of the international situation. The idea that fine theories of deterrence work against everybody, which is implicit in the negative security assurances, has just been disproven by September 11," he said, adding, "What we are attempting to do is create a situation where nobody uses weapons of mass destruction of any kind."
On Sept. 14, 2002, President Bush signed a secret document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, which stated, in part: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including
potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."
On Dec. 11, 2002, the Bush Administration released a declassified version of NSPD-17, under the title "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." The reference to the use of nuclear weapons was not included in the declassified version, but instead said that the government would "resort to all of our options."
On Jan. 31, 2003, the Washington Times published a front-page story, revealing the existence of NSPD-17, which warned, "The disclosure of the classified text follows newspaper reports that the planning for a war with Iraq focuses on using nuclear arms not only to defend U.S. forces, but also to pre-empt deeply buried Iraqi facilities that could withstand conventional explosives." Of course this was never backed up by actual documents, but I'm willing to concede that that's an accurate assessment.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the London Guardian was the first newspaper to publish the Jan. 10, 2003 Pentagon minutes of the planning for the Omaha session in August. The Guardian and other major newspapers have received copies of the Dr. Klein memorandum from Greg Mello, who heads a group called the Los Alamos Study Group, which initially received the leak.
So, who leaked secret documents, and what motives did they have? Were they accurate or complete? We'll never know for sure.
Every anti war, anti Bush organization and individual with an axe to grind against Bush jumped on the bandwagon.]
Of course, the hysteria was unfounded, when we went into Iraq, no nukes were used by us.
Again in 2006, Bush re-iterated his stance against terror states.
"President Bush reaffirmed his strike-first policy against terrorists and enemy nations on Thursday and said Iran may pose the biggest challenge for America.
In a 49-page national security report, the president said
diplomacy is the U.S. preference in halting the spread of nuclear and other heinous weapons.
"The president believes that we must remember the clearest lesson of Sept. 11: that the United States of America must confront threats before they fully materialize," national security adviser Stephen Hadley said.
"The president's strategy affirms that the doctrine of preemption remains sound and must remain an integral part of our national security strategy," Hadley said. "If necessary, the strategy states, under longstanding principles of self defense, we do not rule out the use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack."
Titled "National Security Strategy," the report summarizes Mr. Bush's plan for protecting America and directing U.S. relations with other nations. It is an updated version of a report the president issued in 2002."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/16/politics/main1409079.shtml
In neither case did Bush threaten to use nukes in a first strike. That scenario was in a leaked secret document that mentioned it as a possibility in "certain circumstances".
Quite different than China's or Russia's direct threats.
wardogs
He was saying we shouldn't be so worried about Iran, but Russia...
) something that a missile defense system might interfere with? 
