(Thumbnail Image: United States Air Force)

President Obama's Nuclear Posture Review spells out when and under what circumstances the United States will use its nuclear arsenal. It's a plan critics say leaves the U.S. vulnerable and open to attacks.

The review is being interpreted as limiting U.S. nuclear weapons deployment. But euronews reports there are restrictions.

REPORTER: "Washington's new atomic policy permits the use of all its defensive options against countries which use chemical or biological weapons and do not respect the rules of the Non-Proliferation Treaty."

DEFENSE SEC. GATES: ‘‘If there is a message for Iran and North Korea here, it is that if you are going to play by the rules. If you are going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you."

And there are critics on all sides -- with many on the left saying it doesn't go far enough for a Nobel Peace Prize-winning president. And those on the right saying that publicly spelling out the U.S. nuclear policy spells trouble.

Here's MSNBC and Fox News.

“Again a key component of the U.S commitment to our allies is deterring through not just nuclear means but by conventional means. My concern is that the costs of that continue to rise and the document did not go far enough in emphasizing the role that other countries have in deterring attacks on their own country not just relying on the U.S. security umbrella, which too many countries rely on right now.”

 
"This is sort of classic Obama. It's big on language, it's big on rhetoric. The changes are not earth-shattering, but what it does is it sets up the United States as the good example once again. And he seems to think that this is an effective way of conducting nuclear policy, but I think the lessons of the past 30 years would suggest otherwise."

On NPR, George Perkovich defends Mr. Obama's position, saying he had to take the middle ground.

"Look, the President is a realist. ... If you can't get even a modest reduction treaty ratified, so what? It's nice words, but it's not even music. To be real and to actually get something done you gotta get 67 votes in the Senate."

But an article on The Atlantic suggests for all the complaints, the U.S. nuclear policy isn't really changing.

"On the surface, Obama's plan certainly looks like a big deal. For decades, U.S. nuclear policy has been intentionally vague. ... Potential enemies would err on the side of not provoking total nuclear annihilation. ... But read the NPR carefully and you'll see a gaping loophole..."

So what do you think?  Is the new nuclear policy more about dialogue or deterrence?

Writer: Newsy Staff

Producer: Newsy Staff