Aug. 15—Recent actions by the President Donald Trump administration have made clear that, whatever the earlier ambiguity of its messaging, the White House intends to establish a new era of American unipolar dominance and to forcibly block the rise of rival powers, in particular Russia and China. The administration is reportedly now weighing a change in U.S. nuclear strategy that would place greater emphasis on tactical weapons in the name of expanding “credible nuclear options”—a shift that would sharply raise the risk of the first use of a nuclear weapon in 81 years. But as the failure of the United States and Israel to defeat Iran has demonstrated, these delusional ambitions are colliding with the physical reality of fifty years of economic and cultural collapse at home. They are doomed to fail—and that failure may prove more dangerous than the intent behind it.

Elbridge Colby, the U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, is one of the principal drivers behind this effort. Colby discussed the new nuclear strategy at U.S. Strategic Command’s 2026 Deterrence Symposium in Omaha, Nebraska on Aug. 5, the day before the 81st anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. A few hours before the symposium convened, NBC News published an exclusive report claiming that the new strategy Colby is drafting is designed to address scenarios in which U.S. allies come under attack from Russia or China in a regional conflict. “Our view is that we need credible nuclear options,” an unnamed Department of Defense official told the network. The strategy would not restrict Donald Trump’s choices but instead “expand the president’s option space by providing him with realistic and credible options and therefore strengthen deterrence,” the official said. In Colby’s view, a strategic nuclear response is not a “credible” option in a “regional” conflict. In other words, traditional nuclear weapons are too risky to use, but small, “tactical” nuclear weapons may have a role in modern warfare.

Evidently only a few reporters were allowed into the two-day event, and, as far as this news service can determine, Strategic Command has released no video. However, other attendees and reports have emerged that help to illuminate more of what was under discussion. Hans Kristensen, the director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project, said in a series of postings on X that “a more aggressive nuclear vision focused on strengthened deterrence and production” was “front and center” at the symposium. Colby, he said in another posting, didn’t provide specifics on his review, only “broad strokes.” “It’s a review or re-look at strategic guidance to create more strike options, not strategic versus tactical, but will utilize and drive capabilities for limited regional scenarios,” he said.