Sheesh, excuse me for squeezing in here between you two, LH and LEJ. You both are making fascinating points, I admit. But just to throw some BASICS in here:

For, instance, LEJ said near the beginning that we should determine what Bush said. Answer: Bush said he wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal by two thirds over the next decade. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/09/nuclear.weapons/index.html

However, he also "has directed the military to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in some instances, the Times reports." http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/09/nuclear.weapons/index.html This is unsettling, in a speculative way, because "the development of smaller nuclear weapons may signal that the Bush administration is leaning toward overlooking a long-standing policy against the use of nuclear weapons except as a last resort."

The Nuclear Posture Report is required by law. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/03/10/nuclear.weapons/index.html

Generals sit around and think up crap like this for a living. That's what they do. What did you all think they do? Would you expect them to write a report about hypothetical nuclear scenarios and say we have entered the age of aquarius and should not ever consider the horror of using nuclear weapons? This stuff was presented to Congress in January, and now was leaked, NOT from the administration I would conclude, because it has caused the administration some very, very bad press and escalated world tensions at the wrong time, because of the leaks, which are alleged to be and probably are highly selective.