Jimmy Carter's sentence: I can't understand his grammar

I believe he is saying that in recent years the government has abandoned a policy of not threatening to use nuclear weapons against states which don't have nuclear weapons, and that principle (of not threatening to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states) had been adhered to for a long time until now.

In recent years the U.S. government has not set a good example, having abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty; binding limitations on testing nuclear weapons and development of new ones; and a long-standing policy of foregoing threats of "first use" of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states.

What does "threats" of ... mean in this context and in reality?

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/772/1/64/

The list of nations (7) includes those without nuclear weapons of their own at the time the report was penned.

My question?

It means, that now there is a policy of saying that we are willing to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have nuclear weapons of their own. That is a threat. Bush is threatening to use nuclear weapons against the seven countries on the list if need be.

Previous policy evidendtly has been to not threaten to do so unless the country threatened has nuclear weapons. They may be threatened with other means if they get out of line and do not have nuclear weapons, but to say we will use nuclear weapons against a country that cannot likewise respond / defend itself is a new threat from the Bush Administration.

The US government has abandoned a policy it had for a long time.

The policy it used to have was that it would not threaten to attack countries that did not have nuclear weapons unless they attacked first.

"First strike" means that one attacks before the other country does...usually when you believe that the other country is about to attack you.

The US used to say that it would not strike first against a country that did not have nuclear weapons.

Now it says that it will attack anyone before they attack the US.

fansy's question related to the form of the words not their substance. I think the grammer is pompous and strained.

Or very cynical. Which I doubt in this particular case.

Jimmy's English composition teacher would have used her red pen to extensively mark up that sentence.