This New York Times piece describes the new movement afoot by the deans of the foreign policy establishment to seek a world without nuclear wepaons.  Some of these figures are pushing hard through a campaign of op-eds to major media outlets to get America to reduce (and eventually completely relinquish nuclear weapons) as was always the eventual goal under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  Some of these names are a far cry from starry eyed liberals, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, William Perry and Sam Nunn.  None of them are naive.

However, while this remains a laudable goal, readers of my blog know of my intense skepticism related to this issue.  It may (and may must be emphasized) be possible that if America gives up on weapons and so do the other major powers currently in possession of stockpiles, other nations may not move in that direction.  It may be possible to convince other nations through our actions that they don't need to spend precious resources looking to bulk up on the deadliest weaponry developed by man.  However, to this day and despite all efforts to stigmatize nuclear weapons, they remain a source of prestige and regional leverage (and in some cases such as  Russia, America, and to a much lesser extent, China, global leverage).

Even if people don't actually plan to use them, they offer psychological benefits to nations in tough neighborhoods like Israel, Pakistan, and, yes, Iran.  Security assurances in lieu of "real" components of deterrence just don't seem as solid to those who must legitimately worry about significant military threats as close as their next door neighbor.  This is why, despite the hopes for a nuclear free world, it just doesn't seem plausible. 

Who is going to take that first fateful step towards elimination as opposed to only reduction? 

I believe the best to be hoped for are global reductions that would limit the damage that could be inflicted and heighten the challenges for irresponsible actors to obtain them.  This combined with a more aggressive stance on deterrence may provide the type of flexibility necessary to reduce proliferation by raising the costs while reducing (though not eliminating) capacity.  It's not foolproof and it still leaves wide holes that those dedicated to ill will can take advantage of, but, we aren't living in a perfect world.  The best of the bad is not evil, sometimes, it is the only thing that can really be moral.