Only a short time ago, the idea of universal nuclear disarmament was generally considered at best impractical and at worst a pipe-dream of the highest utopian order. Then came the Jan. 4, 2007 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” that rocked the security studies world. Together, former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, Defense Secretary William Perry, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee Sam Nunn detailed how universal nuclear disarmament could, one day, be achieved. While nuclear deterrence may have made sense during the Cold War, they said, the continuation of such a policy is “increasingly hazardous” and “decreasingly effective.”

More recently, President Barack Obama presided over a landmark day at the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24, 2009. Besides becoming the first US president to ever chair a meeting of the group, Obama and his cohort of diplomats were able to secure a unanimous vote for UN Security Council Resolution 1887. The resolution affirms the commitment of the P5 to ultimately disarm their nuclear arsenals and lays down practical steps states must take in order to realize “a world free of nuclear weapons.” Among others, they include strengthening the Non-Proliferation Treaty, developing a Fissile-Material Cutoff Accord, and enhancing the security of nuclear materials.

To those who would argue that U.N. resolutions have worth equivalent to the paper that they are written on, it is clear that the Obama Administration has backed up its support for the resolution with concrete policy reform. For one, the Bush Administration’s ‘mini-nuke’ bunker-buster development program was dead on arrival once Obama stepped into the White House. Obama has also made significant overtures to Russia to accelerate deep cuts in both nations’ nuclear arsenals. Unlike the previous administration that merely wanted to put the weapons in storage for a rainy day, Obama has made clear that the warheads will actually be dismantled. Obama’s recent decision to trash the idea of putting missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic has provided a much needed boost to US-Russian relations and likely prevented an arms race. Finally, Obama has also unequivocally declared his support for US ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

There is, however, undoubtedly still a long way to go before a world without nuclear weapons becomes a reality. Detractors will inevitably surface arguing that nuclear weapons are critical to peace among the great powers and that disarming would set the stage for a nightmarish scenario for breakout and ultimately nuclear blackmail. Of course, the circular logic that disarmament is nothing short of idealistic fluff will also be employed.

By Ryan Kaminski

While that argument may have worked 60 years ago, circumstances change. Specifically, the idea that nuclear weapons are an ultimate guarantor of peace in a ‘self-help’ system is increasingly—forgive the metaphor—under fire. If history proves anything, it is that the mere existence of these weapons encourages not only destabilizing proliferation across the globe to state and non-state actors, but also the possibility of devastating accidents. Nowadays, most people would also find the idea that existence of nuclear weapons is the only thing keeping the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China from going to war pretty laughable.

The recent revelation that as a Columbia University senior, Obama authored an article clarifying his vision for a “nuclear free world’ could not have come at a better time. Despite being immersed in Cold War and all the nuclear techno-strategic logic therein, Obama, like others, was able to articulate an alternative. More and more, it seems like it is a dream the whole world can believe in.