In a speech today at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, Bush Administration Defense Secretary Robert Gates made a last ditch effort to justify the continued possession of nuclear weapons by the United States, even as figures ranging from Barack Obama to Henry Kissinger to a growing network of citizen's organizations have endorsed the goal of "a world without nuclear weapons."

Given that Gates has been mentioned as a possible Secretary of Defense in an Obama or a McCain administration, his opinions still matter -- although one would hope that his status quo position on nuclear weapons would disqualify him from receiving such an appointment. This is especially true given that eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons should be the top priority of the next administration, as Joseph Cirincione, the President of the Ploughshares Fund, suggested in a recent interview.

The thrust of Gates's argument is that "our nuclear arsenal is vital" because "We cannot predict the future. Who can tell what the world will look like in 10 or 20 years?"

Rather than setting a goal of eliminating nuclear weapons within 10 to 20 years -- if not sooner -- the "Gates doctrine" calls for perpetuating the nuclear danger as long as we suffer from a state of uncertainty (in other words, forever). His argument needs to be turned around 180 degrees. It is becausethe world is uncertain that we need to get rid of these deadly weapons as soon as possible.

Discussions of nuclear proliferation -- on the left or the right -- often fall prey to an overarching cynicism of the type that Gates fell back on when he ended his speech by noting that "as long as human nature is what it is . . .we cannot eliminate the need to be prepared for war." And, while they're at it, Gates suggests, nations engaged in this preparation will seek every edge they can get, including nuclear weapons. Or, as he put it explicitly, "There is lilttle doubt that some nations will continue to think that possession of nuclear weapons is the best way to preserve their regime or threaten their neighbors. We remain concerned with the cases of North Korea and Iran today, as it was with Libya and Iraq in the past.

Again, Gates's choice of example undermines his case. Iraq was disarmed via a rigorous program of international sanctions and monitoring, and posed no nuclear threat by the time the Bush administration rushed to war against Baghdad in 2003. And Libya willingly put aside its nuclear program in exchange for enhanced political recognition and economic engagement. We are on a similar path with North Korea today, and if Iran did not feel threatened by the Bush administration's saber-rattling, there could be an opening to cap their nuclear program as well.

Since the end of the Cold War, more nations have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs than have started them. Global nuclear arsenals -- although still obscenely high -- are at about one-third of the levels they reached during the height of the Cold War. A whole class of nuclear weapons -- intermediate range ballistic missiles in Europe -- was eliminated by the agreement of Ronald Reagan (a nuclear abolitionist) and Mikhail Gorbachev (another nuclear abolitionist). The vast majority of the world's "small," tactical nuclear weapons have been taken out of action. In short, progress can and has been made.

If anything, the continued possession by the United States and Russia of roughly 26,000 nuclear weapons -- 95 percent of the world's total -- is precisely what makes it more likely that other nations will "think that possession of nuclear weapons is the best way to preserve their regime or threaten their neighbors."

A "do as I say, not as I do" nuclear policy on the part of the United States -- in which some nations are viewed as "responsible" enough to have these weapons of mass terror while others are not -- may be the biggest single obstacle to eliminating them.

Gates's brief, which went on to call for a new generation of nuclear weapons -- the antiseptically-named "Reliable Replacement Warhead" -- deserves to be rebutted in more detail. And so I will, in my next post.