Despite President Obama's soft-pedaling the time frame for his goal of a world without nuclear weapons, announced in his April Prague speech, it may be quite possible during his lifetime, though certainly not within his presidency. Whatever the timeline, charting the course all the way to zero is too complex to try at this point. The early moves in this direction, on the other hand, are quite clear. One of the most significant, the Nuclear Posture Review that determines the policy and strategic basis of US nuclear forces, is currently being prepared for the president's signature.

In fact, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) is probably the most important bureaucratic process you've never heard of. (Find more details in Martin Butcher's background paper or Joe Cirincione and Andrew Grotto's report for CAP.) Important because the resulting documents will determine the purpose of America's nuclear arsenal, which in turn will send a clear signal to the rest of the world. And unless the review sharply curtails the function of nuclear weapons purely to deter others from nuclear attack (aka a pledge of no first use), that signal could land with a diplomatic thud and undercut the Obama administration's credibility.

The essence of the NPT Treaty -- the spiritof the law -- is to uphold a taboo on the world's most destructive weapons. That's why nations possessing nuclear weapons that signed the treaty 40 years ago, like the US, were expected ultimately to disarm (Article VI). These devices were to be tolerated only with the understanding that they would eventually be eliminated; the nonproliferation norm stipulates an international security system that leaves no permanent role for nuclear arms as military instruments. You can see why this is so important to preventing the spread of this technology to more countries. In the international politics of nonproliferation, there's no avoiding arguments that "what's good for the goose..." particularly as the United States struggles to restore its moral authority,

This also explains President Obama's numerous references to reducing the role of nuclear weapons in US national security. His posture review is an opportunity to clear the air and confine that role to nuclear deterrence. The more functions and scenarios that are devised for nuclear weaopns, the more tortured the policy debate over reducing them, refraining from testing, halting the development of new systems, etc. My favorite resource that I've found in this area is a Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article by Jeffrey Lewis, the blogosphere's official arms control wonk. My summary: there's minimum deterrence, and then there's a lot of scary rationalization for keeping a much more extensive arsenal than you need to deter a nuclear attack.