Nuclear Nonproliferation or Disarmament?

In light of growing threats from Iran and North Korea, the prospect of nuclear non-proliferation is on everyone's minds.  But, is it even possible?  If so, what would it entail?  President Obama led a session at the UN in the end of September which addressed these issues, concluding that a stronger nuclear nonproliferation strategy is necessary to achieve "a world without nuclear weapons."

Yet, nonproliferation does not imply a world without nuclear weapons.  Instead, it implies a world without any more nuclear weapons.  For a world truly devoid of nuclear weapons, disarmament, not nonproliferation, must be the goal.   Nonproliferation is in itself a strong objective as it will bring an end to the spread of nuclear weapons, but this alone is not enough.

The international community has taken steps towards nonproliferation through a series of treaties.  The first, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 requires that nuclear-states to disarm completely and non-nuclear states to halt all development of the weapons.  However, until recently, even the United States wasn't making an effort at reducing nuclear arms.  The 2002 Nuclear Posture Review reported the US' plans to maintain large amounts of nuclear weapons.  Fortunately, the new administration under President Obama, is much more wiling to cooperate with the tenants of the NPT.

A second nuclear treaty was a bilateral agreement between the US and the USSR. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I) limited each signatory to 1,600 Strategic Nuclear Delivery Vehicles and 6,000 Accountable Warhead.  This treaty will expire in December and it is crucial that its successor goes beyond solely limitation and calls for the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Both of the above treaties are solid steps in the right direction.  Yet, it is crucial that all involved parties are aware that non-proliferation is a means to an end.  And the end is disarmament.  Then, we truly will have "a world without nuclear weapons."