As Close to (Global) Zero as Possible

            Though full-fledged global disarmament of countries such as the U.S., Russia and China is not even foreseeable, a new sustainable nuclear order is certainly necessitated by the expectation of significant nuclear expansion by several states, the formidable threat presented by terrorism, and the forces of globalization which have altered the dynamics of state actors; this new nuclear order must be equitable and not perpetuate the disparity between the states that possess nuclear weapons and those that do not. In my opinion, the aforementioned nuclear order should be the process of striving toward achieving deep reductions in the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of states, with underlying desirability of getting as close to "global zero" as possible. While I recognize that "global zero" presents immense problems in terms of feasibility, verification and enforcement, I think that Schelling's conclusion which states that, "a ‘world without nuclear weapons’ would be a world in which the United States, Russia, Israel, China, and half a dozen or a dozen other countries would have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems, and would have prepared targets to pre-empt other nations’ nuclear facilities, all in a high-alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications. Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis, any war could become a nuclear war" is unnecessarily pessimistic and oversimplified. The above statement rests on the notion that in a world that has eliminated nuclear weapons, absolutely everything else would remain the same. However, I think that a world without nuclear weapons carries with it vast implications for 'leveling the playfield' that would certainly and inevitably transform nation states, international institutions and the overall international system. Furthermore, although I agree with Schelling's point that knowledge of nuclear weapons cannot be unlearned and nuclear weapons cannot be "disinvented", it is fair to say that this applies to anything ever created and utilized throughout the history of time and yet many dangerous and objectionable practices and creations have been altered, minimized or banned altogether (CFC's which created the hole in the ozone layer, for example). In addition, I do not think that Schelling adequately addresses the issue of terrorism (probably the biggest security risk facing the world today), and I do not believe that nuclear weapons or strategies like M.A.D. serve any useful purpose against terrorists, especially as terrorist groups cannot be considered rational actors and the issue of locating them lies as the central challenge.

            If we consider disarmament or the concept of "global zero" as impossible, it will forever stay impossible.  Given the risks of a world in which nuclear weapons continue to spread and are ironically considered as essential to our very survival, it is vital that current leaders identify concrete steps that can be taken in the near future in order to head towards a world in which their successors could possibly visualize achieving "global zero".