One small gesture

The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is little talked about today, yet throughout the Cold War years it was an argument advanced by some militarists when confronting anti-nuclear protesters across the globe.

"M.A.D", it was claimed, ensured global peace because the possessors of nuclear weapons knew that to use them would mean mutual destruction; thus the 65 years the world has enjoyed without a global conflict has been guaranteed by means of threat of annihilation.

Militarists continue to argue that nuclear forces are needed to ensure no other nuclear power is tempted to mount a challenge; the problem with that argument is that the two great nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, no longer control the distribution of nuclear weapons.

Indeed, at least another eight nations possess them, others are thought to be trying to make them, and their acquisition by terrorists is considered to be the greatest threat to peace.

At present, it is estimated that Russia deploys 2600 nuclear warheads while the United States about 2100; added to these numbers are the thousands more reserve warheads and tactical warheads; China is estimated to have 180 warheads.

Britain, France and Israel all have modern weapons; India and Pakistan each have about 70 or 80; North Korea has a few, Iran is thought to be trying to make at least one.

Nations which have access to nuclear weapons through military treaties include Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada and Greece.

South Africa disassembled its nuclear weapons in the 1990s.

A year ago, President Obama announced his plans for a world without nuclear weapons, expressing a hope rather than any rational expectation, but nevertheless a plea for disarmament that was widely welcomed.

This week he signed the "New Start" treaty with Russia, under which both powers will reduce their nuclear arsenals, while still deploying 1550 warheads each.

Thousands of other weapons held in reserve will not be affected.

Further reductions will depend on additional negotiations with Russia.

The treaty replaces the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired last year, and the 2002 Treaty of Moscow.

In addition to warhead limitation, both Russia and the US have agreed to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons launchers.

Perhaps the true significance of these measures is to compare the situation with that which existed before 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed: at that time each side deployed more than 20,000 strategic warheads.

Mr Obama is, of course, taking a great risk: there are many in the US who oppose making such concessions, and at any event, his overall hopes cannot take place other than over decades.

And they do not overcome the problems of nuclear powers who are not allied to the West.

Worse, the treaty exists in the shadow of America's plans for a missile shield system in Europe to counter what it perceives as the threat from Iran.

Mr Obama's need for domestic support - he needs both Democratic and Republican votes in the Senate for a majority to approve his plans - has much to do with the almost simultaneous publication of his "Nuclear Posture Review", which sets out in broad terms his Administration's future policy: reducing America's "first strike" capacity, renouncing the development of new warheads, and reducing stockpiles of nuclear warheads.

There are opponents in the US who argue that what Mr Obama is intending is to make the world safe for conventional war again.

In this country, now long aligned to a non-nuclear, disarmament stance, the Prime Minister has welcomed the results of the review.

"New Zealand warmly welcomes these developments, as concrete steps towards our long-held goal of a nuclear-weapon-free world," said Mr Key.

Those who advocate the elimination or reduction of nuclear weapons are bound to think the week's activities, while marking some modest progress towards disarmament, have not gone far enough.

Next week's 47-nation nuclear proliferation summit in Washington, which will consider the threat from smaller nations, or from terrorist organisations, is expected to agree to measures to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials to prevent them from falling into the "wrong" hands.

The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, considers the review one of the biggest changes in strategic thinking since the end of the Cold War, and that it reverses policies introduced by the Bush administration.

She also acknowledges it was strongly resisted by the Pentagon, and has confirmed the US reserves the right to use nuclear weapons to defend its interests - or those of its allies and partners.

Deterrence, it seems, remains core policy - "M.A.D" still exists.