On the other hand, in a recent interview, US Ambassador Richard Burt, touched on a number of the points you make, including, his pointed remark that “if you’re going to climb a mountain, it’s important to be able to see the top, and I think we’ve been able to show people what that mountaintop looks like,” referring to the work of Global Zero, and explicitily revising Sam Nunn’s blurry vision. See http://tinyurl.com/ygal7yd

Ross Douthat asks in the New York Times Op-Ed “The Dream of Zero” of February 7th, 2010, this: “The only question is whether this [Zero] is good news for global security”. I would contend that basing our security on finding solutions to conflicts through negotiation, building trust and strengthening existing or establishing new common international and regional security architectures would provide us with a sustainable security. This model is infinitely preferrable to continuing to rely on nuclear deterrence to provide some countries the means of threatening others with obliteration and hoping this will maintain our security. We (in the US and Western Europe) have been lucky so far, although there have been many moments in history where we nearly blew the whole world up instead. Now we have reached a point where our adversaries are becoming undeterrable. It is unrealistic to keep clinging to the Cold War straw of nuclear deterrence. Just like we need sustainable energy and a sustainable economy, we also need sustainable security. So lets stop calling a necessity “naive” or a “dream” and get on with it. The status quo is no longer tenable.