Joseph Cirincione presented the following remarks to the Peace and Security Funders Group in Washington, DC on October 16, 2009. Cirincione is is the President of the Ploughshares Fund.

President Barack Obama has one of the most comprehensive, progressive and ambitious arms control and disarmament agendas every proposed by a U.S. president.  With his joint statement with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev 1 April 2009 and his speech in Prague 5 April, President Obama began the transformation of US nuclear policy.  Implementing this agenda, however, will require the president to secure the active cooperation of international leaders while overcoming serious domestic resistance to his plans.

I see four major obstacles to the implementation of President Obama's efforts to transform US nuclear policy.

First, Competing Crises: Economic, Health Care, Afghanistan.

Second, the Nuclear Neanderthals, those with financial or ideological ties to the existing nuclear bureaucracy and posture.  No matter how hard they beat the drums, however, this is a tribe in decline, clinging to tired doctrines and obsolete weapons.

Third is a more serious problem:  the divisions within the administration itself.  The tensions between the transformationalists, who share the president's vision of a world without nuclear weapons and the incrementalists, who do not believe elimination possible or proliferation reversible, will intensify.  Though all are good people, the half-steps favored by the incrementalists will not give us full security. Going slowly when we must go boldy risks the failure of the president's agenda.

Still, with skill, presidential leadership and the active participation of organizations like those represented in the Peace and Security Funders Group, these divisions can be softened, coalitions forged, and the forces of reaction defeated.

The last obstacle is cynicism.

This is the perhaps the most serious and deserves a bit more attention.

Washington is the perfect place to talk about cynicism.  You want to talk about sin, go to Vegas.  Vanity, LA.  Greed, New York.  But Cynicism?  Washington is the capital of cynicism.

It is here in all types and flavors.  We have right cynicism that holds that nuclear disarmament is undesirable.  It is on display almost weekly on the editorial pages of the WSJ and the Washington Post.

Moderate cynicism holds that nuclear disarmament is unachievable. This is the pose of many editors and journalists.  It argues with vapid phrases, little knowledge and nonsensical assertions that eliminating nuclear weapons is as futile as eliminating gunpowder.  It is the pose of those who wish to appear worldly and wise--without exerting too much effort

We also have the left cynicism of those who believe disarmament is both desirable and feasible, but who do not believe this president is up to the task.  They disparage the official appointments; reports that do not go far enough and a president who does not believe deeply enough.

Cynicism in all its forms is still pervasive in the political process.  Overcoming it will be our greatest challenge, for it can sap the will of officials, filling them with a fear of appearing weak or foolish, and demoralize proponents, who will shrink from commitment to an apparently hopeless cause.

Cynicism is sometimes justified.  But it should substitute for research or reason.  We cannot let attitude replace analysis.

Obama understand this.  In his Prague speech, he says "such fatalism is our deadly adversary." He says:

"There are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve....I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down.   That is why the voices of peace and progress must be raised together."

I share this belief.  Not just ideologically, not just philosophically, but from a calm analysis of the political and historic trends now in motion.  I see the arrows moving in our direction.  I see the threats increasing, the growing consensus that the policies of the past administration have failed, a new consensus that sees disarmament and nonproliferation as two sides of the same coin, and an historic shift of the center of America's security elite to a renewed embrace of disarmament and arms control.

Indeed, arms control is the new realism.  There is a global sense of urgency that is fueling new efforts, new alliances, and new progress.

Overall, the arrows are moving in Obama's direction.  The growing consensus that the policies of the past administration have failed is now joined with a new consensus that sees disarmament and nonproliferation as two sides of the same coin-that disarmament develops the unity needed to prevent proliferation, which, in turn, provides the security needed for disarmament.

This is an historic shift of the center of America's security elite to a renewed embrace of disarmament and arms control.  Arms control seems to have become the new realism.  There is a global sense of urgency that is fueling new efforts, new alliances and new progress in New York, Geneva, Vienna, Moscow and Washington.

Two examples demonstrate how American conservatives who just a few years ago condemned treaties as "the illusion of security" are now backing agreements to reduce nuclear arms.

The first is James Schlesinger, former Republican secretary of defense and energy, who just endorsed a new treaty with Russia. "The moment appears ripe for a renewal of arms control with Russia, and this bodes well for continued reductions in the nuclear arsenal," said the U.S. Strategic Posture Commission he co-chairs.  Schlesinger once led the charge against further nuclear reductions and helped frame the Bush administration's alternative approach.  He wrote in his 2000 article, The Demise of Arms Control, "The necessary target for arms control is to constrain those who desire to acquire nuclear weapons."  In this view, the threat comes from other states, and a large, robust US nuclear arsenal was needed to counter proliferation.

The second is Brent Scowcroft, a perennial realist and a representative of a different wing of the Republican Party.  He was never ideologically opposed to negotiated reductions with the Russians; however, in 1999 he opposed the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.  Also in early May 2009, Scowcroft shifted.  The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force he co-chaired with Bill Perry recommended the Senate ratify the nuclear test ban he once questioned.  They also agreed that the "U.S.-Russia relationship is ripe for a new formal arms control agreement," one "that would reflect current defense needs and realities and would result in deeper arms reductions."

Both Scowcroft and Schlesinger still support retaining large US arsenals, but, for now, their support for new arms control treaties is enough to help start the progress we need to convince them and others that nuclear disarmament is not a fantasy.

I know that many think eliminating nuclear weapons is impossible.  Even significant reductions seem impossible to some.

We all have lived long enough to have seen events so improbable that they were judged impossible.

We have seen Chemical and Biological Weapons eliminated from the arsenals of all great powers.  No state admits having once coveted these weapons.  No nation sees them as a source of pride or national status.

We have seen the Vietam War end, Vietnam unite, prosper and invite U.S. veterans back for reconciliation and vacation.

We have seen the people of Eastern Europe overthrow once all-powerful Soviet regimes, build democracies were dictatorships once stood and unify Germany.

We have seen the Soviet Union collapse and nuclear arsenals shrink by over 70 percent in 25 years.

We have seen Protestants and Catholics who once killed each other and swore "Never, Never, Never" shake hands and unite to govern a peaceful Northern Ireland.

We have seen a man walk out of a prison cell that held him for 28 years to be elected the president of a united and majority-ruled South Africa.

We have seen the Red Sox win the World Series.  Twice.

Don't tell me we can't do this.  Yes, we can.