On January 15, 2008, in an Op-Ed column entitled "Toward a Nuclear-Free World," four concerned American citizens called upon U.S. government and other governments to set "the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons" and to take substantial action toward this goal.  No, these Americans weren't leaders of Peace Action, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Physicians for Social Responsibility, or other major peace organizations.  Instead, they were George Shultz (secretary of state under Ronald Reagan), William Perry (secretary of defense under Bill Clinton), Henry Kissinger (secretary of state under Richard Nixon), and Sam Nunn (a former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee).  And the newspaper where their column appeared was the Wall Street Journal.

"The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point," warned these former top power-wielders.  "The steps we are taking . . . are not adequate to the danger," and, consequently, "deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous." 

Having issued a similar warning in early 2007, Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn had received support for their anti-nuclear stance from numerous former U.S. national security officials.  And when they convened veterans of the past six administrations, along with other experts on nuclear issues, for a conference at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, "there was general agreement about the importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the importance of a series of steps that will pull us back from the nuclear precipice."  Naturally, as the United States and Russia possess "close to 95% of the world's nuclear warheads," they "have a special responsibility, obligation and experience to demonstrate leadership" in the process of nuclear disarmament.

One would find this position remarkable were it not for the fact that most people around the world already agree with it.  Polls over the last decade have found overwhelming support for a nuclear-free world.  Asked if Britain "should help to negotiate a global treaty to prohibit and eliminate nuclear weapons," 87 percent of Britons responded affirmatively.  Queried as to whether all nuclear weapons should be eliminated, 78 percent of Japanese agreed.  When Germans were asked if the nuclear weapons states should "start getting rid of their own nuclear weapons as soon as possible," 87 percent backed the idea.  Asked if the nuclear weapons states should abolish their weapons, 61 percent of Russians expressed approval.  Even the citizens of supposedly nationalistic Third World nations have shown a strong aversion to nuclear weapons.  Asked if their country should produce nuclear bombs, 63 percent of Indians said "No."

For years, Americans have expressed much the same opinions.  In April 1997, a survey found that more than four out of five of U.S. respondents supported negotiating an international agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons.  Only four months ago, another poll reported that 73 percent of the American public favored nuclear abolition. 

In this context, what is remarkable is that relatively few of the politicians campaigning for president are willing to speak up for a nuclear-free world.  To be sure, among the front-running Democrats, Barack Obama and John Edwards have taken an abolitionist stand.  But, within the ranks of the Republican front-runners, there is nary a peep about nuclear abolition, nuclear disarmament, or even nuclear arms control.  If the presidential race boils down to Hillary Clinton versus John McCain (the current front-runners for the Democratic and Republican party nominations), the overwhelming popular sentiment for nuclear abolition will not find expression.

It's unfortunate that, in a world bristling with 27,000 nuclear weapons, our leading politicians are unwilling to stake out a position that—to policymaking elites and average citizens alike—is just common sense.