The Foreign Service Journal, July-August 2007

armed ICBM of the type already in the U.S. arsenal. In the meantime, we can and should rely more on reserve forces, or what the administration calls the “responsive force.” The treaty Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin signed in Moscow in 2002 stipulated that each country may retain up to 2,200 nuclear warheads five years from now, in 2012. Under the U.S. interpretation of the treaty, that ceiling refers only to war- heads that are operationally deployed, many on missiles ready to be launched on short notice, or at bomber bases. Warheads held in reserve are not included, and there are thousands of them both in Russia and the United States available for reconstituting a much larger strategic strike force. Zero deployed nuclear war- heads is a reasonable goal and could be accomplished, as a legal matter, simply by replacing “1,700 to 2,200” in the 2002 treaty with the word “zero.” This move would allow our strategic forces to be more flexible and relevant to today’s threats. For instance, in an environment verified as free of deployed nuclear warheads, con- ventionally armed missiles ready for prompt launch would become a feasible option. This would also pave the way toward a world of “virtual” nuclear weapons states, where access to nuclear weapons is available, but only after a cooling-off period. From there, it should be eas- ier to realize the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. F O C U S J U LY- A U G U S T 2 0 0 7 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 23 If the U.S. and Russia work together to roll back the world’s nuclear arsenals, that will help to bring the other states with such weapons into the new structure.