Quotes of the Day

President Obama's call for a "world without nuclear weapons," and his agreement with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to work towards just that, have helped revive an issue that slipped off the foreign-policy agenda following the end of the Cold War two decades ago. But nuclear disarmament hasn't been completely forgotten in recent years. In 2007, four diplomatic heavyweights — former U.S. Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn — made an impassioned plea for a nuclear weapons-free world. Shultz, Perry and Nunn, along with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, sat down with TIME's Deputy Managing Editor Romesh Ratnesar in Rome last week. (They were joined by one-time Soviet Foreign Minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh and Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin.) The group discussed the chances for progress, Iran, North Korea and the threat of nukes falling into the hands of terrorists. Excerpts:

TIME: The idea of a a world without nuclear weapons is one that all four of you have been talking about for the last several years. Last month in Prague, President Obama made it a goal of his Administration's foreign policy. What was the significance of that?

Shultz: Before his speech in Prague, President Obama met in London with the president of the Russian Federation, President Medvedev, and they issued a joint statement in which they pledged the two countries to seek a world free of nuclear weapons. And so the Prague speech, which I thought was a stirring speech, was building on that statement.

I'm sitting across the table from President Gorbachev — twentysomething years ago at [the U.S.-Soviet summit in] Reykjavik, he and President Reagan made the same kind of statement. When I came home from Rejkyavik — you remember, Mr. President, Margaret Thatcher used to carry a little handbag — she came to Washington and summoned me to the British Ambassador's residence. And she handbagged me. She said, "George, how could you sit there and allow the president to agree to a world free of nuclear weapons?" And I said, "Well Margaret, he's the President....and I agreed with him!" But this time I think there is a very great receptiveness. I'd be interested in what the reaction has been in Russia. (See pictures of the world's worst nuclear disasters.)

Gorbachev: Let's be frank — the process of nuclear disarmament had slowed down. The members of the nuclear club were not showing a good example to the other countries. They had forgotten about their obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and quite naturally all of us were concerned about that situation. I think what the two presidents did...was received by knowledgeable people in Russia very positively. The most important thing is that the [arms-reduction] process is resuming, and I think that the overall response not only in our two countries but in the world, is positive. People are glad that this is happening. You said that this was an historic statement, and I agree with that.

TIME: So what's the next step?

Nunn: We are in what I call a "perfect storm" in terms of nuclear danger. You've got nuclear materials spread around the world. You've got the beginning of proliferation of enrichment by a number of countries — and not simply Iran and North Korea. You've got the spread of technology and know-how, and you've got terrorists who are willing to use these weapons if they get them.

I have about six or seven top priorities. If I had to list one that would be most important to the U.S. and Russia, it would be to find a way to work together on ballistic missile defense. Because if we can work together and get other countries to join us, and understand each other on defensive systems — what we're going to do or not do — then at some point we will conclude, why do we need all of these offensive forces that are a danger to not only our two countries, but to the globe? My second priority is one we've already undertaken, but we've got a long way to go, and that is to get nuclear materials secured, everywhere in the world. And that's something the U.S. and Russia should work as partners on together. We have worked together since the early nineties but we need to make that a global partnership and get others to join us.

TIME:Many countries, not just Iran and North Korea, but also Pakistan, India, Israel, view nuclear weapons not just as fundamental to their security but also to their national prestige. How do you get them to embrace this vision of a nuclear-free world? Can the vision be exported?

Perry: The vision can be exported, but not until the United States and Russia take a leadership position. The U.S. and Russia have 95% of the nuclear weapons in the world. The world will look to them to provide leadership. During the Cold War we built this huge store of nuclear weapons becuase we thought they protected our security. Today the same weapons that protected our security are now endangering our security. And the U.S. and Russia must lead the way in reducing that danger.

The Prague speech was indeed a remarkable moment. But that's just the beginning. When I point out the necessity of the U.S. and Russia providing leadership I don't mean to suggest that's all that is needed. That leadership is necessary to inspire the other countries to move as well. The U.S., and even the U.S. and Russia by themselves, cannot deal with this danger [alone.] It's a global problem and it requires a global solution.

Read about Mikhail Gorbachev's work with Green Cross International.

See TIME's pictures of the week.

Shultz: I'd like to make the problem even more complicated, and then simplify it. This got started with a question about India and Pakistan. Well, they have a long-standing dispute [over] Kashmir. All of this underlines the importance about doing something about this part of the world that is in turmoil right now — Pakistan, Afghanistan, India — it's a problem in the process of exploding. In our various writings on this, we always said that getting after these sensitive regional issues was something very much to be on the front burner. If it turns out that we are able to move forward in this nuclear field, arguably the most difficult of all, it would tend to show the world that progress is possible on something like this and maybe there would be some progress in other areas. We can't get ourselves in the position of saying we can't do anything until we do everything.

Gorbachev: [But] let's say we've arrived to the "X" date when we have rid the world, when we've rid planet Earth of nuclear weapons. [There would still be] very sophisticated, modern, destructive conventional arms. And these weapons that can be used in different situations will mostly be in the United States. We would have a rather distorted situation....This is a security issue for our countries, a political and security issue. When we talk about security, we cannot just say, trust us, rely on us, we want peace. You know that that is not something that works.

Nunn: Let me say in response to President Gorbachev, I was one of those shortly after Reykjavik brought up the conditional imbalances and expressed my views that we needed to get rid of nuclear weapons but we also had to address the conventional problems. I still feel that way, and I think that, without trying to allocate fault to any particular countries, he fact that Russia is not part of any kind of security arrangements in the Euro-Atlantic arc is a failure of foreign policy of the United States and of Russia and of Europe.

We also have to do the same thing together as global leaders in discussing the tensions in South Asia, Pakistan and India. We have to work together with other countries in the Middle East, and we have to work together in Northeast Asia. All of those countries in those areas have certain insecurities and in their minds it all ties to the nuclear question. So we cannot neglect those problems. But we should go forward, as George says, with the nuclear discussions in parallel with these other discussions knowing that they're all going to be important in terms of what I call reaching the top of the mountain — which is a world without nuclear weapons.

Perry: If we start off on this nuclear disarmament process, we should not imagine it's going to be over in a year or two. It took us decades to build up the nuclear arsenal of the Cold War and it took us decades to remove it, even under the best conditions. I believe, though, that a serious move toward a nuclear disarmament would provide the best possible environment for dealing with the other problems. So it's not an either or problem; they have to move together in parallel.

TIME: What can be done to try to change the behavior of countries like Iran and North Korea, who appear to be attempting to develop nuclear weapons?

Shultz: I believe that if it's clear that we are on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons...then the amount of pressure on them increases greatly. You can change the atmosphere and you'll be able to get at these problems. But at the same time we have to show if the system of a world free of nuclear weapons is to work, that somebody who tries to break out will be punished. It's not going to be allowed.

Gorbachev: Whatever Iran might be doing, it hasn't been able to divide Russia and the U.S. in terms of the overall approach. That is to say, that both our countries — all of us — believe that Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons. Frankly, I don't believe that force could be the answer, in this case in particular.

It seemed to some people that the invasion of Iraq would produce great dividends for the U.S. in the Middle East in democratizing the Middle East, in Iraq, that it would improve America's standing, etc. Actually what happened was the exact opposite. Let us not brandish any threats or weapons. So I have been saying for some time...The U.S. and the Iranians should move toward dialogue.

Shultz: I can't speak for the current Administration, but what you suggest is what they're trying to do. But we look at it and we see that Iran through Syria is arming Hizbullah, arming Hamas [and] constantly making statements about their desire to wipe Israel out. That's part of what needs to be calmed down.

Gorbachev: No doubt about it. This process should include all of the things that you just mentioned. And frankly I don't understand why America hasn't been dealing with Iran in this way.

Shultz: Iran is hard to deal with, Mr. President.

Nunn: An additional idea that I think we have to start thinking about is, if we're not going to be accused of double standards by the countries that don't have enrichment, we've got to basically have all facilities that produce highly enriched uranium or plutonium under international safeguard — both existing and used. Under that kind of framework we will be in a different position in dealing with countries like Iran. But we have to do it together.

Perry: No matter how well we do those things, it's possible that Iran will still proceed towards nuclear weapons. In that case we have to look at negative incentives. I do not think we have to consider military sanctions at this time. I do believe that financial sacntions could be very effective, but only if we get global cooperation. Russia, the U.S. and the European union would have to agree on sanctions. And China would have to agree not to interfere with them. If that could be done then it would be very powerful.

Gorbachev: It's important for us not to miss the station. In the world, between our two countries and within our two countries I think there is now reason for hope that very significant steps forward could be taken. And that's very important. So let's seize that opportunity.

Read about Mikhail Gorbachev's work with Green Cross International.

See TIME's pictures of the week.

• Romesh Ratnesar
• For a small group of foreign-policy veterans, a world free of nuclear weapons is an idea — little discussed these past two decades — worth talking about again