Thank you.
Your question is too big to answer in a couple of minutes, because it addresses a security doctrine that is subscribed to by all the NATO countries, for example, and how to move from such a security doctrine to one in which nuclear weapons are not perceived as relevant to security. There are many elements to it, and I can address only some of them very quickly.
One of them is the application of the international humanitarian law to the aspect of any possible use of nuclear weapons. This is exactly what helped to mobilize the negotiations for the land mines convention and the cluster munitions convention. The use of those weapons violates the laws of warfare. They affect civilians and the environment. Their effects last a long time after the actual conflict, so they violate the law. The same is true of nuclear weapons, and that has been affirmed by the International Court of Justice. Any use of them would violate the humanitarian laws of warfare, and that's now being put forward by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Applying that is part of the process leading towards not just a step-by-step reduction in the numbers of nuclear weapons but the prohibition of them and a strengthening of the norm of prohibition.
That can be done in a number of ways, through national legislation or by putting it to the International Criminal Court that the employment of nuclear weapons, whether by a non-state actor or by some rogue state leader, would actually be a crime, and that should be adhered to under the statute of the International Criminal Court. There are other methods too, but I don't have time to go into those.
More important, I think, is to look at what other mechanisms can deal with the threat of aggression, or possible aggression, that won't require deterrence through nuclear weapons. Deterrence can be through other means, whether its through conventional forces or it's deterrence against any leader that might make such a decision, such as an Iranian leader or an Egyptian leader.
We can look at the mechanisms that could be used to directly affect them rather than the population of people, which is what a nuclear weapon would be directed against. Financial assets of the leader could be frozen, as was done with Mubarak. A leader could be charged in the International Criminal Court or there could be targeted sanctions. These are some of the methods, but they have to be explored. We don't have all the answers right now.