Russia will close its last weapons-grade plutonium production reactor and agreed with the US to dispose of 34 tonnes apiece of plutonium, enough said, Obama for "about 17,000 nuclear weapons".

A year ago Barack Obama announced his aim of moving toward "a world without nuclear weapons". A new policy on nuclear arms has now begun to emerge. So far, it is not a radical change from the stance of the previous administration. In some ways it confirms a shift of emphasis already begun. But it is neither a non - event, nor, as some critics allege, a reckless weakening of US security.

The preceding nuclear posture review - a statement of the risks the US believes it faces, and its intended response - says that threats from nuclear - armed states such as Russia and China have receded. In future, it argues, the greater threat is rogue states and nuclear-armed terrorists.

Ahead of the Washington summit on securing nuclear materials, the review puts non-proliferation to the fore - and rightly so. It also sets the agreement just signed with Russia on the reduction of nuclear stockpiles into a wider strategic context.

The review narrows the circumstances under which the US says it would use nuclear arms. The aim, says Obama, is to use the arsenal exclusively to deter nuclear attack - the no first use doctrine that would be an intermediate step to a world free of nuclear weapons.

So the "fundamental role;" of its nuclear weapons is indeed to deter nuclear attack, says the US. Yet the policy does not rule out use of nuclear weapons against nuclear armed states launching conventional attacks on the US or its allies, nor against non-nuclear states (such as Iran) that have failed to sign or honour the nonproliferation treaty.

The review makes much of the fact that the US for the first time is promising not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states in compliance with the NonProliferation Treaty, even if they attack the US with biological or chemical weapons. But this bold declaration is immediately qualified: nuclear retaliation might follow if those non-nuclear attacks would be "devastating".

When push comes to shove, these rhetorical nuances are of little account. What matters is facts on the ground: the size of the stockpile, which the US is about to cut; investment in new warheads, which the administration says it will halt; and a raft of complementary decisions yet to be made on non-proliferation, inspection and verification, missile defences, the safety of the ageing arsenal, and so on. There is no cause to question Mr Obama's sincerity - but the dream of a world without nukes remains, for the moment, just that.

.Kate Hudson, Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said, This is a very significant day and a positive first step on the road to a nuclear-free future. The cut-backs are welcome but their real significance is in building the trust that can open the way to further rounds of cuts.

World leaders must now build on this momentum, tackling nukes already kept in deep storage and bringing the other nuclear weapon states into the process. With the review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in May, this is a timely advance which must be developed to the full.

She continued, Britain has its role to play too. Gordon Brown has said that 'as soon as it becomes useful for our arsenal to be included in a broader negotiation, Britain stands ready to participate and to act' - now is that time. Were Britain to put Trident on the negotiating table at the NPT Review Conference this could be a real game-changer. Scrapping the ruinously expensive Trident and any replacement would put pressure on France and China to consider parallel cuts.

But for a long time, Muslim countries have objected to being dictated to by Western forces on nuclear policy, while ignoring Israel's capabilities.

This is thoroughly justified in the circumstances as revealed by Jane's Defence Weekly, which deals with military information; in estimating that the State of Israel has up to 300 nuclear warheads, with a power similar to that of Britain.

The article stated that Tel Aviv was the sixth nation to acquire nuclear weapons in the 1950s.

While Israel has never admitted to having atomic weapons, it is suspected that Netanyahu would rather have the nuclear spotlight directed solely at Iran during the US summit.

While Netanyahu did not go, Israel still attended the summit, with less senior delegates being told to keep the focus on the possibility of Iran's building a nuclear arsenal.

In the view of Liberation, Israel is the middle east nuclear danger. While Iran has consistently said its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes only. As Turkey has stated, diplomacy, not threat is the way forward; itself a significant step in middle east politics.

With Israel’s foreign and domestic policies becoming more and more exposed, Liberation hopes that the threat of a middle east nuclear conflagration can be averted by the historic 47-nation initiative.