So the White House got its headlines: "Obama promises nuclear-free world"; "Obama: 'We will put an end to nuclear weapons'." Yes sir, this guy is good. Barack Obama "promised" what it was not in his power to deliver and everybody believed him.  Does he (or anybody else) really think he can persuade India and Pakistan to give up their beloved nuclear capability while they glare at each other over an ever more hostile and terrifying border?  Does he think that any amount of rhetoric about a future based on hope rather than fear will convince China that possession of the Bomb doesn't give it more global clout than it has had for centuries? Or that the new kids on the nuclear block, North Korea and (any minute now) Iran will dismantle their toys in response to an American undertaking to reduce its arsenal by a fraction?  But, as I say, the man is gifted at making what can be said sound like it can be done. And what is more, he is positively brilliant (I am not being sarcastic here) at embedding hard truths in a package of liberal rhetoric.  For the one concrete, deliverable promise that Mr Obama made in his Prague "end of nuclear weapons" speech was to continue one of the most unpopular Bush policies: the deployment of the missile defence shield in Europe. So long as Iran remains a threat, he said, the US would maintain its commitment to the missile defence programme which has (he tactfully did not say) been so unpopular in Eastern European countries such as the one in which he was speaking. And the enormous Czech crowd which stretched as far as the eye could see, cheered him. Were they listening carefully? Was his meaning lost in translation? Were the people who could be heard cheering actually Czechs? Well, never mind. He said it – and that is good news. For all the CND blah, there is still a firm grasp of reality – and resolve – at the heart of American foreign and defence policy. Not surprising really when you consider that it has been sub-contracted to Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates who were both supporters of the Bush White House on these matters (Gates having been Bush's Defence Secretary before becoming Mr Obama's).  But the pledge to continue with missile defence strategy was not the only throwback to the previous administration. Mr Obama made it clear that his plan to rid the world of nukes was not wide-eyed or credulous. It would rely, he said, on a system of rigorous inspection to ensure that suspect countries were not breaking the new international rules.  In fact, the world would have to be ready to provide "more resources to strengthen international inspections". And those inspections – or presumably a refusal to submit to them – would have to have, he said, real consequences: "Violations must be punished". But hang on – isn't this precisely the situation we found ourselves in with Iraq? A rogue state which was believed by virtually all the world to have weapons of mass destruction (not nuclear in this case) refused to permit proper inspection, in spite of being given warning after warning by the UN – and then was punished. Mr Obama and most of the people who are applauding him around the globe disapproved, didn't they? On the basis of his own words in Prague, what would he do differently if, say, Iran were to forbid inspections, or failed to abide by international warnings?  For that matter, what does he propose doing right now about North Korea? There was lots of heavy talk about how unacceptable that country's belligerent tour de force had been in firing what could have been a nuclear-armed missile over Japan – but talk, as they say, is cheap. What might the "punishment" be for such a "violation" of the coming nuclear-free world order? And who would be responsible for administering it? The US? Not presumably on its own, since Obama's America is busy assuming a new identity as humble participant in an international dialogue. A "coalition of the willing" perhaps, representing the "free peoples" of Europe and America now happily united under a leader who can provide a morally credible gloss to what sounded, under Bush, like a cowboy sheriff gunning down outlaws? Judging by the meagre response from Nato to the Obama appeal for a bit more military help on the ground in Afghanistan – the instability of which, as the President rightly said, is more of a threat to Europe than it is to the US – I wouldn't bet on that. Good luck with the EU, Mr President: if you think Nato was pusillanimous and stingy, wait till you come up against Strasbourg.  That brings us to the question of just how much Mr Obama's worldwide popularity is worth in real money. Europe listens with shining eyes, it mobs him in its thousands and claps and cheers – but when he says it's time they shared a bit more of the burden, they stare at their shoes. What Mr Obama meant when he told Nato that "we would like to see Europe have much more robust capabilities" was: the free ride is over.  Post-war Europe has built its comfortable, deeply cushioned, welfare-state social democracy with the money it had once spent on armaments. Beating their swords into benefit payments has worked very nicely for all those peace-loving Europeans who turned their backs on militarism even as the Cold War raged. But it only worked because America was providing the arms and the defence protection that Europe highmindedly disdained.  Then the Cold War was over and Europe proceeded to divert even more of its defence budget into domestic spending (the "peace dividend"). But the collapse of the single Big Threat gave way to a more anarchic epidemic of irrational global instability. And now the emollient liberal Mr Obama is saying: "We're looking to be partners with Europe, and the more capable they are defensively, the more we can act in concert on the shared challenges we face."  This translates as: "You have built your healthcare systems and your welfare programmes on the back of our undertaking to defend you. While you got big-spending social democracy, we got the bill for protecting the whole show. Well, I'm planning to provide Americans with the sort of public health service that you guys have – and nobody knows better than you how inefficient and monstrously expensive that will be. So get ready to fend for yourselves. It's our turn to waste money at home now."
The US President is in no position promise to rid the world of the Bomb, says    Janet Daley.