“With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat” — President Barack Obama, Inauguration speech, January 20, 2009.
“This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.” – candidate Obama in Berlin, July 24, 2008.
Here is a survey, in reverse chronological order, of relevant statements Barack Obama has posted at the White House website and made on the campaign trail.
Currently online at the website of the White House:
“Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”
From Obama's responses to an Arms Control Association Questionnaire, received on September 10, 2008:

Bill Hartung's placed this letter in the October 15 New York Times
As “New and Unnecessary” suggests, this is no time to be contemplating the construction of new nuclear weapons.
Not only would making new bombs run against the grain of growing support for a world without nuclear weapons, it would also be enormously costly.
The Department of Energy's current plans entail spending up to $200 billion over the next two decades to sustain an unneeded nuclear weapons complex that would build not only new warheads, but new weapons factories as well.
These funds would be far better spent if they were invested in an area of real national need like the development of clean energy sources.
William D. Hartung, New York, Oct. 13, 2008
The writer is the director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation

Joe Cirincione on WHYY Radio: “Preventing a nuclear 9/11 has got to be the number one national security priority of the next President.” Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, was interviewed October 20 by WHYY's Marty Ross-Coane. More excerpts:
* * * “I think we're seeing one of the most dramatic national security moments in my lifetime. And it's not about starting a war or ending a war–it's about ending the Cold War posture of nuclear weapons. It's about fundamentally transforming U.S. nuclear weapons policy and with it the nuclear policies of the world.”
* * * “How can we convince other nations not to acquire nuclear weapons if the most powerful military nation the world has ever known–the United States–says that WE need nuclear weapons for our security? It's just not going to work. It's like trying to get your kids to stop smoking when you have a 2 pack-a-day habit. So you have to set the standard. The United States in particular — but with Russia –has to be setting the standard for reducing the political saliency of these weapons, for reducing the military saliency of these weapons.
And there is huge support for this among the retired and active military. Military guys know that these weapons are almost useless — that we're not going to use these weapons except under the most dire circumstances. So there's tremendous support for reducing the number of these weapons, for reducing the cost associated with these weapons — we spend $54 billion a year to maintain our nuclear weapons and nuclear-related weapons — and to use that money for other purposes.
So you see this developing among realists, among the military–a very practical approach to why the United States has to get serious about eliminating nuclear weapons.”
If you'd like, you can download and listen to the whole interview.

Gwen Ifill asked an odd (but welcome!) question about nuclear weapons in the Vice Presidential debate: “What should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?”

The RESPONSES to Ms. Ifill's question were even more odd, and so was the next-day coverage in the Washington Post.

Gov. Sarah Palin: “Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be all, end all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet, so those dangerous regimes, again, cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period. . . .Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.” hmmmm. I won't elaborate on that.

A new, August 2008 survey by Harris Interactive found that two thirds of Americans believe that possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages others to develop their own nuclear arsenals.The findings, released before the August 29 anniversary of nuclear proliferation, when the Soviet Union successfully tested its first atomic bomb in 1949, suggest the world needs a broader approach for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

“Americans understand that 'Do as I say, not as I do' is advice that is falling on deaf ears,” said Susan Gordon, Executive Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and member of the Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World Coordinating Committee. “By clinging to thousands of these weapons, the nuclear nations of the world send the wrong message and make us all less secure. “It's up to the next president to lead the world toward a nuclear weapons free world, as part of his strategy to stop the spread of nuclear weapons,” she said.