Subject: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty....(Guru)
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 1999 061136 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
.......As a former "arms controller" (worked the SALT I treaty --
the first major nuclear arms treaty -- my "SALT I" essay appeared in the
1974 Naval Review, published by the U.S. Naval Institute), I must say that
I agree with President Clinton on this one......
The whole world will be better served by ending these nuclear tests --
by ALL nations......
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
_________________________________________________________________
05:38 PM ET 10/04/99
Clinton Finds Test Ban a Hard Sell
By TOM RAUM=
Associated Press Writer=
WASHINGTON (AP) _ In 1958, deep in the Cold War, President
Eisenhower proposed a global ban on all nuclear weapons test
explosions. He said it would make the world safer.
He didn't have many takers.
More than four decades later, winning ratification of a treaty
to ban nuclear testing _ a top Clinton administration priority _ is
still a hard sell. Indeed, President Clinton conceded on Monday
that he doesn't have the votes needed for Senate ratification.
``I hope we can get them,'' he told reporters.
Despite repeated efforts by the big nuclear powers to limit the
nuclear arms race _ set in motion by the U.S. bombing of Japan in
World War II _ the issue hasn't been in the forefront of public
attention during most of the 41 years since Eisenhower's proposal.
``When you ask people what's the most important thing they worry
about, the test ban treaty is not on the top of the list,'' said
Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. Still, he said, ``when you lay
out the arguments to the public, the public overwhelmingly supports
the treaty.''
The Senate later this week will take up a treaty that would
carry out Eisenhower's vision _ an international pact intended to
halt or at least slow the development of nuclear weapons by banning
further testing.
To date, only the United States has used nuclear weapons _ the
two atomic bombs that ended World War II in August 1945.
Supporters of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty say it is
crucial to keep nuclear weapons from proliferating. They say it
would keep large countries with advanced nuclear weapons already in
their arsenals, including Russia and China, from manufacturing even
more threatening weapons.
And it would make it easier to rein in smaller nuclear powers,
such as India and Pakistan, and stop a dangerous regional arms
race.
Supporters of the ban also argue it would lock in superiority
achieved through more than 1,000 U.S. nuclear tests.
``Our experts have concluded that we don't need more tests to
keep our own nuclear forces strong,'' Clinton said as he met with
his national security team to plot strategy for next week's vote.
``Since we don't need nuclear tests, it is strongly in our
interest to achieve agreement that can help prevent other countries
like India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran and others from testing
and deploying nuclear weapons.''
Senate rejection could increase military pressure to resume
testing, advocates also argue. The United States has not conducted
a test since 1992.
A poll conducted in July for the Coalition to Reduce Nuclear
Dangers, a pro-test ban advocacy group, suggested that 82 percent
of the American public supported such a treaty.
Opposition from Senate Republican leaders ``puts them on the
opposite side of public opinion and world opinion,'' asserted Daryl
Kimball, director of the coalition.
But many Republicans see the pact as dangerous _ and
unverifiable.
Such a ban could raise doubts 10 or 15 years from now about the
condition of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, perhaps tempting a
dictator or terrorist to challenge the United States, suggested
Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va.
``There can be no doubt about the credibility of that
stockpile,'' Warner said Monday. His panel will hold three days of
hearings on the treaty, beginning Tuesday.
In the three years since the U.S.-led drive for the test-ban
treaty began, 154 nations have signed it, but only 47 have ratified
it.
More importantly, of the 44 nations with nuclear capability that
must ratify it for it to take effect, only 23 have done so. Only
two of the world's seven declared nuclear powers _ Britain and
France _ have ratified it.
Russia, China, the United States, India and Pakistan have not.
Neither has Israel, which has never acknowledged that it has
nuclear weapons but is widely believed to posses them.
``The effect of this treaty would be to forever forbid the
United States from testing its nuclear arsenal, while allowing the
rogue nations of the world to proceed with their nuclear plans,''
said Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and a strong opponent of the pact.
The pact ``is dangerous and should be defeated,'' said Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.
Opponents also cite the CIA's inability to verify low-level
underground nuclear explosions in other countries. Twice last
month, U.S. intelligence saw signs of activity in Russia that could
have indicated secret testing. The CIA was unable to say with
certainty what was happening.
Supporters contend the CIA's monitoring shortcomings give even
more reason to ratify the pact.
But neither the administration nor Democratic Senate leaders are
underestimating the difficulties in trying to muster the 67 votes
needed _ two-thirds of the Senate _ to ratify the test ban treaty.
``I acknowledge we have a lot of work to do,'' White House
spokesman Joe Lockhart said.
_________________________________________________________________
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com