Nuclear Test Ban Would Enhance US Security
Baker Shot, Operation Crossroads
Jessica Matthews lays out the nuclear policy we need. I liked this part on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
Since 1999, we have learned that a nonproliferation system designed against threats from states must be rebuilt to eliminate loopholes and to contain new threats from commercial groups and from terrorists.
Iraq, Iran and North Korea exploited a critical vagueness in the NPT that must be fixed. In 2003, the news broke that a multinational, commercial network was selling bomb technology. On 9/11 Americans awoke to the terrorist threat, and we have since learned of some terrorists’ nuclear ambitions.
But 20 years after the end of the Cold War, the non-nuclear states feel that the weapons states haven’t upheld their end of the NPT bargain: to move toward disarmament. They are, therefore, unwilling to discuss necessary new restrictions until they see movement. Ratifying the test ban is a necessary first step.
Hawks are very afraid of “rogue states” acquiring nuclear weapons, but also totally unwilling to see the US take the kind of steps that could create an effective nonproliferation regime. To square the circle, it needs to be possible for the US to use unilateral military coercion as the centerpiece of our proliferation policy. That’s why they were so eager to believe that Iraq could be easily conquered back in 2003. Now that the “quick and easy regime change” theory has been debunked, they’ve moved on to massively overrating the efficacy of unilateral bombardment of Iran.
22 Responses to “Nuclear Test Ban Would Enhance US Security”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Fail. The idea that non-nuclear states wouldn’t develop nuclear weapons if we had a test ban treaty is fucking stupid. It’s rational to acquire nukes if any other country has nukes. If I were Iran I would want nukes. I wouldn’t give a shit about a treaty.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I found this very strange:
So, they list Iran, Israel, North Korea, and Egypt. Then you deal with Egypt. Then you discuss North Korea. Then you discuss Iran. And then?
Huh?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Ratifying the test ban would be a good thing in its own right.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
One of the great failures of the NPT was that there were no consequences for not ratifying. So now we end up in a crazy situation where Iran is facing sanctions for possibly developing nuclear weapons while Israel has never faced sanctions for actually developing them.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Paulie Carbone writes:
If acquiring nukes is so “rational,” than why have so few countries done so? The number of countries that have given up their nuclear weapons or abandoned nuclear weapons programs since 1968 exceeds the number that have developed nuclear weapons since then.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:26 pm
We will ratify a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty when we perfect our Death Star.
That’s what will enhance our national security.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Previous N: It’s only actually rational if a country with more power than you do is actually making threats, that power level is great enough that they may actually take a run at you. To put it bluntly, it costs a shitload.
It is rational for Iran and N. Korea to pursue these weapons. It is not rational for Sweden to do so. Make no mistake, without our nuclear umbrella, we’d be looking at 40 or so nuclear powers right now.
The scary thing is, as time goes on, it WILL become rational for more and more nations to seek this power. Every time one nation gets these weapons, it suddenly becomes rational for more of these countries to achieve nuclear weapons. That is, in fact, the entire premise on which the NPT rests. I think that the NPT and other treaties like the one discussed here will only slow that process down. I don’t think it’s possible to stop it altogether.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
When disarming citizens manages to convince criminals to stop using firearms, you can move the argument up a level to nukes. Since that hasn’t worked, you could instead ponder reality.
There are, and always will be, bad actors – both in society and in international affairs. Pretending that a “play nice” approach will have any impact on that is just dumb.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
It’s rational to acquire nukes if any other country has nukes.
It’s also rational to acquire nukes if no other country has nukes – you’ll have the edge.
If a country can afford to have nukes, it is better (from their perspective) to have nukes than not.
I am against attempts at total disarmament because if everyone gives up all nukes, then anyone who secretly makes nukes will have a lot of control.
I think the best thing to do is to try and maintain peaceful relations so that no one will be driven to actually use nukes, and to make it clear that any country who uses nukes tactically (i.e. for reasons other than self-defense against a serious threat to the country’s existence) will be destroyed.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:48 pm
The difference in availability between firearms and nukes sinks this facile argument. Guns are all over the place, and anyone can get one if he wants.
Facts, and not just ideological gut reactions, matter in public policy.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pm
soullite writes:
If a basket case like North Korea can manage it, it can’t be that hard. Pakistan isn’t really an economic powerhouse either (GDP about the size of Singapore or the Philippines). If they can do it, it’s safe to say that there are a bunch of countries with the capacity to develop a nuke or two. And then there are the countries that wouldn’t have had to pay anything to own nuclear weapons – Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and South Africa. They already had nuclear weapons and chose to give them up.
No doubt the forces that any nonproliferation regime have to overcome are considerable.
Still, compare the actual (small) amount of nuclear proliferation that’s occurred during the past four decades to the (large) amount of proliferation that most would have predicted back in the 60s. Maybe the NPT has a lot to do with that past success, and maybe it has had little impact – but either way, that somewhat unexpected success should be kept in mind when discussing the prospects for future efforts to limit proliferation.
October 21st, 2009 at 8:13 pm
What will be interesting to watch will be the NPT crowd’s exploding heads once Iran goes live with nukes – because the Sunni Arab states will not be pleased with Shia (Persian) Iran having them. Once Iran goes live, the Saudis will make sure that the Sunni states of their choice are also nuke powers.
Which is not to say that there’s much we can do to stop Iran from going that way – although supporting the election protesters might have helped produce a more favorable downstream regime at some point in time.
October 21st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Trust, but verify. There’s no question, any negotiated nuclear abolition would have to include a pretty sever inspections regime.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Umm, run by who? Who is going to enforce “a pretty severe inspection regime” against Russia? Or India? or Pakistan? Or China? Or the US?
Last time I looked, there wasn’t an uber-power beyond the rest of the planet to enforce such a thing.
October 21st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
The odd thing about the US reluctance to sign the test ban treaty is that the US is probably the only nation with nuclear simulation technology that makes testing unnecessary. We also have the largest storehouse of data from old tests on very complex bomb designs. A test ban locks in an enormous strategic advantage for the US.
October 22nd, 2009 at 12:17 am
Let’s not forget the role of John Fucking Bolton, who, as Bush’s arms control head honcho, decided to fuck up every attempt to put in place inspection regimes to prevent biological and chemical weapon proliferation because US corporations didn’t want it, and fucked up the attempt to restrict arms smuggling because the NRA didn’t want it.
What will be interesting to watch will be the NPT crowd’s exploding heads once Iran goes live with nukes
Does your suburban compound have a nuke shelter, J-Rob? We already know you have three months’ supply of Spam in the garage in case you’re too scared to go out because a black man walked past your front door.
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:11 am
#16 – I don’t think Iran having nukes is a direct threat to the US; rather, it’s a destabilizing threat to the middle east (and thus to global oil prices) – as I said above.
And btw, my neighborhood is way, way more integrated than any random one you might pick in Baltimore or DC.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Test Ban Treaty Treaties are not a big deal. The US and Soviets were able to sign a Test Ban Treaty as early as 1963, as both sides realized the other side was carrying out tests on the EMP effects of high altitude nuclear detonations. Neither side wanted the other to get the edge or acquire knowledge on what might prove to be a super weapon.
EMP testing, obviously, was tricky. In order to find out the true capability of such a weapon it would have been necessary to test high yield (40+ megaton) nuclear devices over an area with a modern and sophisticated electric grid, presumably populated by its own citizens. Neither side wanted to push things that far, and signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned high atmospheric testing.
Later surface and underground bans came easier. They were no big deal as both sides knew what their nukes could do. But the biggest treaty the American and the Soviets ever signed was the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972. Without it, escalation would have continued unabated, as both sides searched for the proper combination of offense and defense that would allow them first strike capabilities. The ABM Treaty unofficially ratified Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) -it meant that neither side could realistically attack the other without being destroyed themselves. Balance, of a sort, had finally been achieved.
Reagan’s SDI approach to nuclear defense 9 years later did not technically break the ABM Treaty, because Star Wars did not involve ground to air missiles. It was, however, a crushing blow for the Soviets. Yuri Andropov, Soviet premier at the time, was right in the midst of launching what he called a “peace offensive.” Those dreams were shattered, and Yuri died, a broken and embarrassed man, soon thereafter.
The Soviets could take solace in the fact that SDI was a 30 to 40 year project at minimum, and generally Soviet scientists believed that SDI was a pipedream. But in 2001, in a monumental change in Nuclear Policy, G.B. Junior announced US withdrawal from the 72 ABM Treaty. It was already clear to the Pentagon at that point that after 40 years of testing and treaty limited trail and error experiments, the military was on the verge of producing the super weapon both sides had been looking for since the very beginning of the Cold War, an anti-ballistic missile capable of knocking out an ICBM before it reached subspace and MIRVed.
Rejecting the ABM Treaty in 2001 allowed the US to make an unlimited series of tests with these new ABM missiles. There seems to have been an almost exponential advancement in ABM’s ability in the last 8 years. We heard about the failures, but the newest version of ABM technology, the SM-3ls, has hearts aflutter at the Pentagon. An extended series of tests with the missile has produced a perfect score, something that has rarely if ever happened in the history of United States weapons testing. The Pentagon now has its super weapon -and Russia has relegated to minor leagues.
I’m not sure what test ban treaties can do at this point to help matters. The Pentagon believes that by 2020 it will be ability to knock out any nuclear missile that has the audacity to leave its launch pad -anywhere on earth. We can sign test ban treaties or not sign them. It doesn’t matter to us. Obama could put pen to test ban paper, but it won’t mean he’s promoting peace -certainly not with Russia.
Or China. wink wink
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
Correction: “because Star Wars did not involve ground to air missiles” should read “ground to subspace” or “surface to subspace.” The ABM Treaty did not ban work on missiles like the Patriot, which are considered surface to air missiles.
One other note. China has developed a surface to subspace missile they feel is as capable as the SM-3. But they do not have means to deploy it properly, as of yet. Proper modern missile defense requires military bases dotted around the globe and a monolithic Navy. If China does not want to be a minor league nuclear player, and wishes to join the majors and reattain MAD status with the United States, they will have develop a huge navy and or acquire property in proximity to the US to in order to deploy their missiles.
Russia, has nothing. They’re out.
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:47 am
I had to laugh at your “committed to peace” theories on the USSR. That’s like saying that 19th century America was “committed to fair treaties” with indians.
Sure, the words got mouthed in both cases, but they had no meaning.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 am
Are you talking to me James?
I have no developed theories on whether the USSR was committed to peace in the early 1980’s. But Andropov did go public with what he called a “peace offensive.” Nobody really knew what it meant, on either side, and whatever his real plan was he took it to the grave.
It was bold proclamation, though. Neither side made open peace offers back then. But Andropov became a laughing stock in the Kremlin when Reagan announced SDI. After that, his time in the Soviet sun was going to be short, whether he died or not.
October 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
The Pentagon believes that by 2020 it will be ability to knock out any nuclear missile that has the audacity to leave its launch pad -anywhere on earth
These are the same clowns who couldn’t bring themselves to say “you know, we think 5000 nukes is quite enough, really”. The idea that they can be trusted to objectively assess the goodies is ludicrous. Luckily, its not really their job to make these assessments.