• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Congress Should Not Waste Money on Test Ban Treaty

    The House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs recently adopted a budget blueprint that provides a $30 million voluntary contribution to the Vienna-based Prep aratory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) Organization. At a time of fiscal constraint, this expenditure is unnecessary. There are better ways for the United States to spend these resources, such as modernization of its obsolete nuclear weapons complex.

    In 1999, the Senate refused to give its advice and consent to the CTBT; that would still be a bad idea today. Current members of the Senate should recognize and honor the Senate’s previous action. In fact, problems with the treaty have grown worse over time. Here are a few issues with the treaty:

    • Indefinite testing ban. The U.S. will eventually have to test its nuclear weapons to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of its arsenal. Yet the CTBT bans all tests for an indefinite period of time—that is, if you subscribe to the U.S. definition of what constitutes a nuclear weapons “test,” which leads to the second flaw of the treaty.
    • Vague wording. It does not define the term “nuclear weapons test.” As the Commission on the Strategic Posture of the U.S. concludes in its final report, both China and Russia are likely conducting low-yield nuclear weapons tests and do not adhere to the same standards as the U.S. It would be virtually impossible to charge them with a material breach of the treaty; however, such tests can still lead to the development of new nuclear weapons capabilities.
    • Double standard for the U.S. While it is U.S. policy not to develop new nuclear weapons or give its current ones new missions or capabilities, the Russian Federation is on the brink of launching the largest nuclear buildup since the end of the Cold War. This is particularly significant in light of the recent ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) with Moscow. As it turns out, the treaty requires unilateral reductions—on the side of the U.S. During the ratification debate, Obama Administration officials argued that New START was a must because it demonstrated U.S. leadership in nuclear disarmament—and that other countries (and Russia in particular) would follow suit with nuclear weapons reductions.

    The argument about moral leadership is likely to be repeated with the CTBT. Yet if history is any guide: Since the U.S. conducted its last nuclear weapons test in 1992, North Korea, India, and Pakistan have conducted their own nuclear tests. In addition, Iran is now closer to developing a nuclear weapons capability than ever before. There is no demonstrated link between countries pursuing nuclear weapons programs and U.S. nuclear weapons testing. The U.S. should spend its resources wisely rather than support a multilateral agency that promotes goals contrary to U.S. national security.

    Update: The last U.S. nuclear weapons test was in 1992, not 1993 as was originally reported. This post has been updated.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Congress Should Not Waste Money on Test Ban Treaty

    1. roger says:

      You say "At a time of fiscal constraint, this expenditure is unnecessary. " but you support billions and billions for a missile defense that can be easily defeated? Where do you really stand?

      e.g. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/10/

      And you say we should fear an Iranian bomb but our DNI said there is no such nuclear weapons program in Iran:

      If you really stand for fiscal restraint lets see you speak up against the wasteful missile defense….then I will believe you………………………………

    2. pgr1 says:

      Regardless of opinions on the CTBT, the U.S. will always need to do a good job of monitoring for foreign nuclear explosions. In this regard, the $30 million mentioned by Ms. Bendikova is an appropriate and useful investment since it provides the U.S. with nuclear monitoring data from a host of locations including many which would otherwise not be accessible. Furthermore these data are provided to the U.S. at a bargain rate, since the costs of acquisition are shared with other countries.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.