• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Not Even a 'Fact Sheet' Changes Facts When It Comes to Nuclear Testing

    The State Department’s newly released fact sheet, “The Case for the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty: Some Key Points,” vividly demonstrates flawed assumptions behind the Administration’s desire to get this treaty ratified. If anything, the case remains at least as unconvincing as in 1999, when the U.S. Senate decided not to give its advice and consent to the ratification of the treaty.

    Instead of going back to the negotiating table, the Obama Administration picked up where its predecessors left off and decided to make the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) another “key element” of the President’s so-called Integrated Nuclear Security Strategy. The fact sheet states that “the absence of U.S. ratification of the Treaty continues to limit our ability to promote a global ban.”

    There is no historical evidence that would demonstrate a link between U.S. ability to promote the global ban and its own nuclear weapons testing. In fact, since the United States unilaterally stopped testing its arsenal in 1992, other states, such as France, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, conducted nuclear weapons tests. The Administration forgets that other states base their nuclear weapons testing—as well as their non-proliferation cooperation—on their national security interests, not on being a party to some treaty.

    The fact sheet also claims that the treaty establishes a “robust verification regime.” Despite the progress on the International Monitoring System (IMS) that would be tasked with the monitoring of CTBT, the IMS would still not be able to detect militarily significant tests. Contrary to the State Department’s statement in the fact sheet, the IMS was unable to detect any radionuclides following North Korea’s nuclear weapons test in May 2009. Decoupled (or “hidden”) tests are—and will continue to be in the foreseeable future—impossible to detect for the IMS.

    The State Department assumes that on-site inspections would help clarify ambiguities regarding a possible nuclear test. This is unlikely in a real-world scenario, because it would be difficult to gain the Executive Council’s (CTBT’s executive body) approval for an inspection in a timely manner—the window when radionuclides would allow states to determine the precise location of a test is short. It is impossible to prevent the offender from obstructionism within the framework of the multinational Executive Council.

    Why it would be difficult to get the Executive Council to agree on an inspection? For starters, states that are parties to CTBT do not even share a common definition of what constitutes a nuclear weapons test. While the United States adheres to a zero-yield standard, essentially banning all nuclear weapons tests, Russia and China maintain that low-yield nuclear weapons tests would not violate the treaty. Even low-yield nuclear weapons tests, however, can lead to the development of militarily significant nuclear weapons capabilities.

    The last statement in the fact sheet, “The United States Does Not Need to Conduct Nuclear Tests,” is purely a guess. No nuclear weapons expert would certify that the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal does not need testing indefinitely. In addition, certification is less likely over time as the United States is the only nuclear state that does not modernize its weapons. Forgoing the option to test the reliability of its arsenal—or to develop new designs, as new and emerging nuclear states such as Iran or North Korea threaten U.S. interests in vital regions—would be imprudent to say the least.

    It bears mentioning that Iran and North Korea are two of 44 states that would have to sign and ratify the treaty so that it could enter into force. The United States would be bound by provisions of the treaty not applicable to its adversaries. Reasons for rejecting CTBT are as strong as ever, and no fact sheet will change this fact.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to Not Even a 'Fact Sheet' Changes Facts When It Comes to Nuclear Testing

    1. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Yeah . . this administration can't do a single thing right . . If they cured cancer . . they be blamed for not curing diabetes . . So tiring . . All of these blogs have another whole reporting angle. What ever happened to thoughtful journalism. I wonder how this country would be operating, if we sought to support our president.

      • The Skip says:

        With all due respect Jeff, how can we "support" our president when he has done NOTHING to better this country. I wonder how this country would be operating if we had someone who didn't blame all of his failures on the previous administration. Across the board this country is in far worse shape than it was when Obama came into office. Economy, jobs, housing market, foreign affairs, I can't realistically think of one thing that I can say is better now than it was 3 years ago.
        As far as the cure cancer remark, that's just immature. His healthcare reform is a disaster, his ideas for the housing market are non-existent, he contributed NOTHING to the debt ceiling debate, he has spent record amounts of money we don't have, and he is destroying the future for ours kids and their kids. Please give me an example of how we can support that.

    2. Bobbie says:

      Why would you trust government to cure anything? That's not their role! and blogs that share the whole truth are rare to come by but as you state is another whole reporting angle lost over the years now found in few places. This country would be 3rd world if the president had full support!

      Facts are facts and people like you don't appreciate or live by facts so you'll settle for the third world the actions of this government promotes. Laziness doesn't need truth. No checks and balances for Jeff? this president doesn't do anything that's not perfect to you, eh? Too bad for you!

    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.