Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

More than 100 government leaders from around the globe will meet this month at the United Nations to discuss the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an international accord whose goal is to make the world safer by stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty has been in limbo for more than a decade. Negotiations on it were concluded at the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, with the treaty calling for the ban of nuclear test explosions for any purpose. It's been signed and ratified by 154 member countries, including Russia, Japan, South Korea and all of America's NATO allies.

More than 100 government leaders from around the globe will meet this month at the United Nations to discuss the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an international accord whose goal is to make the world safer by stemming the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty has been in limbo for more than a decade. Negotiations on it were concluded at the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, with the treaty calling for the ban of nuclear test explosions for any purpose. It's been signed and ratified by 154 member countries, including Russia, Japan, South Korea and all of America's NATO allies.

Senate Republican leaders abruptly reversed course and proposed votes next week on a treaty to ban all nuclear testing, abandoning their delaying tactics in favor of a showdown they believe will result in defeat for the treaty.

Unless the United States modernizes its inventory of nuclear weapons and develops a replacement warhead, the atomic arsenal's long-term safety and reliability will deteriorate, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Tuesday. Gates also broke with the Bush administration by saying the United States "probably should" ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, an international agreement prohibiting new testing of nuclear weapons.

Soviet and American physicians attending a meeting in Los Angeles jointly called for a moratorium on nuclear testing pending a comprehensive test ban treaty. Physicians for Social Responsibility, an international organization, called the three days of meetings to plan a media campaign aimed at halting the arms race by getting both countries to agree to a testing moratorium. Among those calling for the moratorium were the organization's president, Sidney Alexander, and Dr.

Benjamin Schwarz wrote an interesting piece on neo-isolationism that made it, unsurprisingly, not the epithet that it has often come to be in recent years (Commentary, Oct. 29). However, it seems to me that his article dwelt in high, holy halls, not where most of us live. I'll agree that Senate Republicans who shot down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty may not be neo-isolationists. If not that, then what are they? The term "obstructionists" comes to mind. But considering the damage to the U.S. and world that could arise from that vote, how about notoriously small-brained birds that hide their heads in the sand at the approach of danger?

Test-Ban Treaty The House adopted, 268 to 148, a non-binding resolution urging President Reagan to resume talks with the Soviets for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. A similar measure was adopted by the Senate two years ago. Its rationale is that the arms race would end on both sides if new technologies could not be tested, assuming the ban was mutually verifiable.

"U.S. Missile Defense May Jeopardize Security" (May 8) accurately describes the security problems we will face if we build an antiballistic missile system. Let's ask our leaders why any country would even consider launching a small-scale nuclear missile attack on the U.S. Would it be easy for foes to overwhelm this ABM system with decoys or additional missiles? Would terrorists be likely to use stealth, or UPS, rather than missiles to deliver nuclear weapons? Why do our allies oppose changing the 1972 ABM treaty?

Your articles on nuclear weapons and "Star Wars" have been very informative but I disagree with your editorial (Dec. 22), "Symbol of a Shambles." You assert that a nuclear test ban cannot be declared, but must be negotiated through a long and complex process. But, provisions of a model Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty have been established for decades; I believe only the frequency of inspections remains unsettled. Also, the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing (since Aug. 6, 1985)

Pakistan's prime minister said Wednesday that his country will unilaterally adhere to the nuclear test-ban treaty--but with conditions. Nawaz Sharif warned that compliance will depend on whether rival India resumed its tests and on whether economic sanctions are lifted. The U.S. and other nations imposed the sanctions after Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in May. "Pakistan is . . . prepared to adhere to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," Sharif said at the U.N. General Assembly session.

Re "New Nuclear Policy Makes for a Safer World," Commentary, March 18: Barry Blechman clearly lives in Fantasyland. Resuming nuclear testing, threatening to use nuclear bombs and breaking treaties make the world safer? Nuclear bombs could destroy the Earth, and any nuclear bomb, even so-called "low yield," emits deadly radiation. Our new policy can only lead to other nations building up their nuclear arsenals, thus sabotaging the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In a bid to resuscitate the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Senate resoundingly rejected in October 1999, retired Gen. John M. Shalikashvili is to present a report to President Clinton today recommending steps to build bipartisan support for the pact. Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the treaty should be subject to joint review by the Senate and administration every 10 years.

"U.S. Missile Defense May Jeopardize Security" (May 8) accurately describes the security problems we will face if we build an antiballistic missile system. Let's ask our leaders why any country would even consider launching a small-scale nuclear missile attack on the U.S. Would it be easy for foes to overwhelm this ABM system with decoys or additional missiles? Would terrorists be likely to use stealth, or UPS, rather than missiles to deliver nuclear weapons? Why do our allies oppose changing the 1972 ABM treaty?

In "Albright Defends U.S. Disarmament Record" (April 25), Secretary of State Madeleine Albright justifies U.S. plans to develop a limited system of ground-based interceptors directed against potential missile programs of states such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Not only are these states incapable of launching any real attack on the U.S., but they would have to be suicidal to launch a few missiles at U.S. targets, knowing that our nuclear arsenal would decimate their nations in minutes.

Russia seized the moral high ground on nuclear nonproliferation Friday when the lower house of parliament ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--which the U.S. Senate rejected last year. The Duma's approval of the pact, just one week after lawmakers ended seven years of foot-dragging by endorsing the START II arms-control treaty, was yet another sign of the strength of Russian President-elect Vladimir V. Putin, who has put nuclear arms reduction at the center of his foreign policy.

President Clinton is on a voyage of discovery to see for himself the success story of the parliamentary democracy in India that has evolved to a point where consensus-building and decision-making have become established norms. This is underpinned by the political arithmetic in government formation where coalitions have now become a rule. When I was prime minister, my government consisted of 13 parties.

Re "New Nuclear Policy Makes for a Safer World," Commentary, March 18: Barry Blechman clearly lives in Fantasyland. Resuming nuclear testing, threatening to use nuclear bombs and breaking treaties make the world safer? Nuclear bombs could destroy the Earth, and any nuclear bomb, even so-called "low yield," emits deadly radiation. Our new policy can only lead to other nations building up their nuclear arsenals, thus sabotaging the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

The House adopted, 268 to 148, a non-binding resolution urging President Reagan to resume talks with the Soviets for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty. A similar measure was adopted by the Senate two years ago. Its rationale is that the arms race would end on both sides if new technologies could not be tested, assuming the ban was mutually verifiable.

Benjamin Schwarz wrote an interesting piece on neo-isolationism that made it, unsurprisingly, not the epithet that it has often come to be in recent years (Commentary, Oct. 29). However, it seems to me that his article dwelt in high, holy halls, not where most of us live. I'll agree that Senate Republicans who shot down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty may not be neo-isolationists. If not that, then what are they? The term "obstructionists" comes to mind. But considering the damage to the U.S. and world that could arise from that vote, how about notoriously small-brained birds that hide their heads in the sand at the approach of danger?

Real U.S. security interests were damaged not only by what the recent Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty does, but also by what the stand represents. In effect, the Senate jeopardized a half century of bipartisan support for a responsible international U.S. role. To be sure, it was easier to create consensus during the Cold War, when the United States faced an implacable foe, but that is the point: We are defining the U.S. role in the post-Cold War world.