-Caveat Lector-
> Publications of the Center for Security Policy
> No. 99-D 82
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------
>
>
>
> DECISION BRIEF
> 21 July 1999
>
>
> Non-Starter: Clinton's Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is
Unworthy
> of Senate's Time -- Let Alone Its Consent
>
> (Washington, D.C.): It must be asked: Why was President
Clinton's
> Rose Garden statement yesterday -- in which he urged Senate
> hearings this fall and final action on the 1996 Comprehensive
> Test Ban Treaty -- all but ignored today by the Nation's
leading
> newspapers?
>
> Perhaps the deafening silence in the press is a function of
the
> transparent dishonesty of some of his claims on behalf of the
> Treaty -- and about what would happen if the Senate did not
> approve its ratification. Perhaps it was a reflection of the
> evident irrelevance of this multi-lateral arms control accord
to
> the ongoing spread of nuclear weapons technology.
>
> Whatever the reason, the White House press corps' failure to
> publicize these presidential remarks does not bode well for
the
> power-play that anti-nuclear activists within and outside the
> Clinton-Gore Administration hope to unleash in the next few
weeks
> in a bid to secure Senate advice and consent to this
> controversial and fatally flawed accord. The centerpiece of
this
> campaign is to be an international conclave convened in New
York
> in mid-September, nominally for the purpose of reviewing the
> CTBT's progress toward entry-into-force. Its real objective,
> however, is provide the Administration with artificial
leverage
> on Senators who otherwise see no reason to give this treaty
> priority over other, more pressing legislative matters.(1) A
> similar tactic was employed successfully in 1997 to buffalo
> Members of the Senate into approving another defective arms
> control agreement, the Chemical Weapons Convention.(2) It is
to
> be hoped they won't fall for this gambit again.
>
> Clinton's False Pretenses
>
> The following were among the more egregious misrepresentations
in
> Mr. Clinton's statement:
>
> �"We have, today, a robust nuclear force." The fact is that we
> are not sure whether today's U.S. deterrent is "robust." In
the
> interval since 1992, when the United States unilaterally
> suspended its underground nuclear test program, officials at
the
> national laboratories responsible for certifying the stockpile
> have been reduced to making informed guesses about the actual
> condition of our arsenal.
>
> Historical experience suggests that, in the absence of
performing
> actual nuclear tests, it is entirely possible -- if not
actually
> likely -- that some weapons in the inventory will not work
> according to their specifications. This possibility has become
of
> sufficient concern that one laboratory director has reportedly
> indicated recently that, but for Mr. Clinton's moratorium on
> nuclear explosions, a resumption of underground testing would
> probably be judged to be desirable at this point.
>
> �"Nuclear experts affirm that we can maintain a safe and
reliable
> deterrent without nuclear tests." Actually, some do; some
don't.
> In fact, until Mr. Clinton's first Secretary of Energy Hazel
> O'Leary blackmailed the U.S. nuclear laboratories into
agreeing
> to support the CTBT, virtually no one in positions of
> responsibility for the American deterrent believed that it
could
> be safely and reliably maintained in the absence of periodic
> underground testing.(3)
>
> Today, even those in such positions who are still willing to
> argue that exacting safety and reliability standards can be
> satisfied in the absence of testing insist that a host of
> expensive new experimental facilities and techniques are
required
> to permit stockpile stewardship to be maintained. It is
> instructive, then, that anti-nuclear activists have -- as part
of
> their increasingly shrill campaign for the CTBT -- made clear
in
> a form-letter now being sent to Senators that they not only
want
> a permanent halt to all U.S. nuclear tests. They also want the
> Senate to reject investment in the equipment that even the
> Clinton Administration claims (for the moment) is necessary to
> ensure the future viability of the American deterrent.
>
> �"If our Senate fails to act, the treaty cannot enter into
force
> for any country." The implication is that if, on the other
hand,
> the Senate does act, the CTBT will come into force. This is
not
> the case. Unless and until all other nuclear powers --
including
> North Korea, which has shown no interest in joining the treaty
> regime -- become state parties, the Comprehensive Test Ban
> cannot, by its own terms, come into force.
>
> No Bar to Proliferation
>
> President Clinton also made unwarranted claims about the
positive
> effect the CTBT would have on others' nuclear weapons
programs.
> He declared: "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will
strengthen
> our national security by constraining the development of more
> advanced and more destructive nuclear weapons, and by limited
the
> possibilities for more countries to acquire nuclear weapons.
It
> will also enhance our ability to detect suspicious activities
by
> other nations."
>
> In fact, due to the inherent unverifiability of a "zero-yield"
> Comprehensive Test Ban, there is no way to say for certain
> whether other nations are exploiting the ability to conduct
> undetectable low-yield and/or de-coupled tests to develop
"more
> advanced and more destructive nuclear weapons." Unfortunately,
> the United States is likely to be the only one that will be
> precluded from having modernized nuclear weapons by the CTBT
and,
> thereby, denied the systems it will need to assure the future
> effectiveness of our deterrent, and therefore its credibility.
>
> More to the point, there is now an active world market for
> nuclear weapons-related know-how and technology. Nations no
> longer need to test their own nuclear devices; they can buy
> tested ones from the likes of Russia and China. Moreover, the
> more crude the weapon design and the lower the insistence on
high
> performance effects (e.g., if one will settle for a low-yield
> device sufficient to destroy a city and/or contaminate it with
> radioactive material, rather than one capable of taking out a
> hardened underground silo), the more insensitive you can be
about
> actually testing the weapon's performance. A nation like the
> United States, on the other hand -- with its exceedingly
> sophisticated and rapidly aging stockpile designed for
> specialized military purposes, not "counter-value" attacks on
> population centers -- is likely to be significantly
disadvantaged
> by a permanent test ban.
>
> The Bottom Line
>
> In his increasingly manic pursuit of a legacy other than that
of
> bringing dishonor and indignity to his office, President
Clinton
> is determined to secure an arms control trophy. Despite the
fact
> that yesterday's speech failed to achieve critical mass in the
> press, Senators and the American people should be under no
> illusion: They will shortly be besieged by a well-funded,
> organized and disciplined disinformation campaign aimed at
> securing the CTBT's approval that has been planned for months
by
> the Administration's senior-level anti-nuclear cadre and their
> allies in non-governmental organizations.
>
> Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Foreign
> Relations Committee, is right to insist that there are more
> urgent international treaty obligations that should be
receiving
> the Senate's attention. These include the Clinton-Gore
> Administration's efforts to breathe new life into the lapsed
1972
> Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.(4) After all, given the
> President's abiding determination to prevent the expeditious
> deployment of competent missile defenses, the United States
has
> no alternative but to ensure that its nuclear deterrent is as
> modern and robust as possible.
>
> At the appropriate time, the Senate should take up the CTBT. When
> it does so, however, it should be with a view not to approving
> the treaty but to defeating it as an accord that is inconsistent
> with U.S. national security requirements and irrelevant to the
> sort of proliferation threat that is far better addressed by the
> deployment of real anti-missile systems and other defensive
> measures -- not the embrace of additional phony and
> counterproductive arms control accords.
>
> - 30 -
>
> 1. Such is the Administration's cynicism when it comes to
> fabricating this sort of leverage, that it is convening this
> review conference fully one year in advance of the date it is
> supposed to be held under the CTBT's terms.
>
> 2. For more on the CWC's defects and the legislative history of
> the debate concerning that accord, see the Center's Decision
> Brief entitled C.W.C. Watch #1: Russia Defers Ratification, Seeks
> Payments For Compliance and a 'Seat At The Table' Anyway (No.
> 97-D 59, 30 April 1997). In addition, a comprehensive analysis of
> this treaty can be found on the Center's chemical and biological
> weapons world wide web page
> (www.security-policy.org/chemical.html)
>
> 3. See the Center's Decision Brief entitled The Most Important
> Justification for Firing Hazel O'Leary: Her Role in
> Denuclearizing the United States (No. 95-D 90, 10 November 1995).
>
>
> 4. See Definitive Study Shows Russians Have No Veto Over
> Defending U.S. (No. 99-P 11, 22 January 1999).
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and
> enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views
> expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of
the
> Center's Board of Advisors.
>
> Top of Page� 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy
>From www.security-policy.org
<<More on the F-22 here also>>
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
