NEWSROOM
Commentary Articles
In The News
News Releases
Experts



Media Inquiries

Kim Cloidt
Director of Marketing & Communications
(510) 632-1366 x116
(202) 725-7722 (cell)
Send Email

Robert Ade
Communications Manager
(510) 632-1366 x114
Send Email


Subscribe



Commentary
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook

Contribute
Your participation will advance liberty. Join us as an Independent Institute member.



Contact Us
The Independent Institute
100 Swan Way
Oakland, CA 94621-1428

510-632-1366 Phone
510-568-6040 Fax
Send us email


Interested in working with us?  Click here for more information.

Commentary

A “Grand Deal” on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Faustian Bargain


     
 Print 

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)—a multilateral agreement that bans all explosive nuclear testing—is mired in the Senate. Senator Jesse Helms, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, refuses to allow hearings or a vote on the treaty until the Clinton administration submits two other signed treaties for the Senate’s scrutiny. One way for the administration to spring the treaty from Senator Helms’ clutches is by making a three-way “grand deal” that keeps all interested parties happy. Some Senate Republicans apparently will not accept the administration’s CTBT unless they are assured that a limited national missile defense (NMD) will be quickly deployed. Russia, in turn, will not accept limited NMD unless the United States and Russia agree to deep cuts in the number of offensive strategic nuclear weapons—perhaps to as low as 1,500 warheads each from the current level of 6,000 warheads each. Because of the economic crisis in Russia, many experts predict that the number of functional warheads in Russia’s future nuclear force will decline to 1,000 or below—making Russia more willing to accept limited missile defenses to retain rough nuclear parity with the United States.

Making a grand deal that accepts deep offensive cuts, crash deployment of NMD, and the CTBT is a Faustian bargain for the United States. The substantial gains to U.S. security from deep reductions in offensive warheads and the deployment of a limited NMD are still not worth the potential future security risks of ratifying the CTBT. Both the Democrats in the administration and Congress who want to cut the grand deal and the those Republicans in Congress who want to sell out opposition to the CTBT to get a quick deployment of a limited NMD have misplaced priorities for the nation’s security.

The goal of maintaining a safe, reliable, and militarily effect offensive nuclear deterrent should be the highest priority in U.S. national security—regardless of how many warheads the United States or any potential adversaries (including rogue states) possess. In the future, that goal could be compromised by a ban on explosive testing. The administration hopes that sophisticated computer simulations of nuclear blasts being developed under the Stockpile Stewardship program will keep the U.S. stockpile of nuclear warheads safe and reliable. The administration also hopes that those simulations can be used to design new types of nuclear weapons if a change in the threat makes them necessary. Yet such simulation technologies are unproven, and no guarantee exists that they will be an adequate substitute for explosive testing. Why not wait to ratify the treaty at least until the technologies are demonstrated? Even the slightest risk to the long-term viability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent should not be tolerated.

Republicans who would trade their support for the CTBT in exchange for a commitment to the quick deployment of a limited NMD are starting to believe their overheated rhetoric on missile defenses. To many Republicans, national missile defense has become the holy grail of U.S. security policy. They often portray anyone who opposes NMD (many Democrats) as weak on defense. But they need to keep in mind that a limited national missile defense is merely insurance against the failure of the U.S. offensive nuclear force to deter potential adversaries from attacking the United States with weapons of mass destruction. In the vast majority of cases, the potent U.S. offensive deterrent will probably be effective—even against rogue states such as North Korea.

The drawback of Republicans trading their support for the CTBT in return for a crash deployment of NMD is that the proven primary deterrent maybe undermined to obtain a technologically risky back-up system that might prove infeasible or is significantly delayed. It’s like trying to increase the security of your house by trading a month’s worth of food for a good, proven guard dog in exchange for a back-up burglar alarm system containing the latest experimental technology. The dog will die, and the alarm system may not work.

In time, a limited trade between the United States and Russia to make deep cuts in offensive missiles in exchange for allowing a limited (and thoroughly tested) land-based NMD is desirable and probably obtainable. But the Republicans should not sell out their opposition to the CTBT to get NMD. As a back-up system that is designed to counter a narrow range of threats, NMD is nowhere near as important as retaining the ability to ensure the viability of the U.S. nuclear deterrent through explosive testing. As the number of nuclear weapons is reduced and fewer types of warheads are in the U.S. arsenal, nuclear testing is likely to become even more important to ensure that the weapons will work. At the present time, there is no need for the United States to rescind its voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing; but nor should it be constrained by a treaty from explosive testing if the threat changes in the future. It is vital to U.S. security that the reduced number of warheads that the United States is allowed under any future agreement be modern, safe, and in working order.


Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

New from Ivan Eland!
NO WAR FOR OIL: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East

The grab for oil resources has been a major factor behind many conflicts and military deployments because of its perception as a strategic commodity. This book debunks the notion that oil is strategic and argues that war for oil is not necessary to secure the flow of petroleum. Learn More »»






Home | About Us | Blogs | Issues | Newsroom | Multimedia | Events | Publications | Centers | Students | Store | Donate

Product Catalog | RSS | Jobs | Course Adoption | Links | Privacy Policy | Site Map
Facebook Facebook Facebook Facebook
Copyright 2014 The Independent Institute