Abstract Proposes an empirical research design to investigate why the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) failed to be ratified by the U.S. in 1999. Discusses worldwide attempts to stop nuclear arms proliferation. Resistance of other countries. Major role of U.S. politics in Congressional vote; partisanship in the Senate. Large public support for the treaty. Implications for further study.
From the Paper "Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Failure: Research Design
Introduction
An empirical research design is proposed to investigate why the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) failed the ratification vote in the United States on 13 October 1999 (Raum, 1999). For all those people who have been in a coma for the past several years, the CTBT is a broad-based treaty that was aggressively negotiated by the United States. The treaty is designed to halt nuclear weapons development by preventing the testing of nuclear explosive devices. The CTBT, thus, represents a companion strategy to attempts to stop nuclear weapons proliferation to those countries that have not already developed a nuclear weapons capacity.
A few important countries, notably among them China, have failed..."
Abstract The author takes a look at the two newest declared nuclear powers: India and Pakistan. The author analyzes the potential solutions for resolving the conflict as well as short-term safety concerns. The author examines the CTBT, a Fissile Materials Production Cutoff Treaty, Permissive Action Links, and nuclear disarmament as potential solutions before arriving at his conclusion.
From the Paper "Albert Einstein once remarked that, "Bullets kill men, but atomic bombs kill cities. A tank is a defense against a bullet, but there is no defense against a weapon that can destroy civilization. ... Our defense is law and order" (Calaprice, 2000, p. 177). The Nuclear situation that exists between India and Pakistan is one that deserves much more attention from US policymakers than it currently receives. The United States should play a significant role in any nuclear regime change that would take place in India or Pakistan. Because the United States is a trusted negotiator by both sides, it has a unique role that it can play (Bajpai, 2003, p. 125). The options that the US could pursue are not all direct actions. Sometimes the best way to influence policy is not through coercion but through leadership and example setting. While many options exist, the four policy choices that should be examined more closely are CTBT ratification, a Fissile Materials Production Cutoff Treaty, sharing Permissive Action Links with Pakistan or both countries, and finally nuclear disarmament as set forth by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)."
