|
Fact Sheet:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
Military Leaders, Scientists, Arms Control Experts & Editorials Urge Ratification
October 8, 1999
|
"For decades, the United States has led the world against proliferation.
If the United States Senate votes this treaty down, it would be a signal that
the United States now wants to lead the world away from the cause of
nonproliferation."
|
|
|
President Bill Clinton,
October 4, 1999
|
MILITARY LEADERS ENDORSE RATIFICATION:
SUPPORT FROM REPUBLICANS:
-
President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) said that failing to achieve a nuclear
test ban "would have to be classed as the greatest disappointment of any
administration — of any decade — of any time and of any party. . ."
[May 29, 1961]
-
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA): Rejection encourages rogue nations to test:
"If the Senate were to reject the treaty, then it would be highly publicized
worldwide, it would be an open excuse for countries like India and Pakistan to
continue nuclear testing, which I think is very, very undesirable, destabilizing
that area of the world, would give an excuse for rogue nations like Iran, Iraq,
Libya, other rogue nations to test." [CNN Newsday, 10/6/99]
-
Sen. James M. Jeffords (R-VT): Critically important to national security:
"Not only is this function critically important to our national security, it
comes at a bargain price." [Washington Post, 9/3/98]
- More Jeffords, "The enactment of a comprehensive
test ban would do more to stem proliferation and reduce nuclear threat than any
other action we could take at this time." [Omaha World-Herald,
10/23/97]
-
Former Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-OR): Put partisanship aside: "My personal
crusade to end the nuclear arms race began the day I walked into the ruins of
Hiroshima as a young naval officer. ... I believe that no activity should take a
back seat to the effort to achieve a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty."
[Chapel Hill Herald, 2/15/95]. "It is clear to me that ratifying
[the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] would be in the national interest. It is
equally clear that senators have a responsibility to the world, the nation and
their constituents to put partisan politics aside and allow the Senate to consider
this treaty." [Washington Post, 10/3/99]
-
Former Sen. John C. Danforth (R-KS): Slow development of weapons:
"Practically nothing would do a better job of slowing down the development of
new and more dangerous weapons than a mutually verifiable agreement among the
superpowers to quit performing nuclear tests." [Congressional Record,
12/18/85, S17996]
-
Former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum Baker (R-KS) Stop the spread of nuclear weapons:
"A widely supported comprehensive nuclear test ban could be an important step in
not only curtailing the nuclear weapons programs of the United States and the
Soviet Union, but also in helping to stop the spread of nuclear weapons."
[Congressional Record, 9/25/90, S13759]
-
Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA), Chairman, Select Committee on U.S. National
Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People��s Republic of
China:
"The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, if it were enforced, would be a means of
preventing the more rapid weaponization and deployment of new [Chinese] PLA nuclear
weapons." [Press Briefing on the Cox Committee Report, 5/25/99]
SCIENTISTS AND ARMS CONTROL EXPERTS
-
Paul H. Nitze, Arms Control Negotiator and Ambassador-At-Large, Reagan
Administration & Sidney D. Drell, Stanford Linear Accelerator, Stanford
University:
"The President rightly has referred to the CTBT as the
��longest-sought, hardest-fought prize in the history of arms control.��…
Today, such a ban would constrain advanced and not-so-advanced nuclear weapons
states from developing more sophisticated and dangerous nuclear weapons
capabilities." [Washington Post, 6/21/99]
-
Paul Warnke, Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency- Carter
Administration:
"The all-important goal of nuclear non-proliferation,
the security interests of the United States and the preservation of confidence
in our good faith all require that we pursue strenuously the achievement of a
genuinely comprehensive nuclear test ban within the next year." [Baltimore
Sun, 7/28/95]
-
Charles H. Townes, Recipient, 1964 Nobel Prize for Physics: Testing not
required:
"My colleagues and I have concluded that continued nuclear
testing is simply not required to retain confidence in America's nuclear deterrent
provided America maintains a robust set of relevant science and technology
programs." [White House Briefing, 10/6/99]
-
Nobel Laureate Jerome I. Friedman, President, American Physical Society:
Decision being rushed
The test ban "is important for the future of humankind, and therefore has to be
taken extremely seriously. … It's very disturbing that something so important
won't have extensive hearings … I have the impression that things are being
rushed through so people can't make informed decisions."
[New York Times, 10/6/99]
-
32 Nobel Laureates urge Senate to ratify: "A group of 32 Nobel laureates in
physics urged the Senate yesterday to approve the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
calling it 'central to future efforts to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons.' … 'To line up this many physics Nobel laureates is unprecedented,'
said Robert L. Park, a physicist at the University of Maryland who directs the
group's Washington office." [New York Times, 10/6/99]
Nobel Laureates who signed the letter include:
Philip W. Anderson, Princeton
Hans A. Bethe, Cornell
Nicolaas Bloembergen, Harvard
Owen Chamberlain, California
Steven Chu, Stanford
Leon N. Cooper, Brown
Hans Dehmelt, Washington
Jerome I. Friedman, MIT
Val L. Fitch, Princeton
Donald A. Glaser, California
Sheldon Glashow, Harvard
|
Henry W. Kendall, MIT
Leon M. Lederman, Illinois Institute
of Technology
David M. Lee, Cornell
T. D. Lee, Columbia
Douglas D. Osheroff, Stanford
Arno Penzias, Bell Labs
Martin L. Perl, Stanford
William Phillips, NIST
Norman F. Ramsey, Harvard
Robert C. Richardson, Cornell
|
Burton Richter, Stanford
Arthur I. Schawlow, Stanford
J. Robert Schrieffer, Florida State
Mel Schwartz, Columbia
Clifford G. Shull, MIT
Joseph H. Taylor Jr., Princeton
Daniel C. Tsui, Princeton
Charles Townes, California
Steven Weinberg, Texas
Robert W. Wilson, Harvard
Kenneth G. Wilson, Ohio State
|
EDITORIALS FROM LEADING NEWSPAPERS:
-
Chicago Tribune: US Should show leadership
"President Eisenhower first sought to ban nuclear test explosions back in the
1950s at the height of the Cold War. And over the last 40 years, presidents in
both parties have supported efforts to curb the global arms race and nuclear
proliferation. It would be a tragedy if the U.S. were to squander this chance to
show leadership in a cause designed to make the world a safer
place—especially when it can be done at minimal cost to our own security.
Other nations, especially Russia and China, are waiting for the U.S. to make the
first move before they ratify. But if we fail to show credible leadership, efforts
at banning nuclear testing forever could falter. That would benefit no one, least
of all Americans." [Chicago Tribune, 10/6/99]
-
New York Times: U.S. has the most to gain from ratification
"Perversely, the United States, which has the most to gain from the treaty
achieving legal force is among the holdouts [who have not ratified the treaty].
… The test ban treaty, endorsed by America��s top military commander and the
directors of the nation��s nuclear weapons laboratories, should be ratified
promptly on its own merits." [New York Times, 9/5/99]
-
Los Angeles Times: Senate has failed in its responsibilities
"The United States, long the champion of limiting the spread of nuclear weapons,
now finds itself in the humiliating and self-wounding position of being unable to
put its leadership behind its principles. The Senate's responsibility to advise and
consent on treaties assumes it will inform itself on what it is being asked to
consider. In that responsibility the Senate has failed. ... It deserves
ratification, most of all because it serves American national security."
[LA Times, 10/7/99]
-
Raleigh News & Observer: Rejection would ratchet up arms race
"Having led the worldwide movement to contain the nuclear threat, the United
States cannot just drop out of that movement without undermining it. Rogue and
mainstream nations alike would interpret our failure to help create a new
international standard of no testing - and no expectation of nuclear conflict - as
a signal to ratchet up the arms race. And U.S. rejection of the treaty probably
would mean that it never would take full legal effect." [Raleigh News &
Observer, 10/6/99]
-
St. Petersburg Times: Partisanship threatens national interest
"In blocking ratification of the test ban treaty, Senate Republicans are toying
with our long-term security in an effort to score short-term political points.
Ratification of the test ban treaty would build momentum in other capitals waiting
to take their lead from Washington. … Republican senators fixated on
embarrassing President Clinton should be much more concerned with stemming the
nuclear ambitions of North Korea, Iraq and the other governments that would love
to see this treaty die." [St. Petersburg Times, 10/7/99]
-
San Francisco Chronicle: Cynical politics behind Republican strategy
"Cynical politics threaten to undercut a landmark treaty to ban nuclear testing
around the world. After stalling a vote on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for
two years, Senate Republicans now want a hurry-up vote by the end of next week.
Why? Because they believe the votes for approving the treaty aren't there, and GOP
leaders want to hand President Clinton a big-time drubbing. ... Debate over the
treaty, barely noticed by the public, will at last take place. But the rushed
discussion can't fairly illuminate the topic or inform the nation." [San
Francisco Chronicle, 10/6/99]
-
Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Too much information, too little time
"For more than two years, Sen. Jesse Helms refused even to hold a hearing on the
treaty. Then recently, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott pulled a surprise
switcheroo: the treaty would get its floor vote, he announced, after limited
debate. In such circumstances, getting two-thirds of the Senate to vote in
favor of ratification is going to be extraordinarily hard; there is so much
misinformation to combat and so little time." [Minneapolis Star-Tribune,
10/6/99]
-
Sacramento Bee: Republican leaders rushing consideration
"Most Republicans may genuinely believe, against expert opinion, that this
country must have the option of nuclear testing (suspended in 1992) to ensure the
viability of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. But that issue ought to be debated more
extensively, starting with Senate hearings. Instead, Lott is set to rush the treaty
to a likely defeat after too little debate. If he succeeds, the path to greater
nuclear security will be even more tortuous than it already is."
[Sacramento Bee, 10/6/99]
-
San Diego Union Tribune: Partisanship will undermine national interest
"[M]ost Republicans, in search of a campaign issue, will oppose this important
treaty, depriving it of a two-thirds majority. In doing so, they will undermine
profound national interests. The United States already has renounced nuclear tests.
The test ban treaty would help assure that other nations do so as well."
[San Diego Union Tribune, 10/5/99]
-
Newsday: GOP leaders wrong in nations best interests
"Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott scheduled a vote now only because he calculated
that Democrats lack the votes to pass it. Democrats reluctantly agreed to the date
in the belief it was the best they could get. Lott may be right in his
calculations, but he is profoundly wrong when it comes to the nation's best
interests. This is a shabby, opportunistic tactic to derail the treaty, which has
been signed by 152 nations, including the United States, but has been ratified only
by 47 countries." [Newsday, 10/4/99]
-
Cleveland Plain Dealer: Deserves serious consideration
"The process, as it played out last week, only emphasized the debilitating
partisanship that drives Washington as presidential election jockeying consumes
common sense. The nuclear test ban is serious business. It deserves serious
consideration. It should not serve simply as another platform for partisan
posturing." [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 10/5/99].
-
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Treaty in deepest interest of US
"A worldwide nuclear test ban is in the deepest interest of the United States.
With a ban on testing, potential adversaries in the Third World or anywhere else
would find it difficult to develop reliable arsenals of atomic weapons. The
United States does not need to conduct tests to ensure the safety and reliability
of its huge weapons stockpile, which is why this country has not conducted a
nuclear test in seven years. … The treaty could and should have been ratified
two years ago. The promise of a vote has now been made. It's an opportunity that
should not be squandered." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 10/5/99]
-
The Tennesean: Guarantee American superiority
"This treaty would guarantee U.S. superiority. It is widely supported by military
leaders and arms experts. Senate Republicans would be wise to recognize the
importance of the pact and refrain from using it as a political chit. Consider the
stakes." [The Tennessean, 9/12/99]
-
Seattle Times: Treaty part of nation's best defense
"On Thursday, the GOP abruptly reversed course and said it would bring it to a
vote this week. The Democrats should take the challenge; the public has been behind
the concept for two generations. … On Capitol Hill, the Republican Senate
refuses to endorse a test-ban treaty that might give Clinton or the Democratic
presidential campaign any political advantage. They miss the larger point. A test
ban denies countries the opportunity to build or improve nuclear weapons. Ensuring
bombs are not built remains the best defense." [Seattle Times, 10/3/99]
-
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Treaty stops proliferation
"We can't just hope the Chinese won't be able to afford a nuclear upgrade. A more
certain way to maintain the current favorable balance of power would be for the
U.S. Senate to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and then have the world
community press China, which already has signed the CTBT, to ratify it as well.
With China as a CTBT club member, a new strategic arms race could be kept in
check. The Chinese can't develop improved warheads without test explosions to
give them confidence the devices work. In fact, U.S. and Chinese participation in
the test-ban treaty is likely to bring Pakistan and possibly even India into the
test-ban fold, all the more reason for China to want to curb its nuclear
appetite." [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 9/1/99]
-
Salt Lake Tribune: Locks in American advantage
"The Senate should OK the treaty because it favors the United States. It would
lock in this nation��s overwhelming international advantage in nuclear-weapons
technology and cripple the bomb-building efforts of the world��s nuclear wannabes."
[Salt Lake Tribune, 9/12/99]
-
The Arizona Daily Star: Reduce risk of war
"The existing nuclear powers should be doing what they can to dismantle, not beef
up, arms programs. The post-Cold War world must concentrate on reducing the risk
of nuclear explosions, intentional or accidental, part of testing or as acts of
war." [Arizona Daily Star, 9/8/99]
-
Omaha World-Herald: Reduce worldwide arms
"This treaty continues the efforts at ending the nuclear threat begun with the
nonproliferation treaty. An end to nuclear weapons testing is the first in a
series of steps to reduce the number of nuclear arms worldwide."
[Omaha World-Herald, 10/23/97]
OP-EDS:
-
British Prime Minister Tony Blair, French President Jacques Chirac and German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder:
"Thanks to the common resolve of the world's powers, we have achieved a
substantial reduction in nuclear arsenals, the banning of chemical weapons, the
indefinite and unconditional extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and, in 1996, the conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have renounced nuclear weapons in the
same spirit. The decisions we take now will help determine, for generations to
come, the safety of the world we bequeath to our children. … Failure to
ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be a failure in our struggle against
proliferation." [New York Times, 10/8/99]
-
Secretary of State Madeline Albright:
"People around the world do not want to live in a world in which nuclear testing
is business as usual. They do not care for the threat of radiation in their air and
water or in their children's bones. They do not want to make it easy or acceptable
for nuclear weapons to spread further. I urge the Senate to recognize that this
universal wish is a sensible safeguard for our security."
[Albright, Chicago Tribune, 10/7/99]
-
Former Senator James Exon (D-NE): No decision has been as important
"In 26 consecutive years of elective service - eight as Nebraska's
longest-serving governor before being elected to the U.S. Senate - and as an
overseas veteran of World War II, I have a reputation as a solid citizen and a
national defense hawk. In all of those years of decision-making, no decision has
been as important as the approval of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty." [Omaha World-Herald, 5/16/98]
-
George Perkovich: Next President will suffer if CTBT is rejected:
"If the Senate eventually fails to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, there
will be another victim besides the one Senate Republicans intended. For it is not
only President Clinton who will be harmed by the action but the person who takes
office as president—and many Republicans presume it will be one of their
own—in 2001. The new president will face nuclear shock waves around the world,
bereft of bipartisan support when he most needs it."
[Perkovich, Washington Post, 10/7/99]
PUBLIC OPINION:
-
Polls Show Public Approval of Treaty: "82 percent of Americans favored
approval of the treaty when its purpose was explained. Seventy-one percent said
they strongly wanted ratification. Some 80 percent of those identifying themselves
as Republicans supported ratification, as did 86 percent of those identifying
themselves as Democrats. Among those identifying themselves as conservative
Republicans, support for ratification was 79 percent."
[Baltimore Sun, 7/21/99]
|
