Comments about ‘U.S. should ratify Test Ban Treaty’

Much testing now is done by computer simulation. However the computer models are not perfect. Occasionally we learn new things, which opens up new questions and only actual testing can be done to calibrate the computer models.

Rather than an all out ban. A partial or scheduled ban should be instituted. Such as every 10 or 15 years, 1 or 2 actual tests will be allowed.

Why do these inhumane and devastating weapons need to be perpetrated? If we continue their production and maintenance, it is only a matter of time before a terrible accident happens, or they fall into the wrong hands.

Let nuclear weapons exit from the stage and this planet will be safer and better for it.

Nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth ONLY when a newer and more technologically advance weapon comes along.



START was never intended to BANISH nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. It was a "REDUCTION" treaty. NOT an "ELIMINATION" treaty.



I hope the United States doesn't eliminate our defensive arsenal of nuclear weapons until something better comes along.

Making ourselvs defensless in today's world is senseless!

-There ARE people who would like to harm us (they say so on AlJazeera daily).

-There are nations who would take advantage of a defensless USA and a world of smaller nations who depend on their aliances with the United States to keep neighboring contries from taking military advantage.

-There are nations run by religious-zealots, who hate other nations with an un-dieing passion and would like nothing more than to be able to exterminate their hated nations. Technologically advanced weapons are ALL that stand in the way of this happening today.

A viable deterant is needed. Until it's NOT needed... we must have it or resign to eventual destruction.


Why not TEST weapons? What good is an un-tested weapon???

2 bits - I suggest reading the Council of foreign relations task force no.62 on nuclear weapons policy. chaired by william perry and brent scowcroft the task force unanimously reports that signing the comprehensive test ban treaty is in the best interest of united states national security and that not having signed the treaty is placing u.s. at a serious disadvantage. the report can be downloaded for free from the council of foreign relations homepage.

sensible middle- you might be interested in reading the recently released study by JASON on the united states nuclear stockpile life time extension project- it can be found on the webpage of the federation of american scientists.
JASON is a highly respected, independent, and congressionally funded organization composed of experts who are tasked with thoroughly studying programs and reporting back to congress on the program's relative success or failure. the most recent jason's study found the existing lifetime extension project to be successful and that our nuclear arsenals can remain safe and verifiable without resorting to detonation of nuclear weapons.

Answer to you

The Genie is already out of the bottle. The only way it would make sense to give up all of these weapons is if we could be ensured that no one else would ever build them.

We all know this is highly improbable.

No one is asking the united states to unilaterally disarm. i agree with you that the only way to responsibly reduce our arsenals is to do so in concert with other nations. that's one reason why ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty (ctbt) is so incredibly important. as the oped says, the ctbt sets up a global monitoring system conducted by the comprehensive test ban treaty organization. this organization has over 300 monitoring stations world wide including stations in Iran, China, and russia. the monitoring stations successfully detected both nuke tests by north korea and have been proven to effectively verify the existence, and the location of tests below 1kiloton. this means that any militarily significant test would be detected by a trusted and effective monitoring program. ratifying the ctbt is not meant to be done on good faith, it's not a program based on hope: as ronald reagan said "trust, but verify." when ratified the ctbt allows for emergency on-site inspections, an incredibly important verification tool which we don't currently have access to. ratification of ctbt is an important step in making certain that the nuclear genie doesn't get out of check.

My main objection was not with the testing treaty. It was with the following arrogant statment...

"I know I speak for people everywhere when I say our dream is to see the day when nuclear weapons will be banished from the face of the Earth."



If you go back and read my post you will see that my comments were related to THIS concept (that EVERYONE wants n-weapons banned from the face of the earth).

And I was expressing MY opinion (and mine alone) not some re-hash of what the Council of foreign relations task force no.62, or william perry, or brent scowcroft say is right.

I tend to trust what I've learned from my life experience combined with common sense. Not just on what some pseudo-politicans who's careers depend on them saying what's politically-correct on this or any subject. I think it's obvious that if n-weapons were banished today there would be MORE military conflicts, not less.



But on just banning testing...
I'm out of words but I'll be back.

on just banning testing...

My profession is testing software. And my small company would never even THINK of deploying an update to our software without it being thoroughly tested first.

And our applications are relatively benign compared to the precision and detailed requirements involved in the guidance systems and flawless performace requirements of a nuclear missile.

If my application messes up... Someone may see an error message or get the wrong product. If a nuclear missile goes off target or the explosive components mal-function and detonate prematurely or don't detonate at all... the consequences are MUCH greater.


If we're going to HAVE Nuclear Weapons... we SHOULD be testing the HECK out of them! Don't you think???

I agree that nuclear weapons guidance systems and computer systems should be tested. the ctbt allows for those kinds of tests. what the treaty does not allow is for the detonation of nuclear weapons. also, i wasn't attempting to rehash the language of scowcroft, perry, etc., I was merely drawing attention to their positions. just as you have spent much of your life testing software and so are very knowledgeable about the benefits of such testing, so to are scowcroft, perry, schultz, nunn, kissinger etc., very knowledgeable and incredibly well informed about national security and our nuclear arsenals; it was for that reason that I chose to point out some of their work, which seemed pertinent to our conversation. again, i agree with you that the components of nuclear weapons and guidance systems are incredibly important and should be tested; however, it's not necessary to detonate nuclear weapons in order to verify the reliability of these components.

also, not to be picky, but "speaking for people everywhere" doesn't necessarily imply "speaking for everyone." my understanding is that speaking for people everywhere intends that people from many different geographical, political, and SES positions are in agreement.

All good points, though it is important to note that Perry’s committee was getting some strong political push and the JASON reports about pit lifetimes were doctored up. (look at the footnotes, the report only pertains to one type of weapon) The posture reviews were unable to come to a decision on the CTBT issue. And what would happen if the US ratified and China did not?

Right now the sad fact is that we need nuclear weapons. Why? Because other States have their nuclear weapons pointed at us. So the REAL question here is: do we need to test our weapons in order for them to be reliable? This is a question that should be answered by the scientists, not the politicians. In fact, safeguards should be instituted that ensure the politicians stay out. This way the arms control dinosaurs and the cold war babies don’t walk us unknowingly down a dark path.

r | 1:17 p.m.

What good does it do to test the guidance system if you don't know if it will detonate when it gets there? Or what will happened when it detonates? What will the yeild be, what will the damage be, what will the fallout be, etc?

You can model and simulate these things with computers, but till you do an actual experement you don't KNOW precisely what will happend.

We don't want questions in our minds about IF they will work, or what they will do. You eventually have to test them or you can't trust them.