|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Threat Assessment: Carnegie Book Describes Diminishing WMD Threats By Kerry Boyd Speaking at the launch of a new book analyzing WMD arsenals around the world, Cirincione said there are fewer long-range missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the world today than there were 10 years. The Cold War marked the peak of WMD proliferation, he said, and arsenals have declined in quantity and size, largely due to arms reduction agreements between the United States and the former Soviet Union. In the 1990s, only India and Pakistan openly joined the “nuclear weapons club,” making a total of eight nuclear-armed states, but six countries left the club, Cirincione said. According to the book — Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction by Cirincione, Jon Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar — Ukraine (see GSN, Dec. 5), Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up their nuclear inheritance after the Soviet Union dissolved. South Africa destroyed the six nuclear weapons that its former apartheid government had secretly constructed, and Argentina and Brazil both halted nuclear weapons programs and signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Since the Chemical Weapons Convention was signed in 1996, many chemical weapons stocks have been destroyed, the authors wrote. Despite delays, the United States (see GSN, June 24) and Russia (see GSN, June 18) are in the process of destroying their chemical arsenals, they wrote. The news on biological weapons is more mixed, according to Cirincione. More than 160 countries have signed the Biological Weapons Convention, and “most of the world’s biological weapons have been destroyed,” the authors wrote. However, there are 12 states today that are suspected of having biological weapons programs. Most are possible research programs — in Egypt, India, Libya, Pakistan, Sudan and Syria — but Iran, Iraq and Russia are believed to have arsenals, and China, Israel and North Korea might also have weapons, according to the book. Finally, the risk that an enemy would launch an ICBM against the United States is also down, the authors wrote (see GSN, March 12). There are 57 percent fewer missiles capable of striking the continental United States today than in the mid-1980s, according to Deadly Arsenals. There are also far fewer intermediate-range ballistic missiles in the world. The number of medium-range missiles has declined, but there is concern that new missile programs in certain countries — although they do not directly threaten the United States — might endanger international stability, the authors wrote. Concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction today are down to a few hard cases that pose a “relatively confined threat,” Cirincione said. His book identifies the Middle East and Northeast Asia as the two major regions where concern over biological and chemical weapons remains high. Fewer Weapons But Higher Risk Although the trend of WMD proliferation is definitely in decline, the risk of actual WMD use has increased, partly due to the risk of terrorist attack, Cirincione said. Countries concerned about proliferation and WMD warfare must work to ensure that the downward trend in WMD proliferation continues and to prevent any “new wave of proliferation” in the future, he said. In Deadly Arsenals, the authors wrote the bottom line on proliferation trends is that “first, the current global situation is dangerous; second, it could have been much worse; and third, the right government policies could make the situation much better.” The Right Policies It is up to countries to continue making progress, Cirincione said. The United States must work to “sustain and even expand” nonproliferation regimes to maintain the trend of diminishing WMD arsenals, the authors wrote. “The regime works,” Cirincione said. Appropriate diplomacy, nonproliferation agreements and controls could help the United States and other countries address the remaining hard WMD cases, the authors wrote in Deadly Arsenals. Active U.S. and international diplomacy might improve relations with North Korea and Iran and decrease concerns about their WMD arsenals (see GSN, June 28). Tensions between nuclear-armed Pakistan and India might pose “the most difficult challenge,” but there is a possibility that negotiators could construct agreements similar to the NPT to ease that situation, the authors wrote. International leaders have been able to prevent certain crises from turning into WMD nightmares in the past, and current leaders should be able to continue to avoid such nightmares if they use the nonproliferation tools at hand, Wolfsthal said. For further information, see: Carnegie Endowment Nuclear Status Map
| ||||||||||
Back to top
