Jump to search Jump to main navigation Jump to main content Jump to footer navigation

Global Security Newswire

Daily News on Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Weapons, Terrorism and Related Issues

Produced by
NationalJournal logo

Nuclear Disarmament Needs New Initiatives, Experts Say

By David Ruppe

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — Movement toward disarmament by the five declared nuclear weapons states appears to be stalled and could use significant new initiatives, several experts said yesterday (see GSN, June 8).

The five countries — Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States — are required by Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to work toward disarmament, and the countries reaffirmed that commitment at the 1995 and 2000 treaty review conferences as part of a bargain for indefinitely extending the international nuclear weapons ban.

Speaking on a panel at the Carnegie conference yesterday, though, Disarmament Diplomacy editor Rebecca Johnson, Carnegie Moscow Center analyst Alexei Arbatov, and senior U.N. political affairs officer Randy Rydell, speaking in his personal capacity, appeared to agree the states were not doing enough.

“Deterioration and perhaps eventual disintegration” of the nonproliferation treaty is occurring, Arbatov said.

“The great powers have to live up to their commitments” under Article VI of the NPT in order to successfully discourage other countries from seeking the bomb, he said.

‘Inconsistency’ Is the Problem

The issue, though, is not numbers of weapons possessed by the declared nuclear weapons states, but rather, doctrines for use and development of new capabilities, Arbatov said.

“The main problem for nuclear proliferation presently is not North Korea or Iran, it is inconsistency,” he said.

If the legitimate nuclear powers do not live up to their commitments, “this is a guarantee that nuclear proliferation will follow,” he said.

Arbatov urged the United States to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which the Bush administration currently opposes, and proposed making the 2002 U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty a “full-scale treaty” with counting rules, and de-alerting U.S. and Russian strategic forces.

Toward Ensuring Compliance

Rydell spoke of a more general need for measures to ensure compliance with nuclear reduction requirements. He said true disarmament would be irreversible, transparent, comprehensive, verifiable and binding and listed numerous ways in which he said that standard is currently not met.

He said, for instance, that the reductions in deployed nuclear weapons called for by the U.S.-Russian Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty are reversible and not transparent, that the actual number of nuclear weapons and fissile material stores around the world is not known, and that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty had not yet entered into force.

Johnson said the nuclear weapons states should be prohibited from producing new weapons, and even from modernizing or upgrading existing models.

“This is what the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was originally intended to do,” she said.

The goal would be effectively “disarmament by attrition,” she said.

U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration head Linton Brooks said in a speech earlier yesterday that he was “bothered by the charges that our policy hurts nonproliferation, because our nonproliferation policy is exceptionally good.”

“Our nuclear posture and our nonproliferation policy are supportive and entirely consistent with our obligations under Article VI of the Nonproliferation Treaty,” he said.

He said maintaining a strong U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal discourages other countries from trying to surge past the United States and helps to restrain friends and allies from acquiring nuclear weapons because they know they are protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella.

The 2005 NPT review conference, Johnson said, should not simply “itemize a wish list” for disarmament but should “decide whether to give states parties the tools” for enforcing compliance.

She said the United States and France at the 2004 preparatory meetings for the 2005 NPT review conference tried to “back away” from an agreement at the 2000 review conference on 13 steps the legitimate nuclear states would take toward nuclear disarmament (see GSN, May 10).

Arbatov was pessimistic that the legitimate nuclear powers would accept a move toward complete nuclear disarmament any time soon.

“As far as I know how things are discussed in Moscow … [and] imagine how things are discussed in Washington, using the term ‘nuclear disarmament’ is the most guaranteed way of getting people to stop listening to you,” he said.

“Short of that, a lot of things may be proposed and perhaps implemented,” he said.

Note to our Readers

GSN ceased publication on July 31, 2014. Its articles and daily issues will remain archived and available on NTI’s website.

NTI Analysis

  • Nuclear Disarmament Dynamic Map

    Feb. 19, 2015

    The Nuclear Disarmament Resource Collection contains information and analysis of nuclear weapons disarmament proposals and progress worldwide, including detailed coverage of disarmament progress in countries who either possess or host other countries' nuclear weapons on their territories.

  • Saudi Rattles Its Saber

    Dec. 15, 2014

    In the past few years, Saudi Arabia has been far more open about the capabilities of its Strategic Missile Force. Combined with open-source information, outside observers now have far more information about Saudi missile capabilities than ever before.

Country Profile

Flag of China


This article provides an overview of China’s historical and current policies relating to nuclear, chemical, biological and missile proliferation.

Learn More →