DATE=9/5/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=ABOLISHING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
NUMBER=5-46965
BYLINE=ED WARNER
DATELINE=WASHINGTON
CONTENT=
VOICED AT:
INTRO: The sinking of the Russian submarine Kursk
points up the continuing problem of nuclear weapons
and how to keep them under control and reduce their
numbers. An article in a major American journal says
it is time for dramatic action against the biggest
threat to the survival of the human race. The author
proposes the United States take the lead in bringing
about the complete elimination of these weapons before
they spread beyond control. V-O-A's Ed Warner reports
his views and some response by other analysts.
TEXT: "The Folly of Arms Control" is the title of the
leading article in the current "Foreign Affairs"
journal. It suggests the various efforts to stop
proliferation and limit the danger of nuclear weapons
are going nowhere.
In fact, says author Jonathan Schell, the danger is
increasing. At the moment, he writes, eight nations
have nuclear weapons, but another thirty-six have the
ability to develop them if they choose. The
technology is readily available.
When one country acquires the weapons, that provokes
another to catch up. Thus, Pakistan follows India,
and Iran tries to match Israel. Mr. Schell says none
of the existing treaties seem able to stop this
process.
He adds it is hard for nuclear powers to keep other
nations from acquiring these weapons when they
continue to maintain their own arsenals. He concludes
that a U-S president must finally come to grips with
the problem and make the abolition of nuclear weapons
a major campaign issue and then use all the powers of
his office to wipe the plague from the earth. Nothing
less than this will work, says Mr. Schell.
A persuasive argument responds Joseph Cirincione,
Director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the
Carnegie Endowment in Washington. He thinks Mr.
Schell has accurately stated the dilemma of arms
control:
// CIRINCIONE ACT //
When a country like the United States has 10-
thousand nuclear weapons, it is very hard for us
to argue with North Korea that they should not
have one or that Iraq should not have one.
Until the countries with large arsenals of
nuclear weapons take serious steps to reduce and
get close to elimination if not complete
elimination, it is going to be very hard to stop
other countries from acquiring these weapons.
// END ACT //
This spread makes the world much more dangerous, says
Mr. Cirincione. Nuclear weapons had a stabilizing
effect during the Cold War since they kept the two
superpowers from attacking each other. That stability
is gone:
// CIRINCIONE ACT //
South Asia is much less stable now than it was
before the nuclear tests. There is a greater
danger of war there. A terrorist getting a
nuclear weapon is a tremendously destabilizing
event. So whatever benefits may have existed by
balanced arsenals of nuclear weapons during the
Cold War are over.
// END ACT //
Henry Cooper is Chairman of High Frontier, an
organization promoting missile defense. He shares
many of Mr. Schell's concerns, but doubts that
unilateral action by the United States will reduce the
danger. He says complete abolition of nuclear weapons
is unrealistic:
// COOPER ACT //
We have to have diplomacy, and we have to have
active measures, including defenses of all
sorts. We have to defend against terrorist
actions that might try to smuggle nuclear
weapons and other weapons of mass destruction
into the United States. We have to have
defenses against ballistic missiles, which are
the weapons of choice of many of the countries
that would like to blackmail their neighbors and
indeed us as well.
// END ACT //
Mr. Cooper says even if the United States starts
abolishing its nuclear weapons, that will not
influence nations that seek them for their own
political purposes. He concludes a balanced approach
is needed to respond to the current complex threat.
(SIGNED)
NEB/EW/RAE
05-Sep-2000 14:02 PM EDT (05-Sep-2000 1802 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
