Scott Paul has a “good post”:http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002183.php up over at the Washington Note about the US slackitude in funding the “CTBTO.”:http://www.ctbto.org/ He correctly points out that the funding shortfall “threatens to undermine global efforts to monitor nuclear tests, especially in areas where the U.S. lacks access, like China, North Korea, and Iran.”
Back in March, a “a senior diplomat based in Vienna” “told _ACT_”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/CTBTO.asp that
bq. “While it is difficult to understand how shortfalls in contributions from specific countries will affect the CTBTO, less money is less money…*The main victim will likely be the completion of the remaining IMS stations, as well as maintenance and recapitalization for some existing stations,* some of which are nearly 10 years old”.
ACA put out a “press release”:http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2007/20070521_CTBT.asp about this issue a few weeks ago which gave some specific numbers regarding the shortfall:
bq. According to documents on the CTBTO Web site, *U.S. arrears as of May 2007 total $38.3 million.* In addition, *the Bush administration in its current fiscal year 2008 budget request is only asking Congress for $18 million to fund the CTBTO even though the Vienna-based organization assessed the latest annual U.S. dues at $23.4 million.*
As Scott asked, “[D]o we really need fewer non-military tools to contain the proliferation of nuclear weapons?”
If you want a good, concise history of the US chemical weapons program, you could do worse than read Daniel Kevles’ recent (OK, April) “review”:http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20063 of Jonathan Tucker’s _War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda_. (That’s not to slam the book at all – I just haven’t had time to read it. )
The review will help refresh your memory about the US CW program (it did in my case, at least.) For example, there’s a good summary about the US production of binary CWs.
p=. *Binaries*
Kevles describes binary CWs:
bq. Arms analysts were now calling the weapons developed since 1915 “unitary weapons,” in contrast to “binary weapons,” which were seen as those of the future. *The unitary variety was chemically complete, containing a single substance ready to do its lethal work. The binary variety consisted of two separate components, neither of which was toxic; they became lethal only when combined in, for example, a shell in flight.* Binary weapons could be stored in domestic and foreign military depots without posing the threats to the environment and public health that had provoked objections to the storage of unitary weapons.
Kevles also explains that President Nixon in 1969 “declared that the United States would restrict further production” of CWs, “keeping those it had only as a deterrent.” However, this pledge (spelled out in “National Security Decision Memorandum 35”:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/RNCBW8.pdf) didn’t ban the development of new CWs. And, according to Kevles, it “left open a loophole for the use of binary weapons should they be developed.”
[ I _think_ the key sentence in “NSDM 35”:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/RNCBW8.pdf is
bq. The Secretary of Defense…shall continue to develop and improve controls and safety measures in all Chemical Warfare programs. ]
Anyway, the US conducted research on binaries, but there was a debate as to whether to develop them. According to Kevles,
bq. *The heightened fear of the Soviet chemical arsenal stimulated a decade-long struggle over whether the United States should proceed with the development of binary weapons.* Blue-ribbon defense panels and anti-Soviet chemical hawks contended that the nation’s unitary arsenal was inadequate to deter a Soviet ground attack in Europe; binary weapons, they said, would be more acceptable to the public and to military planners. Some opponents castigated binary weapons just as their predecessors had denounced unitary ones, arguing that their use particularly threatened innocent civilians. Others warned that going ahead with them would jeopardize the disarmament talks on chemical weapons, which Nixon had encouraged and were underway in Geneva. *The opponents held the hawks at bay until, according to reports from refugees, the Soviets used chemical weapons against the mujahideen guerrillas after their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. President Carter had previously blocked funding for binary weapons development. Now, in 1980, he signed an omnibus military construction bill that had passed Congress by large majorities in both houses and that included authorization for a pilot binary program.*
President Reagan finally got congress to approve a binary production program in 1985. Kevles writes that the legislation “passed the Senate easily” because “several senators…were persuaded that the US was falling behind the Soviets.” For its part, the House voted for the program “just a few days after Hezbollah hijacked TWA Flight 847, killing one of five navy men on the plane.”
Interestingly, I ran across “this 1988 article”:http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966443-2,00.html from _Time_ about the US decision to resume nerve gas production that year. The author was skeptical of killing the arms control village in order to save it:
bq. The Administration is pursuing negotiations with the Soviets aimed at eliminating both stockpiles and production…*The best way to assure continued Soviet cooperation, concludes a defense official, is by “expressing our resolve to modernize. Only then do the Soviets become willing to talk.” Perhaps. But in the name of deterrence, the U.S. may find itself drawn into a particularly odious and dangerous kind of arms race.*
p=. *End of Binaries*
Kevles explains that
bq. The end of the cold war brought the long US–Soviet chemical arms race largely to a halt. *The key shift came in 1990, when the United States concluded a sweeping bilateral chemical disarmament agreement with the Soviets that committed the two countries to cease production of all chemical weapons, including binaries, and to reduce their chemical arsenals within eight years to five thousand metric tons.*
The text of that agreement can be found “here.”:http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bda/text/bda.htm#intro
For anyone who’s still interested, “here’s a review”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006_03/MARCH-BookReview.asp of Tucker’s book that Michael Moodie wrote for _ACT_. Also, Tucker wrote a “very good piece”:http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_01-02/Tucker.asp in _ACT_ a few months back about the need to strengthen the CWC.
Lastly, here’s Slayer’s 1985 version of Chemical Warfare:
This time it’s “Nukes on a Blog,”:http://nukesonablog.blogspot.com/ a blog run by Leonor Tomero and Douglas Shaw. According to them, it is a “project of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and Physicians for Social Responsibility.”
A bit off -topic, but Steve Aftergood has the “file o’ letters”:http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/libby/letters.pdf that were sent into Judge Reggie Walton RE: Scooter Libby’s sentencing. There are a bunch of names that will be familiar to the arms control community.
“Nukes of Hazard”:http://nukesofhazard.blogspot.com/ is over at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation’s place. Jeff Lindemyer and Kyle Atwell are the two criminal minds behind the enterprise.
Check it out, it’s full o’ useful information. And I’m on their blogroll, which must mean it’s cool.
“Here is”:http://usinfo.state.gov/is/international_security/us_nuclear_policy.html a DOS page called “Limiting Nuclear Weapons.”
The first item?
“U.S. Pledges Major Effort To Complete India Nuclear Agreement.”:http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2007&m=May&x=20070523131655idybeekcm0.3887751
Bernard Gwertzman has a “great interview”:http://www.cfr.org/publication/13466/ with CEIP’s Karim Sadjadpour. A lot of it is about the IRGC.
This one paragraph about the Corps’ ideological composition caught my attention:
bq. The Revolutionary Guards comprise about 150,000 in number. They’re not a monolithic group. *There’s a common perception right now that the Revolutionary Guards are very closely aligned with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But I would say it’s the opposite. President Ahmadinejad has to pander to the Revolutionary Guards to project his own power, because he doesn’t have a very strong popular base.* And it’s difficult to describe them as a group of 150,000 hardliners because *in 2001 three-quarters of them voted for the liberal Mohammed Khatami’s re-election as president.* In some ways, the Revolutionary Guards are more reflective of the Iranian society than we think…
I would have assumed that a group of 150,000 Iranians wouldn’t be monolithic, but I hadn’t seen those numbers before.
Speaking of matters Iranian that I don’t know much about, Karim also had a good “piece”:http://www.twq.com/07winter/docs/07winter_sadjadpour.pdf in _TWQ_ about Iranian public opinion RE: the nuclear program.
Please note that no one was kicked in the nuts during the writing of this post.
I am annoyed that WhirledView did not give this blog a “Thinking Blogger award.”:http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2007/05/thinking_blogge.html These awards, Cheryl says, are given to “blogs that make us think.”
I find this omission unconscionable. Here is my response:
I didn’t know this, but yesterday’s State Department “briefing”:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2007/may/85804.htm was apparently George Gedda’s (from _AP_) last. “Sean-Paul Kelley”:http://agonist.org/sean_paul_kelley/20070531/after_30_years_of_covering_the_state_department noticed Gedda’s gem of a comment from that brefing:
bq. I want you to know that it strains credulity for you folks to describe the last 175 diplomatic meetings as being fruitful and useful. They couldn’t possibly have all been fruitful and useful.
To be fair, Tom Casey’s comeback was pretty good:
MR. CASEY: You forgot productive. (Laughter.)
MR. GEDDA: Productive. What is your response to that?
MR. CASEY: Well, George, I think as a great former spokesman once said on his last day at the podium, all the relationships are special, all the meetings are unique and all our allies are valuable. And I think we’ll stick with that. (Laughter.)
