|
In 1999, during the Clinton administration, the Senate rejected ratification overwhelmingly, with all but three Republicans voting against it. Opponents believe a test ban would constrain the United States and undermine its technological superiority. They also say it will be difficult to verify whether other countries are conducting secret tests and to ensure that the U.S. arsenal can be maintained and improved without testing. The administration argues that technological advances, including the capability of computer simulation, have made testing unnecessary and have also made it easier to detect tests in other countries. Without progress on the test ban ratification, Obama could face difficulty persuading non-nuclear countries to support his other goals, such as strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, at a review conference in May. That treaty provides the framework for preventing the spread of nuclear technology and is the basis for imposing sanctions on such countries as Iran and North Korea. "The test ban treaty has been the litmus test for many non-nuclear weapons states," says Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "It remains a promise that the U.S. needs to fulfill to keep the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty viable."
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor