Lesnoy

School №76

“Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation”

Student: Fedorovskiy Pavel

Lesnoy, school №76, 10 “B” grade

Teacher: Valieva Rezeda

Lesnoy, school №76

2006

Benchmark II

Objective I – Current Regions of Interest

In this part of Benchmark II we will do research to understand where current “stable spots” and “trouble spots” are in the world in terms of nuclear proliferation/non-proliferation. We will develop an understanding why these areas are considered problems.

Present days the world pays attention the east countries trying to possess nuclear weapons, and that is not strangely. Iran, North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel are the actively developing states, the level of their economics, industry and people’s life is far from the perfect, however, and the rate of developing is very high. The desire of governments of east countries to possess WMD is the sign of the achievement of certain results, which make these countries strong enough to step on the new stage of their developing, when the military needs are priority (the same situation was in USSR and USA in the second half of the 20^th century, when the big sums of money were spent on military development).

Organized by Pentagon “Country N Project” (1964-1966) has shown that two scientists with surface knowledge of nuclear physics can make the full document on creating nuclear bomb, which will be working. The results of the project were rather interesting, the construction of the bomb was simple enough, but obtaining fissile material was much harder. And now even student of school can get a lot of information about creating nuclear bomb, to say nothing about terrorists or non-nuclear states.

Before we start talking about North Korea and Iran, some words should be said. It’s not bound with nuclear weapons, but however, we’d like to say some words. We must understand that the cartoon published in the Danish newspaper is not the reason of mass-meetings and a wave of aggression towards Europe in Eastern countries; it’s just a cause. And the real reason is long-term opposition of two religions, two different ways of living. The cartoons make people from Eastern countries express all accumulated feelings. In the second part of 20^th century, the World War III was likely to be between two regimes: capitalism and communism; but now it’s likely to be between Christianity and Islam, and it sounds much more terrible. Herewith, neither Christians nor Moslems are guilty; they are able and want to be at peace, the real fault lies on intolerant people (from the “West” countries) and fanatics (from the “East” countries). The people in the world can speak a lot of good or bad things about Iran, but the new war must be stopped. Will Iran use nuclear weapons? Iranian government is certain to understand that if they use nuclear weapons, their country will be destroyed in a few hours without mercy. There is no need in war in such a situation. But what country will be right, if USA attack Iran? Trying to stop a possible aggression, we will provoke a real aggression. One more war will definitively split the world community into two peaces…

Iran. As one of the other states trying to possess nuclear weapons Iran aspire to become dominant power in the region. Tehran was always saying that they will use nuclear technologies only in energy sphere, but it seems to be untrue. Iran has a rich oil resources and that means it won’t have any energy problems in the nearest years. But on the other hand, Iran is willing to provide itself with energy, when the oil goes off. The cooperation with Russia is one of the concerning points. Russia has mastered a nuclear weapons production and its help in building atomic energy plant in Bushier can be help in the nuclear weapons development. But this information is not confirmed and looks doubtful.

In June 2005, IAEA Deputy Director Pierre Goldschmidt stated that Iran admitted to providing incorrect information about past experiments involving plutonium. Tehran claimed all such research ceased in 1993, but results from recent tests show experiments took place as late as 1995 and 1998. In early July, Iran asked the IAEA if it could break UN seals and test nuclear-related equipment, stating the testing would not violate Tehran's voluntary suspension of nuclear activities. At the end of July, an official letter was submitted to the IAEA stating that the seals at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) would be removed. The IAEA requested that it be given 10 days to install the necessary surveillance equipment. On 1 August, Iran reminded the EU-3 that 3 August would be the last opportunity for a proposal to be submitted to continue negotiations. A few days later, the European Union submitted the Framework for a Long-term Agreement proposal to Iran. The proposal specifically called on Iran to exclude fuel-cycle related activity. Tehran immediately rejected the proposal as a negation of its inalienable rights. On 8 August, nuclear activities resumed at the Isfahan UCF and two days later, IAEA seals were removed from the remaining parts of the process lines with IAEA inspectors present.

In the days leading up to Iran's resumption of nuclear activities, several countries called on Iran to cooperate with the IAEA and to re-establish full suspension of all enrichment related activities. Additionally, some European countries and the United States threatened to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. Once again, Iran rejected any proposal related to the suspension of conversion activities, but stated they were ready to continue negotiations. Tehran did not believe there was any legal basis for referral to the UN Security council and believed it was only a political move. Iran also threatened to stop all negotiations, prevent any further inspections at all its nuclear facilities, suspend the implementation of the Additional Protocol, and withdraw from the NPT, if it was referred to the UN Security Council.

In August 2005, the IAEA announced that most of the highly enriched uranium (HEU) particle contamination found at various locations in Iran was found to be of foreign origin. The IAEA concluded much of the HEU found on centrifuge parts were from imported Pakistani equipment, rather than from any enrichment activities conducted by Iran.

In late August, Iran began announcing it would be resuming nuclear activities in Natanz and that Tehran would be willing to negotiate as long as there were no conditions. In August, Iran refused to comply with a resolution from the IAEA to halt its nuclear program, stating that making nuclear fuel was its right as a member of the NPT. The European Union believed that although Iran did have a right to nuclear energy under Article 4 of the NPT, it had lost that right because it violated Article 2 of the NPT - "not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear related weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." On 24, September 2005, the IAEA found Iran in non-compliance of the NPT. The resolution passed with 21 votes of approval, 12 abstentions, and one opposing vote. Russia and China were among those that abstained from voting and Venezuela was the only country to vote against the resolution. The resolution stated Iran's non-compliance due to "many failures and breaches" over nuclear safeguards of the NPT were grounds for referral to the UN Security Council.

In the beginning of the 2006 the Iran got to the focus of attention. The situation changes every day, the possible war becomes more inevitable. It’s hardly to say what will be in a few weeks. Only question mark can be written here…

North Korea. The attention to the North Korean nuclear program became far less than in 2004-2005 “thanks” to Iran, but sometime North Korea will be in the center of world news again. The behavior of the government of that state is on the brink of understanding. Some reports say that North Korea doesn’t have nuclear weapons and won’t develop it, another says opposite opinions; N. Korean government can admit the way of cooperation and refuse it. There are some suggestions that North Korea doesn’t have any nuclear weapons, and all reports were false. But even if North Korea doesn’t possess nuclear weapons (it’s a point of controversy), it will obtain this weapons sometime, but the biggest part of all information about North Korean nuclear program is the proof that there are nuclear weapons in North Korea. Approximately it has 1-5 nuclear warheads, but no one can say what the exact amount of North Korean nuclear bombs is. During 2003, North Korea likely reprocessed the plutonium from 8,000 spent fuel rods that had been in a temporary storage facility in the Yongbyon Nuclear Complex. This reprocessed spent fuel would provide about 25-30 kg of weapons-grade plutonium, or enough for about five to six nuclear weapons. North Korea has also been operating a 5 MW (e) reactor in Yongbyon since late February 2003. This reactor can produce enough plutonium for about one bomb per year. However, there is no evidence that North Korea has shut down the reactor to discharge the spent fuel and reprocess it into plutonium. North Korea has two larger nuclear reactors (50 MW (e) and 200 MW (e)) that were under construction but frozen under the 1994 Agreed Framework. These reactors, if completed, could provide enough plutonium for about 37-50 nuclear bombs per year. North Korea also has a uranium enrichment program, but there is no evidence that North Korea has a large-scale uranium enrichment facility in operation. In the 1980s, North Korea began to acquire dual-use items that could be applied to a uranium enrichment program, but North Korea is probably still years away from operating a full-scale uranium enrichment facility, even though it can apparently produce uranium hexofluoride. North Korea appears to have pursued its uranium enrichment program more aggressively in the late 1990s after becoming dissatisfied with the implementation of the Agreed Framework. The intelligence community is divided over whether North Korea has assembled its fissile material into nuclear bombs, and it is uncertain whether North Korea has miniaturized any weapons that could be loaded onto a North Korean delivery vehicle. If miniaturized into nuclear warheads, North Korea could deliver its bombs with Hwasŏng-5, Hwasŏng-6, Nodong, and Paektusan-1 (Taepodong-1) ballistic missiles.

North Korean Ballistic Missiles

NK Name Alternate Name	Range (km)	Payload (kg)	Inventory Estimate
Hwasŏng-5 Scud-B	300	987-989	27 TELs* (total) Over 500 "Scuds" of all types
Hwasŏng-6 Scud-C	500	770	27 TELs (total) Over 500 "Scuds" of all types
Unknown Scud-D	700	500	27 TELs (total) Over 500 "Scuds" of all types
Unknown Nodong	1,000	700	At least 10 TELs About 175-200
Paektusan-1 Taepodong-1	2,200	?	<10 in underground silos?
Unknown Taepodong-2			Under development

North Korea might transfer nuclear weapons and fissile material to states or terrorists, and that’s the major concern of the United States and its allies. Such problems always become “the first to solve”, because state, possessing nuclear weapons, can be controlled by treaties or international sanctions, but terrorists can’t be controlled, and the one of the great dangers for mankind is nuclear terrorism. But first, North Korea's current stockpile of fissile material is relatively small and extremely valuable if the North Korea leadership is convinced it needs a nuclear deterrent. Second, the risk and cost of exposure after transferring nuclear weapons or materials would be high, and North Korean leaders are unlikely to accept these risks or potential costs. Third, North Korea has renounced terrorism and has not engaged in terrorist activities for almost two decades. Critics argue that terrorist groups have acquired North Korean conventional arms, but Pyongyang is more likely to hold onto its small number of nuclear weapons for its own defense. Therefore, the probability of transfer is low, but cannot be completely discounted, and contingency plans should be available for such a development. There are two main ways of solution of “North Korean Question”: military (destruction of all facilities) and diplomatic (the Six-Party Talks were unsuccessful regrettably, cause North Korea refused to take part in the negotiations, but there are still some ways of diplomatic solution).

Military Diplomatic

Locating all nuclear weapons increasing diplomatic pressure

and/or facilities and fissile material against Pyongyang

stocks that could be used in a

nuclear weapons program A UN Security Council resolution

Imposing economic sanctions

Having the capability to

destroy these targets Increasing counter-proliferation

activities aimed at Pyongyang

(Such as stopping and boarding

Preventing full-scale North Korean North Korean ships,

conventional retaliation, further as set forth in the U.S.-

escalation, or the use of chemical, led Proliferation Security Initiative)

biological, or nuclear weapons

against U.S military bases in the

region or against U.S. allies

USA. USA is the only one state that has been used nuclear weapons against its enemy. In August of 1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely destroyed. The current arsenal is about 10 000 nuclear warheads. Almost 8,000 of these are active or operational; nearly 2,700 inactive. In addition to intact warheads, about 5,000 plutonium pits and 5,000 canned subassemblies (thermonuclear second) are stored as a "strategic reserve" at Pantex and Oak Ridge, respectively. Another 7,000 pits at Pantex, from warheads dismantled during the Bush senior and Clinton administrations, have been declared excess.

The United States deploys nuclear weapons at eight bases in six European NATO countries. According to the May 2002 Treaty of Moscow (the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, or SORT) between the United States and the Russian Federation, both countries are required to reduce their strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,700-2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012. The review states that the United States will reduce its reliance on nuclear weapons and depend more heavily on conventional weapons and missile defense to ensure national security. Most of the reduction however, will involve merely shifting warheads into storage, where they could quickly be reactivated.

The Bush administration has rejected U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, but calls for a continued moratorium on nuclear testing. The 2001 Nuclear Posture Review calls for a reduction in the amount of time needed (now 18 months as mandated by Congress, but this could be reduced to as little as 12 months) to test a nuclear weapon, suggesting that the United States might decide to resume nuclear testing, although Bush administration officials deny that this is currently planned and explain the shortening of test-site readiness time as a logical extension of the U.S. decision to maintain a testing option.

Nuclear weapons are located in 14 states of the USA: New Mexico, Georgia, Washington, Nevada, and North Dakota are the top five and account for about 70 percent of the total arsenal. The other nine are Wyoming, Missouri, Montana, Louisiana, Texas, Nebraska, California, Virginia, and Colorado. The number of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe has shrunk dramatically, from over 6,000 of many types in the early 1980s to some 150 B61 bombs at ten air bases in seven countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) by the end of 1997. The United States is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders.

USA is one of the recognized states under the NPT. But it’s hardly to deny that the United States will never use nuclear weapons against some country again. Considering the fact that US government has the list of “enemies”, it’s no doubtful that using nuclear weapons will be one of the ways of “the battle” with enemies. But it’s also impossible to deny the role of the United States in nuclear non-proliferation. And again it’s one more ambiguous situation in considering nuclear non-proliferation and current situation in the world.

Russia. Russian nuclear forces are really strong, the system of using nuclear weapons works perfect at present, that’s why Russian nuclear arsenal seems to be very dangerous and many people in the world are worried about it. Russian government relies on nuclear weapons, because the military vehicles of Russian army have powerful weapons but it’s not very effective, because it’s too old, the renovation of vehicles and weapons is a terribly long process because of low financing, but nuclear weapons and all related systems are kept in good condition. But what make many people really anxious are strategic nuclear forces of Russia, only few minutes are necessary for replying enemy attack. Detecting attack takes 3 or 4 minutes, the high level decision can be made in 4 or 5 minutes and some more time for the launch. Russian nuclear doctrine cause many contradictions in the world. The launch on warning confirms that Russia will use nuclear weapons, if someone attacks Russia, but in official declarations said that the replying attack will be directed to the enemy strategic objects only to destroy the important enemy structures, but not to kill thousands of people (however, the victims will be). The safety of nuclear weapons in Russia is a question too. But at the other hand, Russia signed many treaties, which lead to the disarming and lowering reliance on nuclear weapons.

Russia has made dramatic reductions in its nuclear forces since the end of the Cold War, a major limiting factor in the pace of reductions has been the funding to destroy systems. Russia has taken control of all nuclear weapons stationed in the former-Soviet republics, particularly the strategic weapons formerly deployed in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. For economic reasons, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal is likely to decline to fewer than 2,000 warheads by 2015, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. The START II treaty limits Russia and the United States to 3,500 strategic, deployed warheads. In November 2000, agreement with Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to reduce Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal to between 1,500 and 2,200 - a change fiscal necessity would likely have caused even without U.S. cuts. This reduction may be imperiled by the U.S. plan to move most of the nuclear weapons taken out of the active stockpile into a reserve stockpile, where they could easily be rearmed. The START treaties do not restrict tactical or reserve weapons. Russia will likely retain approximately 3,000 tactical warheads, in addition to an unknown number of reserve weapons.

UK. The United Kingdom is a nuclear weapon state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The UK's current stockpile is thought to consist of less than 200 strategic and "sub-strategic" warheads on Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN). The Strategic Defense Review of July 1998 called for major changes in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons program. Air-delivered weapons were removed from service, leaving the SSBNs as the United Kingdom's only nuclear deterrent. The Review mandated that only one submarine be on patrol at a time, with its missiles retargeted and with a reduced number of warheads (maximum of 48). On May 1, 2004, the Nuclear Safeguards Act went into effect in the United Kingdom, providing necessary legislation for the enforcement of the "additional protocol" designed to provide greater protection against nuclear non-proliferation. This protocol built on existing nuclear safeguards agreements with the IAEA. The United Kingdom ratified the NPT in November 1968 and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in June 1998.

France. France maintains approximately 350 nuclear warheads on 60 Mirage 2000N bombers, four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), and on carrier-based aircraft. From the time it detonated its first nuclear bomb in 1960 until its final test on January 26, 1996, France conducted 200 tests at sites on Pacific atolls and in the Sahara. In 1996, President Jacques Chirac introduced reforms for the country's nuclear forces, including scaling down its SSBNs from five to four, withdrawing aging Mirage IVP bombers from service, reducing its number of launchers by 50%, and dismantling its Plateau d'Albion land-based ballistic missile system. It dismantled its nuclear test facilities in the Pacific and ratified the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. France ceased production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium in 1992 and 1996, respectively, and, in 1998, began to dismantle the Marcoule reprocessing plant and the Pierre latte enrichment facility. The French Navy operates about 80% of the total nuclear arsenal.

About China, India and Pakistan was told a lot in Benchmark I. The real situation shows that the new conflicts between India and Pakistan are possible, but it’s hard to say, whether governments of those countries dare to use nuclear weapons. The Indian government released a proposed nuclear doctrine in 1999. This document calls for the use of nuclear weapons only in response to a nuclear attack - in other words a no first use policy - and says that ultimately, India's nuclear forces will be based in a triad of aircraft, mobile land-based missiles and sea-based forces. The doctrine states that India intends, through a combination of redundant systems, mobility, dispersion and deception, to heighten the survivability of its nuclear arsenal. Despite its ambition to deploy a nuclear triad, today India can deliver nuclear weapons only by missile or aircraft. India has two types of missiles: the Prithvi and the Agni, each of which has several variants. The Prithvi missiles have ranges under 500 kilometers and are liquid-fuelled. In January 2002, India test fired a solid-fuel Agni missile. With a range of 700 kilometers, it bridges a gap between shorter-range Prithvi missiles and longer-range variants of the Agni. Versions of the Agni with ranges up to 5,000 kilometers are being developed. Though India seeks nuclear self-sufficiency, its ballistic missile programs are largely dependent on Russian components and expertise. India is also likely to develop a global positioning system to upgrade its missile guidance systems.

Little solid information is available regarding the Pakistani arsenal, but it is widely estimated to consist of 24 to 48 nuclear weapons. The nuclear program uses highly enriched uranium, but Pakistan is developing facilities to produce plutonium. According to U.S. intelligence, Pakistan relies heavily on its ballistic nuclear missiles to counter India's conventional advantage. It has depended on North Korean and Chinese assistance to help develop its missiles but aims for more indigenous know-how. Like India, Pakistan is generally believed to keep its nuclear missiles in components. That is, delivery vehicles are likely kept separate from warheads. However, the escalation of conflict along the line of control in Kashmir may have led Pakistan to assemble some of its nuclear weapons.

China joined the policy of non-proliferation after the end of Cold War and signed the NPT and CTBT (under ratification) and admits all IAEA decisions. But also China always modernizes its military forces, and nuclear weapons are not an exception. China joined the IAEA in 1984 and acceded to the NPT in 1992 as a nuclear weapon state. China provided nuclear reactors and technology to several countries in the 1980s and early 1990s, including design information and fissile material that reportedly helped Pakistan develop nuclear weapons. Since the early 1990s, China has improved its export controls, including the promulgation of regulations on nuclear and nuclear dual-use exports and has pledged to halt exports of nuclear technology to un-safeguarded facilities. In 2002 China ratified the IAEA Additional Protocol, the first and only nuclear weapons state to do so.

It’s worth saying that all of the five recognized nuclear weapons states under the NPT have the great influence in the world now, and all five countries admit the non-proliferation principles. These states were the first to produce nuclear weapons and now they try to prevent its proliferation. It’s rather interesting and paradoxical, but it’s much better for the community. Time is what makes us change: the using of nuclear weapons is possible, but the disarming seems to be much more inevitable, so it means mankind can avoid the nuclear war.

Israel. Israel refuses to confirm or deny the widespread belief that it has the nuclear weapon capabilities. Israel is believed to possess the largest and most sophisticated arsenal outside of the five declared nuclear powers and it has the most advanced nuclear weapons program in the Middle East. The secrecy with which Israel shrouds its nuclear arsenal renders estimates of its size highly unreliable. Generally, however, it is estimated that Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads.

Israel developed nuclear weapons with French help in the 1950s and 1960s. Despite refusals to comment on the issue by the Israeli government, the Israelis clearly have a sizeable nuclear arsenal. It is believed that Israel might not keep its nuclear weapons fully assembled - keeping them "a screw away" from completion.

The highly capable and well-equipped Israeli Air Force would more than suffice in the nuclear weapons delivery role, particularly with U.S.-supplied aircraft such as the F-4E and F-16. However, Israel has also produced ballistic missiles. The Jericho I can strike Syria, and the Jericho II brings the entire Middle East under Israel's range, particularly Iran. Israel may also have some tactical nuclear weapons. The Shavit spaclaunch booster could be adapted for a long-range nuclear delivery role, and given the decision, Israel would be able to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile.

The Israeli arsenal will likely remain stable in the years to come. Though Israel signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it will likely not reduce or eliminate its nuclear arsenal of 100-200 weapons. It is possible that Israel possesses an unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons. The center of Israel's weapons program is reported to be the Negev Nuclear Research Center near the desert town of Dimona.

Israel's possession of nuclear weapons and its policy of declaratory ambiguity have led to increased tensions in current Middle East peace discussions and arms control negotiations. In July 2004, however, Israel accepted a visit from International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei. Israeli officials continue assert that they will address disarmament only after a comprehensive Middle Eastern peace is obtained, and to deny international inspection of the Dimona nuclear complex.

The obvious opposition of Israel and Iran and a conflict between India and Pakistan make the situation in Asia really dangerous. All four states have nuclear weapons; any provocation can cause an open confrontation. The mechanism of starting the war is very simple.

Denuclearized nations are particularly former Soviet republics such as Ukraine, Belarus or Kazakhstan. After the ruining of USSR the problem of sharing the military facilities and others became rather important. All nuclear warheads, which have been kept in the territory of former republics, have been given to Russia. The remainders of the former Soviet military arsenal are spread on the big territories of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others.

· Ukraine - signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Ukraine inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the USSR in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world. By 1996, the Ukraine had voluntarily disposed of all nuclear weapons within its territory, transferring them to Russia.

· Belarus – Belarus had 81 single warhead missiles stationed in their territory after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. They were all returned to Russia by 1996. Belarus signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

· Kazakhstan – Kazakhstan inherited 1,400 nuclear weapons from Soviet Union, returned them all to Russia by 1995. Signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

· South Africa – Produced six nuclear weapons in the 1980s but disassembled them in the early 1990s, and is thus the only nation known to have willingly given up nuclear status after developing their own weapons. Possibly tested a low yield device in 1979, perhaps with Israel, over the southern oceans in the Vela Incident. Signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

NWFZ. A Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone or NWFZ is defined by the United Nations as an agreement, generally by internationally recognized treaty, to ban the use, development, or deployment of nuclear weapons in a given area. Additionally, this agreement has mechanisms of verification and control to enforce its obligations. NWFZs are conceived as incremental measures toward total nuclear disarmament, and have steadily grown in number since the first, governing Antarctica. To date, there are six recognized zones, which have been achieved or are in the process of acceptance:

· The Treaty of Tlatelolco (Latin America and the Caribbean NWFZ),

· The Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone),

· The Treaty of Bangkok (Southeast Asia NWFZ),

· The Treaty of Pelindaba (African NWFZ),

· The Antarctic Treaty, for the Antarctic territory,

· Mongolian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Status, covering Mongolia.

The Pelindaba Treaty has not yet entered into force. In addition to these NWFZ treaties, other agreements, including the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon Agreement, and the Seabed Treaty denuclearize and demilitarize specific areas of the globe, as well as outer space. There are also a number of proposed agreements, covering the Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, Central Asia, Central Europe, and South Asia. A difficulty with the Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone concept is defining suitable zone areas, such that zone neighbours are not considered nuclear threats. For example it is reported that no African Arab state will ratify the Treaty of Pelindaba until Israel, which is just outside the zone, renounces its nuclear weapons program.

Early discussion of the possibility of NWFZs emerged in the 1950s, in June 23, 1961 the first treaty entered into force, thereby prohibiting nuclear explosions, radioactive waste disposal, and military deployments in the Antarctic Treaty Area (ATA). In April 26-28, 2005 A three-day international conference on NWFZ was held in Mexico City bringing together for the first time all states parties to the four existing NWFZ. States parties argued that the lessons learned from negotiating and establishing NWFZ should be used to further the nonproliferation and disarmament goals under the NPT. The issue of legally-binding negative security assurances was one of the main topics discussed.

Non-nuclear nations. There are rejecting, denuclearized nations and nations belonging to NWFZ amongst non-nuclear nations. The most of these nations even don’t think about possession of nuclear weapons. Only 8 states (and possibly, North Korea and Iran) in the world possess nuclear weapons, and the hundreds of other nations don’t have it and most of them try to stop proliferation of WMD, so the world is not “crazy” yet, all of us should believe that the worst things will never happen.

Objective II – Treaties and other Agreements

We will develop an understanding of the implications of international treaties dealing with the proliferation/non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and their verifications processes. We will examine these treaties from the perspective of one nation in each of the categories in Objective – 1.

Treaties between the United States and Russian Federation/USSR

The first negotiations between two powerful states started many years ago, Caribbean crisis became the line, which divides the history of USA and USSR/Russia into two parts. Understanding of need to cooperate in terms of nuclear weapons took some years, but finally, two countries tried to find the common language. The first treaties covered the strategic arms, missiles and the like, and it obliquely related to the nuclear weapons. Using of strategic systems in delivering nuclear warheads and exploding it was a very attractive perspective for US and USSR, because of long range and ability to use remote control in operating missiles. SALT and START treaties, INF treaty, ABM treaty were signed for limitation or elimination of missiles and other strategic weapons. On May 23rd 2002 Presidents Bush and Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty between the US and the Russia. It commits them both to reduce their current arsenals of strategic nuclear warheads from around 6000 each down to between 1700 and 2200 each by 2012. But this treaty is not ideal: 1700-2200 warheads is still “deadly” amount, and total amount of US and Russia warheads will not be far from the total amount of warheads of the rest of the nuclear states, so there will be enough weapons to destroy everything in the world. Also only strategic weapons are covered by the treaty, but not tactical (both countries have large numbers of tactical weapons). The SORT has some more concerning points, so we should hope that treaty won’t be the last between USA and Russia. On the one hand these treaties limit the number of weapons, on the other hand that limitation is not full.

Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is one of the great success stories of arms control. It has made major contributions to global security and economic well being. It has been remarkably successful in achieving its main goals and (with nearly 190 parties) has become the most widely-adhered to arms control treaty in history. The NPT is an indispensable tool in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The organization for NPT is International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The need to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons was evident from the first days of the nuclear era. Many predicted that the nuclear club could grow to 20-30 countries within two decades. It rapidly became clear that if the many peaceful uses of nuclear technology were to be developed, states needed credible assurances that nuclear programs would not be diverted to military applications. In 1961, the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution sponsored by Ireland calling on all states to conclude an international agreement that would ban the acquisition and transfer of nuclear weapons. In 1965, the Geneva disarmament conference began consideration of a draft nonproliferation treaty. Negotiations were completed in 1968 and, on July 1 of that year, the NPT was opened for signature. On March 5, 1970, the NPT entered into force. The United States, United Kingdom, and the former Soviet Union were among the 43 original parties. Over time, the many benefits of the NPT became clear. The NPT establishes a political and legal barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons. That fact alone offered to many states a compelling rationale for joining. The growth in Treaty membership toward universality has been steady over the years. From 43 original parties in 1970 the number grew to 96 in 1975, 132 in 1985, 177 in 1995, and stands at nearly 190 today. Israel, India and Pakistan remain outside the Treaty. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985, but in January 2003 announced its intention to withdraw from the Treaty; 2006 is likely to become the year of Iran withdrawing from the Treaty.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), founded in 1957, is the primary mechanism for verifying that parties to the NPT are complying with its terms. The implementation of IAEA safeguards is further evidence of the way in which the NPT strengthens international security. Safeguards under the Treaty, including international inspections, help to deter the use of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes, and thus are an important confidence-building measure. In the early 1990s, the members of the IAEA have taken measures to strengthen the Agency's safeguards system. These include a reaffirmation of the IAEA's right to conduct special inspections and the use of new tools for the detection of clandestine nuclear facilities. In 1997, the IAEA adopted a model protocol for existing safeguards agreements under the NPT that is designed to give the IAEA a stronger role and more effective tools for conducting worldwide inspections.

The NPT's role in checking nuclear proliferation also is critical to reducing existing nuclear arsenals. A vast array of actions has been taken in recent years that meet the objectives of NPT Article VI, which calls for effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States and the former Soviet Union have taken many dramatic steps to reduce Cold War stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Today, the nuclear arms race between the United States and Russia is over. They have agreed on further reductions in nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, and on taking other steps to reduce their nuclear weapon infrastructures.

The NPT creates a vital and irreplaceable framework for peaceful nuclear cooperation by providing assurances that non-nuclear-weapon state NPT parties will devote their nuclear programs exclusively to peaceful purposes. However, it is important that this Article IV benefit not be abused by NPT parties and that any peaceful nuclear program fully conforms to the NPT’s nonproliferation principles.

The world is emerging from the Cold War, a period marked by costly and spiraling nuclear competition. As the international community moves into a new era, the NPT will remain critical in a world where security is defined increasingly by the absence of nuclear weapons programs, rather than by their presence, and by the sharp reduction, not expansion, of existing nuclear arsenals. The NPT is vital for security, arms control and disarmament, and economic and social development throughout the world. By rededicating themselves to the NPT, its parties can ensure that this Treaty will play an even more vital role in the new millennium.

The brief contents of the NPT

· Under Article I, the nuclear weapon states undertake not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to assist encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

· Under Article II, each non-nuclear-weapon state pledges not to receive, manufacture, or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive assistance in their manufacture.

· Article III obliges each non-nuclear-weapon state to accept comprehensive international safeguards through agreements negotiated with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The intent of these safeguards is to deter and detect the diversion of nuclear material for nuclear explosive purposes.

· Under Article IV, parties may engage in peaceful nuclear programs in a manner consistent with Articles I and II and are expected to assist the nuclear programs of other parties, with special attention to the needs of developing countries.

· Article VI obligates all parties to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to ending the nuclear arms race at an early date, to nuclear disarmament, and to achieving a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

· Article VII recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties ensuring the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories.

It’s sad, but we suppose that there are some “holes” in the NPT. The exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies is permitted by the NPT, and a smart using of that permission can provide the possibility to transfer some technologies from one country to another. However, the NPT is a strong tool of controlling proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes. States signed the treaty lose the ability to counduct nuclear tests, it means that development of the new types of nuclear weapons is nearly senselessly, because of impossibility to test it. That’s why some recognized (and not) nuclear states haven’t signed the CTBT, it cuts the ability to improve nuclear weapons, make it more deadly, the CTBT limits nuclear weapons development even more than NPT, so it’s not strangely that the CTBT is not ratified yet.

The Treaty was opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996, when it was signed by 71 States, including five of the seven then nuclear-capable states. The CTBT had been later endorsed by one hundred seventy five states parties and been ratified by a hundred twenty. India and Pakistan did not sign; neither did North Korea. Additionally, to enter into force, the treaty has yet to be ratified by China, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, the U.S.A. and Vietnam, but it’s inlikely to happen in the near future.

Before the CTBT, the Partial Test Ban Treaty has been signed (1963), which banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. France and China didn’t sign the PTBT. Given the political situation prevailing in the subsequent decades, little progress was made in nuclear disarmament until 1991. Parties to the PTBT held an amendment conference that year to discuss a proposal to convert the Treaty into an instrument banning all nuclear-weapon tests; with strong support from the UN General Assembly, negotiations for a comprehensive test-ban treaty began in 1993. One of the largest issues was the priorities of the different countries. The Non-aligned movement countries were highly concerned with vertical proliferation (more and more bombs, new bomb technology) while the Nuclear Powers were focusing on horizontal proliferation (nuclear bombs being produced by states other than themselves). Intensive efforts were made over the next three years to draft the Treaty text and its two annexes, culminating in the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 10 September 1996 by the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Geophysical and other technologies are used to monitor for compliance with the Treaty: seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring. On Site Inspection is provided for where concerns about compliance arise.The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), an international organization headquartered in Vienna, Austria, was created to build the verification regime, including establishment and provisional operation of the network of monitoring stations, and development of the On Site Inspection capability. At December 2005, around 65 percent of monitoring stations are operational.

The leadership of nuclear weapons among WMD was obvious for many years, but new types of WMD will appear in next few years. Some scientists intend that the tsunami in Indonesia and Thailand (December, 2004) was caused by unknown WMD, we can’t say is it true or false, but using WMD in such ways is not a fantasy. The new types of WMD are lasers, infra sound, geophysical, genetic and informative weapons, and some of them are much more effective than nuclear weapons. It’s hard to detect that the cause of catastrophe was weapon and it’s very difficult to say who used weapon. Perhaps, nuclear weapons will lose its “prestige” in near future. But it’s not important what will be the instrument of destroying, conflicts in the world will never be finished and people must find the way to reduce the possibility of conflicts, and treaties and agreements are not the only way.

First of all, we must change ourselves. The confrontation we were talking about in the beginning of Benchmark II wasn’t cause by territorial discords, the reason is incomprehension and intolerance. Of course, it’s wrongly to justify activity of fanatics, which say that their religion requires aggression towards the unfaithful. Islam or any other world religion doesn’t propagandize cruelty, but the branches of world religions may be very dangerous. The representatives of Christianity were very cruel in the periods of crusaders and inquisition.

Conflict of “West” and “East” (in contemporary understanding) is fatally dangerous for whole mankind. The mutual mistrust and contempt are the first signs of forthcoming war. Nuclear weapons will be able to make this war the last in the mankind history, because of collapse of civilization. The attitude to nuclear weapons should be very careful: if we won’t prevent weapons proliferation, the situation in the world will be uncontrolled; and if the pressure on some countries will be too heavy, that countries will rise against others. In all situations the best solution is somewhere “between”, in the middle of all possible actions.

A lot of ways of controlling proliferation of weapons exist; and treaties are likely to be the most humane and effective way. But there is one more concerning point: critical situations may happen, and leaders of countries trying to destroy their enemies may forget that using nuclear weapons are able to destroy whole mankind. For what should we wait? The future is always near…