Critical Issues Forum 2008-2009

“Nuclear Disarmament: Challenges, Opportunities and Next Steps”

Benchmark 2

Written by: Pavel Beloglazov

Sergei Ovchinnikov

George Koshelev

Andrei Popov

Misha Maluta

Akulina Korukova

Masha Goncharova

Gymnasium # 41

Teacher: Helen Patrusheva

Novouralsk 2009

Benchmark 2

Objective 1.

U.S. President John Kennedy in his Inaugural Address declared:

“…In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it.…The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world. And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country…” [4]

Does not it remind us the words with which we began Benchmark 1? It seems to us that John Kennedy is the prototype of Sidney Sheldon’s fictitious president. The authors’ love for his character is evident. In our opinion the charismatic individuality of John Kennedy is a bright example of how a personality can influence the world policy.

A president is a public person who often addresses to his nation with his ideas, proposals, and plans, which can later lead to some rather important events. Let us bring some examples:

1. President Harry S. Truman addressed to the nation with the speech on August 6 1945: “Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT. It had more than 2,000 times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam," which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare…We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.” [1]

Whether it was a right or wrong decision to use the atomic bomb still remains a controversial question for the world society as well as for the American one.

2. U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s speech «Atoms for Peace" in 1953 led to the creation of the international body to control and develop the use of atomic energy called IAEA.

3. Khrushchev’s “secret speech” at the 20^th Congress of the Communist party in 1956 led to the “Krushchev thaw” when “thousands of political prisoners were released, and thousands more who had perished during Stalin's reign were officially “rehabilitated.” [2]As for the foreign policy, it also “contributed to the revolts that occurred later that year in Hungary and Poland, further weakening the Soviet Union's control over the Soviet bloc.” [2]

.

4. In 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis John Kennedy declared:

“…We are prepared to discuss new proposals for the removal of tensions on both sides -- including the possibilities of a genuinely independent Cuba, free to determine its own destiny. We have no wish to war with the Soviet Union, for we are a peaceful people who desire to live in peace with all other peoples. . . “[3]

It led to the fact that less than a year later Khrushchev and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan of Great Britain joined him in signing the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.

5. An Irish senior politician Frank Aiken believed in “the primacy of international law” and suggested “the idea of areas of law”. Ireland had good relations with Israel as well as with Arab Countries. In the UN sitting between Iraq and Israel the Irish delegation was a kind of a “buffer” between them. Such a detail characterizes Frank Aiken as a real politician. It was his resolution on nonproliferation which was discussed in the U.N. in 1957 that later led to the NPT. [9]

6. Though the SDI proposed by President Ronald Reagan in a nationwide television address on March 23, 1983 was dubbed “Star Wars” after a popular film, the speech itself and, moreover, its “nickname” looked as if President claimed a war and it really led to a new round of the Cold War.

The list can be continued with a lot of other examples. It shows how great statesmen’s responsibility before the world society is.

From the very title of Jane A. Morse (USIA Staff Writer) article ("The NPT: History's Most Successful Non-Proliferation Treaty.") we can see the importance and the effectiveness of the document. [5] The main aim of the NPT is prevention of the spread of nuclear proliferation; development of international cooperation in peaceful use of nuclear energy; favor of the aim of nuclear disarmament. What are the steps of the NPT history?

First, the principle of nonproliferation was discussed in the U.N. in 1957 and the question was more intensified in the beginning of the 60s. The IAEA was established in the same year.

Second, in 1968 the treaty was opened to sign. 3 nuclear powers signed the treaty. (The USA, the USSR and the UK)

Third, in 1970 it was brought into force.

Fourth, in 1992 France and China (nuclear powers) ratified the treaty. Earlier the USSR and the United States tried to persuade France not to involve the country into nuclear proliferation, but De Gaulle was obsessed with the idea of France competitiveness and its national prestige.

The following time – line shows how the number of states signed the TPT was growing. Nowadays only four countries are not signatories: India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea (withdrew from the NPT).

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

62 93 111 129 139 172 187

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [6], [7]

The NPT is considered to be the cornerstone of the world community forces to unite and collaborate in the question of nuclear nonproliferation. The number of states proves that it is really a global agreement. The fact that since the end of the Cold War “2,000 warheads from an entire class of weapons have been eliminated under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the START and START II agreements have reversed the strategic arms race and taken more than 17,000 nuclear weapons off missiles and bombers” [5] also proves the vitality and growing power of the Treaty.

IAEA

Non nuclear power states Nuclear power states

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [8]

The picture above shows that according to the NPT nuclear and non nuclear states have mutual obligations and they are supervised and controlled by the IAEA. The isosceles cornerstone symbolizes the equality in rights and obligations.

The following table shows the rights and obligations of the countries according to the NPT Articles.

Nuclear powers states’ obligations	Non nuclear powers states’ obligations	The IAEA’s obligations
They are obliged 1. not to transfer neither nuclear weapons or explosive devices or control to other countries. (Article 1) 2. not to help other countries to produce nuclear weapons.(Article 3) 3. to obey the demands of the IAEA.(Article III) 4. to end the nuclear arm race (Article VI)	They are obliged 1. not to take neither nuclear weapons or explosive devices or control from nuclear power countries. (Article 2) 2. not to ask nuclear powers for help so that to produce nuclear weapons.(Article 3 3. to obey the demands of the IAEA. .(Article III)	It is obliged to 1.to control nuclear technologies. 2.not to ban peaceful technological development. 3. to guarantee qualified inspections and safeguards.
Nuclear powers states’ rights	Non nuclear powers states’ rights	The IAEA’s rights
They have rights to 1.to share technological information with the aim of peaceful use of nuclear energy.(Article IV) 2. to make amendments to the Treaty (Article VIII) 3. to leave the Treaty (Article X)	They have rights to 1.to share technological information with the aim of peaceful use of nuclear energy. (Article IV) 2. to make amendments to the Treaty (Article VIII) 3. to leave the Treaty (Article X)	It has rights To conduct control and verification.

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [8]

The IAEA is an international body aimed to control and to develop the use of atomic energy. It was established on July 29, 1957, four years late after U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly.

The IAEA has its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Its two "Regional Safeguards Offices" are located in Toronto, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. The IAEA has two offices, located in New York, USA; and Geneva, Switzerland. In addition, it has laboratories in Seibersdorf and Vienna, Austria; Monaco; and Trieste, Italy.

The following table shows the functions and the structure of the IAEA

Three main pillars
Safety and security	Science and technology	Safeguards and verification

IAEA headquarters since 1979, Vienna, Austria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iaea-vienna.JPG

The Board of Governess	The General Conference	The Secretariat
45 members (13+22)	Made up of 144 member states	Director General +2300 staff
· Responsible for the policy of the IAEA. · Makes recommendations to the General Conference on IAEA activities and budge · Responsible for publishing IAEA standards · Appoints the Director General subject to General Conference approval	· Serves as a forum for debate on current issues and policies. · Approves the actions and budgets passed on from the Board of Governors · Approves the nominee for Director General · Requests reports from the Board on issues in question.	· The professional and general service staff of the IAEA. · Headed by the Director General. (currently Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei) · The Director General is responsible for enforcement of the actions passed by the Board of Governors and the GC.

Source: Designed by the authors. Data are from [15], [16]

There are opponents and proponents of the NPT. Some politicians find some discrimination for non nuclear states or for the states that acquired nuclear weapons after 1968; some statesmen of different countries accuse each other of breaking the principles of the Treaty; some governments blackmail other states threatening to withdraw; some being non signatories of the Treaty unscrupulously and secretly develop and enlarge their nuclear arsenal. Some people call the three principles (disarmament, nonproliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy) main “pillars”, some others call the same ideas three “cracks”. We can admit that the document is not ideal. But under the supervision of such a mature organization as the IAEA its influence on the world policy is really effective. The IAEA, meanwhile, has been strengthening its system of safeguards. For example, during the IAEA's inspections in North Korea, some contradictions with the Korean initial claims were found and it resulted in special inspections at undeclared sites.

According to the NPT there are only 5 nuclear powers. What should be North Korea, Israel, India and Pakistan called? Diane Barnes writing about Pakistan says «While senior American officials are more confident about the security of those weapons, many Americans -- especially in Congress -- instinctively worry that, within an increasingly unstable environment, the controls may not be sufficient and want reassurance if not proof of their safe storage. There are also concerns about the transport of stored nuclear waste and enriched uranium that could be used for ‘dirty’ bombs». [17] We should admit that not only Americans “instinctively worry”, and not only about Pakistan. The policy of North Korea is duel. Agreeing to denuclearization it demands concessions from China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. On the one hand North Korean leader Kim Jong Il says that "North Korea is not willing to see tensions emerge in the peninsula”. [18] On the other hand, these days all radio and TV stations say that North Korea is preparing for its rocket launch. The country is suspected of having its ballistic missile test violating the U.N. resolutions. Answering North Korean’s intentions Japan deploys its missile destroyers.

To make the process of nonproliferation and disarmament more efficient the positions of the NPT can be added and strengthened by some other treaties.

Profile of the CTBT

Opened for signature	1996
The goal	To prohibit nuclear weapon tests
Monitoring	Seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, radionuclide
Built monitoring systems	264 (out of 321)
International data centre	Vienna
Signatory states	180
Ratifying sates	148
Non-signatories	15
Threshold non- signatories	India, Pakistan, North Korea
Have not ratified	China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, the United States
Effectiveness	Not in force
Perspectives	Uncertain

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [10], [11]

The profile shows that on the one hand the majority of the countries are ready for cooperation under this treaty and there are enough technical facilities for the treaty to work. On the other hand the fact that some countries (being nuclear powers at that) do not ratify the treaty causes some questions.

If we wanted to make a profile of FMCT it would been practically impossible, as the issue has been being discussed since 1995.

The chronology of the FMCT looks like this:

1993 – President Clinton called for multilateral convention banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.

1993 – The UN General Assembly adopted resolution calling for the negotiations on the topic.

1995 – The Geneva based Conference on Disarmament agreed to mandate for a Committee to begin negotiations

2003 – A Japanese leader in the campaign for an FMCT suggested a draft text.

2004 - A Special Coordinator, Ambassador Gerald Shannon of Canada is appointed.

2005 - “Shannon Mandate” is considered to be the basis for future negotiations.

2006 – The USA suggested their draft text. Greenpeace International suggested a model treaty text.

2008 – The CD still did not establish a committee.

What are the most argued points?

• Definitions (what to understand under fissile materials)
• Scope
• The production of fissile materials for non-explosive purposes
• The role of the International Atomic Energy Agency
• Transparency and stockpiles of fissile material
• Verification [12], [13]

Though the negotiation of an FMCT was agreed as one of the 13 practical steps towards disarmament at the 2000 NPT Review Conference we can see that the process is very slow and it is uncertain when and how it is going to have an effective result.

A representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Vladimir Rybachenkov at the CD Workshop on FMCT in Geneva in January 1999 expressed his thoughts about the results of Russian – American agreements INF, START-I and START-II as the examples of effective bilateral agreements. He also dwelt upon such successful agreements as Russian-American Intergovernmental Agreement on HEU removed from the nuclear warheads, Joint Statement of Principles for management and disposition of plutonium designated as no longer required for defense purposes and «Trilateral Initiative". [14]

What are those results?

INF Treaty: more than 1800 missiles in the former USSR and about 850 American missiles were destroyed

START-I (1993): reduction by 2/3 of the Cold War level in nuclear arsenals

START-III (1997): a reduction to a level of 2-2,5 thousand warheads in each country's nuclear arsenals.

Intergovernmental Agreement on HEU removed from the nuclear warheads (1993): “500 tons of HEU declared as no longer required for defense purposes of Russia will be blended down to low enriched uranium (LEU) at Russian enterprises for further use in American nuclear power plants for a period of 20 years”. [14]

«Trilateral Initiative" (1996): “In the case of Russia IAEA verification would be applied to fissile materials storage at Mayak facility near Chelyabinsk which is being constructed with American participation. This storage will accommodate about 40 percent of the Russian weapons-grade plutonium”. [14]

Joint Statement of Principles for management and disposition of plutonium designated as no longer required for defense purposes (1998): agreed to “to remove by stages approximately 50 tons of plutonium from their nuclear weapons programs and to convert that material into forms unusable for nuclear weapons through consumption of plutonium fuel in existing nuclear reactors or its immobilization in glass or ceramic form mixed with high level radioactive waste”. [14]

Conclusion:

We cannot but agree with Vladimir Rybachenkov that “Nobody would deny that significant progress has been achieved in the field of nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War…” [14] The above examples prove that any document of world importance can be discussed and consensus can be achieved. The events of the Cold War period treat back, the world development goes ahead and new mutual efforts are necessary to undertake. NPT remains to be one of the most efficient documents. The nuclear power states continue to persuade the "threshold" states to join the NPT with the aim to promote the world security.

Objective 2

The year 2005 was the year of one of the saddest anniversaries in the world, the 60^th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. Japan is the only country that suffered from atomic devastation. We dare say the country fulfilled its historic mission: the world saw in reality the results of the nuclear weapons use. It seems that if there hadn’t been the Pacific War military people would have found some other reasons for using nuclear weapons: In 1954, the commander of the US Strategic Air Command General Curtis  LeMay stated, "There are no suitable strategic air targets in Korea.  However, I would drop a few bombs in proper places like China, Manchuria and Southeastern Russia.” [21] Though it is against any common sense but it has taken a long period of time for the world to understand that the nuclear weapon production and proliferation must be stopped. Unfortunately, the policy of some countries in this question seems duel and insincere. As for Japan, it follows its three non-nuclear principles:

• Not to posses nuclear weapons
• Not to produce nuclear weapons
• Not to quarter nuclear weapons on its territory

In 1951 Japan participated in the San Francisco peace conference where the Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed and the national sovereignty was restored. But according to the Treaty there were no reparations to the victims of Japan's Pacific war.

The relations between Japan and the USA were strengthened by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security in 1960. Since that time Japan has been considered to be kept under the U.S. nuclear weapons “umbrella”.

Though the country claims its position as a non-nuclear state, some politicians doubt this fact and even call it a nuclear state because it has enough material and technologies to produce nuclear weapons. Japan of the 21^st century differs greatly from the country in the period of the end of World War II. It is a highly developed country, with new technologies which need more and more power. Nuclear-power generation has been developed since the 1970s. Japan is considered to be the third country in the world after the U.S. and France in its nuclear energy production. It plans to produce over 40% of its electricity using nuclear power by 2010. When in 1954 the Diet agreed to support the building of a nuclear reactor the Japanese scientific council expressed its worry and alarm and declared three principles of peaceful use of nuclear energy

· Free access to the information

· Democratic management and freedom of research

· The peoples’ control

The proclaimed principles aimed to provide the country with more security and to avoid the possibility of using nuclear reactors in military purposes.

The bilateral relationship between the USA and Japan, two economic and military powers, is of great importance for the Pacific region and East Asia.

The neighboring countries, China, North Korea, South Korea and Japan lay mutual claims:

· North and South Korea accuse Japan of having colonized the Korean Peninsular 100 years ago.

· North Korea is displeased with the fact that China supports relations with South Korea.

· China does not forgive Japan’s invasion and establishing Empire in the Pacific in the last century.

· Japan accuses North Korea of abduction of its citizens.

· South Korea is anxious about North Korea’s nuclear program.

· North Korea suspects South Korea of having American nuclear weapons on its territory.

· Japan feels jealousy to Chinese intensive development.

If we analyze the situation in South Asia and the countries mutual accuses the situation may seem to look as a vicious circle.

Source: designed by the authors.

The top officials’ meeting at Asia's regional security forum in Kuala Lumpur improved the relations between these countries but the tension still remains. The six-nation negotiations including Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea, the U.S.A. and Russia are far from being concluded. There have been 6 rounds of negotiations.

North Korea says that it intends to stop its nuclear program in exchange for diplomatic and trade relations and security.

However, the Pacific region has two nuclear free zones. And it is a positive fact. The Rarotonga Treaty is the document signed by the South Pacific countries. Protocols two and three is also signed and ratified by China. 10 Southeastern Asian countries signed the Bangkok Treaty.

The fact that there are 5 nuclear free zones in the world (and their territories are not small) is obviously positive. The following map shows these territories and the years when the Treaties were signed.

Source: designed by the authors and [19]

Though, the processes there cannot be called easy ones. For example, on the African continent 26 countries ratified the Pelindaba Treaty which makes less than 50% of the countries. The following table shows how the process of ratification was going.

Year	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008
Ratifications	2	0	6	3	3	2	1	2	0	1	1	3	2

Source: www.wikipedia.org “African Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty” 25.03.09

Out of 20 Arabian countries only 3 (Algeria, Libya and Mauritania) have ratified the Treaty. All the rest demand Israel renounces its nuclear weapon program. Israel is the only state in the Middle East having nuclear weapons (though it has neither confirmed the fact nor denied). Iran is suspected of having them and it causes tension and anxiety in the Middle East. Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affaires of Russia at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in March 2009 expressed Russia’s strong wish of the Middle East’s denuclearization.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco is signed and ratified by all the 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean.

The Antarctic Treaty happened to be the first nuclear disarmament treaty during the Cold War; it has been signed by 46 countries.

The four former Soviet republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) signed the Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone Treaty.

Conclusion

The political situation in the above mentioned regions has always been unstable. Wars between the neighboring countries (Japan vs. China and Korea; Israel vs. Palestine; India vs. Pakistan), wars with far more powerful countries involved (the USA vs. Japan, Iraq) did not promote peace in these regions. The countries develop their programs in peaceful use of atomic energy, on the one hand. On the other hand, the danger of using nuclear weapons remains if we take into consideration extremist moods of terrorist organizations (Iran, Palestine) or unpredictable military decisions (Israel bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq), or political stubbornness (North Korean opposition) or some countries wish to pursue uranium enrichment (Iran) or concealing the real amount of nuclear arsenal (Israel).

The American Geographical Union in 2006 reported the possible effects of a small regional nuclear war. According to the report “even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more.” [20] Nuclear Free Zones are positive examples for further non proliferation activities alongside with the existed agreements.

Objective 3

There are still more than 20,000 nuclear weapons in stockpile around the world. The following table shows the current world nuclear arsenals

Country	Strategic nuclear weapons	Non-strategic nuclear weapons	Total nuclear weapons
China	20	390	410
France	384	80	464
India	0	60+?	60+?
Israel	0	200+?	200+?
Pakistan	15-25?	0	15-25?
Russia	6,000	4,000	10,000
United Kingdom	185	0	185
United States	7,200	3,300	10,500

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [23] Pictures are from [22, [23]. 28.03.09

The United States and the USSR (then Russia) have eliminated their arsenal from 70,000 during the period of the Cold War to 20,000. On the one hand, the nuclear weapon countries declare their wish to make the world free from the nuclear threat; on the other hand, they develop nuclear modernization programs.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the 28^th of October in 2008 said "We must take steps to transform from an aging Cold War nuclear weapons complex that is too large and too expensive, to a smaller, less costly but modern enterprise that can meet our nation's nuclear security needs for the future". [24] Any country modernizing its nuclear arsenal can confirm these words. Leaving nuclear weapons in the military arsenal the states want to make them less expensive, smaller in size and more mobile.

China, for example, follows its “limited deterrence” doctrine aiming “to deter conventional, theater, and strategic nuclear war, and to control escalation in the event of a nuclear confrontation.” [21] China concentrates on developing fast accurate missiles capable of carrying smaller second-generation nuclear warheads. Among modernized items MRVs, DF-31, DF-41, JL-2SLBM, 094SSBN submarine can be mentioned. [21] [22] China’s wish for modernization is common for all the nuclear powers. If the arsenal is old it is more vulnerable. Though, some experts say that “China’s efforts to increase its nuclear capabilities may indicate an important, yet undeclared, shift toward a more aggressive nuclear policy”. [21] Maybe it can be a bit true, as China is taking more and more place in the world economy, on the one hand, and it might wish to feel still more powerful. On the other hand, this wish may be caused by its neighboring with North Korea.

The modernization program is widely spread in France. France concentrates on a modernization of its sea-based deterrent forces. Among them a new SSBN class, the Le Triumphant, with a new SLBM, the M-45 can be called. [22] As France decreased its nuclear arsenal number from 550 to 300 it might wait for Russia and the United States to come to the same level.

Though Israel signed the Comprehensive Ban Treaty it is not going to reduce its arsenal. Its Jericho I and Jericho II can reach the entire Middle East. Israel can develop an intercontinental ballistic missile too.

The former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair considered nuclear weapons as “ultimate insurance’ [26] The British nuclear arsenal is the smallest compared with the other nuclear powers. According to the estimates it will take 17 years to build the first replacement submarine.

Though the process of upgrading is rather expensive Russia continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal. A new SLBM, the SS-N-26 will replace the SS-20s onboard the 6 Typhoon submarines. The Topol-M is in the production. The following picture shows the Bulava the solid fuel ICBM and a Borey –class nuclear submarine which will be equipped with Bulava missiles.

Source: [22]

The following diagram 1 shows the number of military stuff working in the nuclear sector of Russia. Diagram 2 shows its share in the military budget. Diagram 3 shows its military potential.

Diagram 1 Diagram 2 Diagram 3

Source: designed by the authors. Data are from [22]

The two processes (elimination of nuclear weapons and their modernization) seem to be incompatible and contradictory. According to U.S. Senator Richard Lugar the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction program deactivated 244 nuclear warheads, 71 ICBMs, 24 mobile ICBM launchers, 11 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 20 SLBM launchers and a ballistic missile-capable submarine in Russia in 2008. Richard Lugar said “We made great strides in 2008 toward making the world a safer place, and I look forward to continued, and equally substantial, progress in 2009.” [25] So, the military dismantles the old constructions and modernize new ones at the same time.

Conclusion

Without any doubt, the world will be safer under the efficient process of nuclear weapons decreasing. But will it be safer if the rest of the arsenal will be modernized? If we take into consideration new more sophisticated technologies providing more security, then the answer may be positive. Still, non nuclear powers would like to see more efficiency in the nuclear disarmament process from the side of the nuclear powers. Some officials argue that modernization violates Article VI of the NPT obligating the nuclear powers toward disarmament. Modernization, on the contrary, stimulates proliferation. The main argument for keeping, maintaining and modernization is unstable world or regional political situation and the threat of terrorism.

Bibliography

1. “Document: Harry S. Truman: Announcement of the Dropping of an Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009

2. “Khrushchev's secret speech”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009

3. “Document: John F. Kennedy: Soviet Missiles in Cuba”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009

4. “Document: John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address”, Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009

5. "The NPT: History's Most Successful Non-Proliferation Treaty," http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/941107-366788.htm 20.10.09

6. «Три трещины ДНЯО» www.bellona.ru/reports/1174945172.33/htmlreport_view-39k 5.03.09

7. “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” www.wikipedia.org 5.03.09

8. “NPT Treaty”http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html 5.03.09

9. ‘Frank Aiken”www.wikipedia.org 10.03.09

10. www.wikipedia.org “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treat”10.03.09

11. “Adapting the CTBTO to current development”www.wikipedia.org 11.03.09

12. “Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty (FMCT)” http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/fmct.html 11.03.09

13. “U.S. Reviewing FMCT Policy” http://www.armscontrol.org/node/3247 11.03.09

14. “Some Reflex ions on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT www.armscontrol.ru/START/publications/vr0201.htm “)”11.03.09

15. .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iaea-vienna.JPG 12.03.09

16. “International Atomic Energy Agency” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency - 91k –12.03.09

17. “Pakistan Needs Billions in Security Aid, U.S. Policy Leaders Say” http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090225_8125.php 15.03.09

18. “North Korean Leader Pledges Support for Denuclearization” https://www.blogcatalog.com/dashboard.search.php?q=korean%20mv&page=/2 - 56k - 15.03.09

19. Sokov N.N. Presentation “Multilateral Arms Control”, Novouralsk, 2009

20. “Nuclear warfare”www.wikipedia.org 20.03.09

21. “China's Nuclear Weapon Development, Modernization and Testing”http://www.nti.org/db/China/wnwmdat.htm 20.03.09

22. Sokov N.N. Presentation “New Tendencies in Nuclear Strategy”, Novouralsk, 2008

23. “Current world nuclear arsenals” http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html#chinasum 22.03.0

24. “Gates Wants New Generation of US Nuclear Weapons” www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-10/2008-10-28-voa59.cfm - 36k - 25.03.09

25. “CTR Program Eliminated Hundreds of Nuclear Weapons in 2008”www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090126_2230.php - 26k 25.03.09

26. .“Blair: Retain UK Nuclear Weapons” http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_01-02/Blair 29.03.09