Franklin High School

2008-2009 Critical Issues Forum

Benchmark II

Nuclear Disarmament:

Challenges, Opportunities and Next Steps

Participants:

Katie Martinez, Boguslav Mandzyuk,

Larmon Luo, Susan Burtner, Sarah Burtner

Coordinator:

Rene Mendoza

“So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.”

- United States President Barack Obama, April 2009

Objective #1:

The moment that nuclear weapons came into existence, the world changed forever. International relations will never be the same, national security will never be the same, and most ominously, war will never be the same. If humankind is to survive, it must have the ability to regulate existing nuclear weapons- and prevent nuclear war at all costs. Through treaties, laws, agreements, and organizations, nuclear and non-nuclear states alike are able to coexist. Although the system is far from perfect, it allows humanity to live alongside its most deadly creation.

Treaties

The earliest major treaty, the Partial Test Ban Treaty, or Limited Test Ban Treaty, was signed in 1963, following the potentially catastrophic Cuban Missile Crisis, by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. Discussions in favor of the treaty began in the mid-1950’s, following the tests of the first Soviet and United States hydrogen bombs. As more reports of radiation sickness and contamination surfaced, the public began to fear permanent genetic and environmental damages. Such concerns pushed the major world powers to talk. After much deliberation, the PTBT was created. The treaty forbids the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space, as well as underwater. However, nuclear tests are still permitted underground, as long the resulting radioactive debris does not leave the testing state. Although 116 countries have signed the treaties, two powerful nuclear states have not: France and China.[1] France states that until the PTBT calls for nuclear disarmament, it will not sign.[2] China views the treaty as a way for western countries to control the world’s nuclear weapons supply and prevent China from building a weapons program. In 1986, China announced that it will no longer perform atmospheric nuclear tests, though it still has the capability to do so.[3]

Perhaps the most well-known nuclear treaty is the Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT. This treaty, signed in 1970, is a significant step for global disarmament. The NPT can be divided into two sections: one regarding nuclear states, and one addressing non-nuclear states. Nuclear countries that have signed the treaty, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China, and France, have agreed to neither transfer their weapons nor assist other countries in building them. All of their nuclear activities must be transferred to the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards for inspection. Non-nuclear members who sign the NPT are unable to receive weapons or materials from nuclear states. The treaty stresses peaceful applications of nuclear technology, as well as the pursuit of complete nuclear disarmament. Currently, 188 countries have ratified the NPT, each one bringing peace a little closer. However, the treaty can hardly be called perfect. In order for it to be effective, countries must continue to meet the NPT’s requirements. Rogue nuclear countries, such as Iraq (current NPT member) and North Korea (member until 2003), are still able to illegally pursue their nuclear programs, despite their pledge to follow the treaty. This weakness in the NPT is what deters nuclear countries like Israel, India, and Pakistan from signing the treaty.[4]

In the future there lies a treaty that aims to take the Partial Test Ban Treaty even further: the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. While the CTBT has only been open for signing since 1996, its idea has been around since the mid-1950’s. It was seriously discussed by the Soviet Union and the United States after the Cuban Missile Crisis, but pushed back in favor of the PTBT. Although the two treaties are similar in concept, the CTBT does not allow any nuclear explosions, whether they are in the sea, on land, in the sky, or underground. To ensure that no cheating takes place, the treaty calls for an International Monitoring System to identify nuclear explosions, an International Data Center to store the information, as well as onsite inspections of suspicious areas. The CTBT needs to be ratified by 44 countries before it can be put to use. 41 countries have signed the treaty, however, only 31 have ratified. The United States was one of the first states to sign the CTBT, but it still has not ratified the treaty. There are three key reasons America’s hesitance. If the United States is unable to test its stockpiled weapons, it will be unable to check their efficiency and safety for national security purposes. In addition, the verification system may prove to be ineffective, as advanced nuclear countries may be able to carry out small scale tests without recognition. The treaty could also potentially have the same weakness as the NPT, in that rogue nuclear countries could ignore the restrictions of the CTBT and continue testing. Even without the support of the United States, the CTBT could still meet the signature requirements and go into effect in the near future.[5]

Unilateral Efforts for Non-Proliferation

Although international nuclear disarmament is a long way off, several countries have made efforts to dismantle their nuclear programs. One such country is South Africa. South Africa began its peaceful nuclear efforts in the 1950’s, facilitated by the United States and Europe. With their help, South Africa gained several reactors and a limited amount of weapons grade uranium. These privileges were soon restricted, however, due to South Africa’s adherence to the apartheid system. Eventually, it lost all of its former support, and began building a weapons program independently. The weapons were not intended to be used in war; they were to represent South Africa’s strength should hostile Soviet forces approach. In the year 1979, analysts identified a double flash of light near South Africa, possibly indicating that a nuclear explosion test had taken place. As time went on, however, the region became more stable, and defensive weapons became a lower priority. The divisive apartheid regime that separated South Africa from the rest of the world was coming to an end, and nuclear weapons were no longer needed to add strength to it. In 1990, President de Klerk began the clandestine dismantling of the weapons program. Though South Africa signed the NPT in 1991, did not openly admit to having a program until 1994, when it was completely terminated. It is the only country known to have developed complete nuclear weapons and then destroyed them willingly. South Africa now leads the way in the nonproliferation movement, encouraging international disarmament.[6]

Former Nuclear Test Sites/Facilities in South Africa

http://www.nti.org/db/disarmament/maps/south_africa.jpg

Laws and Organizations Governing Nuclear Weapons

In the United States, the primary organization that oversees nuclear weapons related activities is the National Nuclear Security Administration, part of the Department of Energy. Created by Congress in the year 2000, the NNSA is a relatively new government agency. Although it is a young organization, it holds a large amount of power and responsibility. The NNSA’s primary duties include: administrating the nuclear weapons program, nuclear reactor program, and non-proliferation program of the United States, ensuring the safe transportation of weapons and materials, and taking action in international nuclear emergencies. The organization not only works to keep the United States’ national security strong, but also to promote worldwide nuclear nonproliferation and safety.[7]

Russia, the world’s other major nuclear state, has its own agency governing its stockpiled nuclear weapons: the Federal Atomic Energy Agency. Formerly the Ministry of Atomic Energy, or Minatom, the organization became the FAAE in March of 2004. Approximately 98% of Russia’s nuclear materials are under the FAAE’s control. The agency is in charge of producing, developing, and testing weapons and materials. In addition, the FAAE works towards the eradication of nuclear warheads and munitions. As far as nonproliferation is concerned, the FAAE will continue to participate in international agreements and pursue the deconstruction of Russian submarines.[8]

In addition to these major organizations, nuclear states also have a number of laws involving nuclear weapons. In the United States, one such law is the Atomic Energy Act. Passed in 1946, the AEA is the country’s primary law for regulating nuclear weapons. The AEA plays a pivotal role in setting the standards for the safe use of nuclear materials. This law is currently enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which controls the many uses of nuclear technology, from the academic to the industrial aspects.[9]

Non-Proliferation Organizations

In addition to non-proliferation and test ban treaties, there are a number of organizations who fight for disarmament. These range from large, international associations to smaller, local groups. One of the most comprehensive of these is the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA was formed in 1957 as the Cold War raged. Four years earlier, American President Dwight Eisenhower had given his “Atoms for Peace Speech” to the General Assembly of the United Nations, in which he pushed for nonviolent uses for atomic energy. With his speech came the idea for the IAEA, as well as the original IAEA Statue. The IAEA Statue states the main purposes of the international organization: nuclear verification, security, and technology exchange. However, as the world evolved, so did the IAEA. After the birth of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA became the primary agency for identifying and reporting violations of the treaty. Currently, the IAEA works to prevent nuclear terrorism, ensure the proper storage of nuclear materials, assess the safety of nuclear test sites, and find peaceful uses for nuclear technology.[10]

In addition to the IAEA, there are a number of organizations that place nonproliferation at the top of their list of goals. One such group is Greenpeace, created by activists in 1971. Although thought of as a primarily environmental group, Greenpeace also focuses on ridding the world of nuclear testing and leading it towards disarmament. At present, the organization is protesting against the United States’ costly Missile Defense Plan, for fear that it will provoke other countries to launch new weapons programs.[11]

Greenpeace Advertisement for a protest against the UK expanding its nuclear program

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/no-new-nukes-live-musical-per

Personal Interview

In order to get a closer look into active nonproliferation organizations, we contacted Lorraine Krofchok, director of the pro-disarmament Grandmothers for Peace (Sacramento chapeter). We were able to obtain an interview with her, through email, where she explains the history and goals of the grassroots organization.

Q: What is the history of your club? When and why did it start?

A: Our organization began in May of 1982 during the height of the Cold
War. In 1981 Barbara Wiedner our founder became aware of 150 nuclear
weapons at Mather Air Force Base right here in Sacramento. For over
twenty five years we have been working on the nuclear issue. It has
always been our base and our reason for being.

We are an international organization. (Please visit our website at
http://www.grandmothersforpeace.org).

In 2001 Barbara found out she had a terminal illness and asked me
[Lorraine Krofchok] to continue Grandmothers for Peace as I have been
doing for the last 8 1/2 years.

Q: What is the overall goal of your club?

A: We are a unique organization. There is no age, gender, or biology
required. "Grandmother" is a concept of caring, everyone is safe in
"grandma's arms." Our goal is a better, safer world for the future.

Q: What do you do to work towards this goal?

A: Our members work in many ways and in any capacity they are able. Some
protest, some write or call, some join with other groups, we educate
ourselves and others, listen to learned people and try to make a
difference--it all counts, no matter how small or large the action it
adds up. It all matters. (See the Starfish Flinger story at the end of
this!). It is very important that each of us also remember the Margaret
Mead quote, which adorns our letterhead and all our correspondence.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Our anti-nuclear logo reminds us each day that the threat is real and we
will not rest until they are abolished!

Q: Have you worked with other nonproliferation clubs before?

A: I have worked with Peace Action locally, support the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, Union of Concerned Scientists, and yes, numerous groups who
work on nonproliferation as well as anti war and social justice issues.

Q: Why do you feel disarmament is important?

A: We have taken on other issues of peace and justice, but most point in
various ways to the nuclear weapons and the threat they pose for the
world in so many ways. Weapons rob everyone of human dignity and
respect for each other. It is a grave threat to civilization as we know
it. There are unguarded and aging weapons throughout the world. It is
amazing that we have not blown ourselves up! Nuclear proliferation
engulfs the world--a world ready to destroy itself. We as humans must
learn to live in peace because to continue down the path we are on will
destroy us all. The future belongs to the young and my hope is that
"you" will work for the goals we hope to achieve. Just try to remember
that no matter what you do, no matter how small, it all counts! Keep
trying, because we must--all of us.

THE STARFISH FLINGER:

A young girl and her mother were walking on the beach one morning. Thousands of starfish washed ashore. The girl began throwing them in the water so they wouldn't die. “Don't bother, dear,” her mother said. “It won't make a difference.”
The girl stopped for a moment and looked at the starfish in her hand. “It will make a difference to this one.”

Works Cited

Barnaby, Frank. How to Build a Nuclear Bomb. New York, New York: Nation Books, 2004.

Curtis, Charles. “Nuclear Threat Initiative.” NTI. 2007. NTI. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.nti.org/index.php>.

ElBaradei, Mohamed. “History of the IAEA.” International Atomic Energy Agency. 2009. International Atomic Energy Agency. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html>.

Johnson, Thomas. “Atomic Energy Act.’ Energy Technology Engineering Center. 2009. Department of Energy. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.etec.energy.gov/Regulation/Atomic-Energy-Act.html >.

Kimball, Daryl. ‘Limited Test Ban Treaty.” Arms Control Association. 2009. Arms Control Association. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/LTBT>.

Kochersperger, Jane. “About Us.” Greenpeace. 2009. Greenpeace. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about>.

Krofchok, Lorraine. Email Interview. 1 April 2009.

National Nuclear Security Administration, “About NNSA.” National Nuclear Security Administration. 2009. Department of Energy. 31 Mar 2009 <National Nuclear Security Administration>.

Rossenfeld, Carrie . “Limited Test Ban Treaty.” AtomicArchive.com. 2008. AJ Software & Multimedia. 31 Mar 2009 <http://www.atomicarchive.com/Treaties/Treaty3.shtml>.

Objective #2:

While there exists a large incentive for owning nuclear weapons, only nine or ten countries in the world possess a nuclear weapons program.[12] Most have adopted a non-nuclear position, showing that there must be a reason for not wanting to own nuclear weapons. Incidentally, the reasons countries want nuclear weapons and the reasons they do not fall into the same categories.[13]

Drivers of Proliferation	Barriers to Proliferation
Security: States acquire nuclear weapons to protect their own sovereignty	Security: States forgo nuclear weapons when it is in their security interest to do so and/or when they can gain protection from a nuclear ally
Prestige: States acquire nuclear weapons to fulfill perceptions of national destiny or to be viewed as a “great power” in international affairs	Prestige: States forgo nuclear weapons because of the international norm against the weapons. They seek acceptance or leadership in the international community.
Domestic Politics: States acquire nuclear weapons when a set of well-placed bureaucratic actors convince political leaders of the need for them.	Domestic Politics: States forgo nuclear weapons when there is significant public opposition to nuclear programs, when there is a change in regime or in government priorities, and/or when well-placed bureaucratic actors convince political leaders that nuclear weapons are unnecessary
Technology: States acquire nuclear weapons because they have the technology to do so	Technology: States forgo nuclear weapons when they cannot develop or acquire the technology or technical know-how necessary to make fissile material and build a bomb
Economics: Economics generally do not drive a state to pursue nuclear weapons, though advocates of nuclear weapons argue that a nuclear defense is cheaper than a conventional one	Economics: States may forgo nuclear weapons because they are costly, because of the economic sanctions that result from a nuclear weapons program, or because of the economic benefits that follow the abandonment of such a program

The other 183 countries that have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty and that do not have nuclear weapons uphold what the treaty says: nuclear weapons should be eliminated. They do not believe that nuclear weapons are essential to their national identity. It took some time for this non-nuclear vision to prevail. In the 1950’s, when the United Kingdom, France, and China were developing nuclear arsenals, there was a pervasive view among political elites in many nations that nuclear weapons were acceptable, desirable, and even necessary. However, the increasing size of nuclear arsenals and alarm over the spread of deadly radioactive fallout caused fears of nuclear dangers. Distinguished philosopher Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein issued the Russell-Einstein Manifesto in July 1955: “We have learned to think in a new way. We have to learn to ask ourselves, not what steps can be taken to give military victory to whatever group we prefer, for there no longer are such steps; the question we have to ask ourselves is: what steps can be taken to prevent a military contest of which the issue must be disastrous to all parties?”[14] Taken into account events that have come close to nuclear war, including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, countries have moved to being decidedly anti-nuclear. Particularly with the signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968, the majority of governments have come to view nuclear weapons as dangerous and unnecessary.

International treaties have helped to deter the development of nuclear weapons in many states. Treaties such as the NPT raise the costs of proliferation by making weapons technology much more difficult to obtain. For example, U.S. intelligence studies conducted after the 2003 Iraq war showed that the system of UN sanctions and on-site inspections had effectively ended Iraq’s nuclear program after 1991.[15]

Other states are just as, or even more so, concerned about their international reputations and the political impact of violating the international antinuclear taboo. South Africa is a more recent example. In 1993, on the eve of the transition to majority rule, the apartheid government disclosed its secret nuclear weapons program and announced that all its weapons had been dismantled.[16] Nelson Mandela decided that South African security was better served in a country that did not possess nuclear weapons. South African representatives made their new government’s first major foray into international affairs at the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference and forged a compromise agreement between the nuclear and non-nuclear weapon states that allowed for the strengthening and indefinite extension of the treaty. Mitchell Reiss, author of many nuclear non-proliferation books, related in an interview that, “South Africa was facing a regime change when they gave up their nuclear weapons program, a move from apartheid government to black majority rule. For South Africa, the security environment transformed itself when the Soviet Union disappeared. One of the original motivations for the weapons disappeared. There was also a growing sense that the nuclear weapons weren’t really good for anything. You couldn’t use them against your external enemies because there weren’t very many and you couldn’t use them against your domestic adversaries because the white and black races were so close together. And you had new leadership that had a fundamentally different vision of the future of South Africa and wanted to integrate it into the community of nations.”

Similarly, in June 1998, the governments of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, and Sweden launched a “New Agenda” initiative to resuscitate the disarmament process.[17] Their efforts helped bring about a successful joint program agreed to at the 200 NPT conferences for thirteen practical steps for nonproliferation.

Some states feel so threatened by conventional rivals that they have chosen to pursue nuclear weapons.[18] States like Israel, whose right to exist is still not recognized by some of its neighbors, have high levels of security anxiety. Avner Cohen writes, “Israel’s nuclear project was conceived in the shadow of the Holocaust, and the lessons of the Holocaust provided the justification and motivation for the project.” Nuclear weapons were seen as essential even after resounding conventional victories in the wars of 1949, 1967, and 1973. Israel’s nuclear weapons program was driven by Prime Minister David Ben Gurion’s “vision of an Israel secured against existential threats…The Jews of Israel will never be like the Jews in the Holocaust.” Israel’s first nuclear weapons were developed in 1966-1967, and currently still possess them.

Security reasons also explain the dilemma between Brazil and Argentina. In the late 1970’s and through the 1980’s, Argentina and Brazil engaged in competing programs to develop nuclear weapons.[19] The issue was that the short-term affects of a nuclear arsenal would make Brazil an unrivaled military power in the region but, in the long term, once it faced an equal nuclear power on its southwestern border from Argentina, insecurity would increase. Mitchell Reiss noted the case of Brazil and Argentina, stating that, “At some point in time, each government of these respective countries made a fundamental decision that the future of their country was best served by abandoning their nuclear ambitions and integrating themselves more fully into the international system. They trade a very narrow conception of power of the national system based on nuclear weapons for a much broader one based on economic integration and development that brings them much more security in the long term.” Globalization has had many profound effects on the nations of the world, including proliferation/non-proliferation efforts. Let’s hope there are more non-proliferation efforts.

Works Cited

Cohen, Avner. “South Africa” Project of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/south-africa/index.htm

Cirincione, Joseph. Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Diehl, Sarah, and James C. Moltz. Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation. 2nd. Santa Clara. ABC-CLIO, 2008

Goldman, Joe. “Country Profiles: Argentina and Brazil.” Disarmament and Peace Education http://www.gsinstitute.org/dpe/countries/argentina_brazil.html (2002)

Reiss, Mitchell, author of Bridled Ambition: Why Countries Constrain Their Nuclear Capabilities. Interview to NPR’s Renee Montagne: Nuclear Weapons Not Appealing to All Countries, 17 April 2006.

Objective 3:

There are various reasons by which nations would wish to modernize their nuclear weapons. Though the Cold War has long since ended, a balancing act still exists between the United States and Russia, both of which hold the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons. There are other nations also wishing to modernize, even obtain, nuclear weapons, and these actions place strain upon other wary nations.

Modernization of Nuclear Weapons

The United States has not recently modernized its nuclear stockpile, but many feel that it should. American Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, called for the modernization of the nation’s nuclear weapons amidst Russian and Chinese modernization in October of 2008.[20] Gates challenged the Bush administration when he called for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but now calls for replacement warheads for the aging nuclear inventory, the only credible deterrent. But when President Barack Obama took power in January of 2009, it was clear that a new strategy would be taken towards nuclear weapons proliferation. As the new president said just before his trip to Europe and the Middle East, “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong deterrent. But we’ll make the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons a central element in our nuclear policy.”[21]

Though relations between US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are cordial, Medvedev still seeks improvements in Russia’s nuclear stockpiles, despite economic crisis.[22] The Russian president claims that the improvements are necessary to reassure the Russian people with reliable armed forces. However, both Obama and Medvedev have agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles by the end of the year.

In January, China issued one of their six white paper policies, claiming that new modernization in weaponry is a part of a commitment to peaceful military developments.[23] As part of a strategic defense, China’s nuclear arsenal is still much smaller than other nuclear powers, and the United States is fairly happy at China’s open, peaceful actions with nuclear weaponry.

Other nations, however, have not made good headlines with their nuclear testing. The US has confirmed nuclear weapons in Israel, and the US ally and the country of Iran hold a precarious relationship with nuclear weapons. The countries are at odds with one another, with the intentions of Iran’s launch of the Safir space vehicle inferring a capability to launch ballistic missiles.[24] Iran is still considered a nuclear arms threat towards the United States.

North Korea, at the moment, presents the largest threat to nuclear arms stability. The rogue nation provocatively launched a long range missile as of Sunday, April 5, in a clear violation of the U.N. Security Council Resolution on North Korea’s weapons program. Both Japan and South Korea wish to hold a meeting to discuss the implications of North Korea’s launch.

Monitoring and Verifying Nuclear Arms

There are numerous ways in which nuclear arms can be monitored and reduced, but that is easier said than done. During the Cold War, it was thought that nuclear disarmament was more detrimental than nuclear armament. Now, it is an issue whether or not nuclear weapons can be monitored in such a way that nations can be verified of reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles according to various international agreements.

The Cold War saw over 65,000 weapons in stockpiles across the world, but that number has been reduced. Also, fewer countries have nuclear weapons, with 23 countries having them in the 1960s and only 8 having them today (not including the possibilities of North Korea and Iran.)[25] The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is considered the most successful of the treaties that have motivated nations to abandon their nuclear weapons programs, while the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is also making strides in other nations (the United States’ Congress failed to ratify the treaty during the Clinton administration.) After the Cold War, nuclear freeze zones also helped nuclear elimination. Entire continents and other areas were specified where nuclear weapons could not be built or tested.

However, the twenty-first century has seen that the presence of nuclear weapons and their elimination is hard to verify. Most nations conduct their nuclear arms programs in secret, and the United States was, and to some degree is, no different. However, it is virtually impossible for nations to hide or detonate nuclear weapons without detection. Though nations may use false pretenses, it is still hard to justify the use of fissile materials for nuclear energy rather than nuclear weapons without hard evidence. However, the process of verifying treaty compliances can include satellites, seismic monitoring, on-site inspection, and intelligence gathering. In most cases, seismic monitoring can detect explosions of one kiloton or more anywhere in the world.[26] Radioactive isotopes that are cooled in the atmosphere and detected by satellites are also tale-tell signs of a nuclear detonation. Safeguards are also important mechanisms, such as the antitamper technologies of tags and seals on nuclear material-holding containers, “two person” handling of such materials, periodic inspections of facilities, and the use of cameras and motion detectors.[27] Though safeguards can help prevent the theft and diversion of fissile material, the alarming threat of nuclear proliferation to nuclear terrorist groups, who are not bound by any obligations to treaties or agreements, still exists.

Nuclear terrorism makes the objectives of monitoring nuclear stockpiles even more important. Many in the United States are concerned with the threat of theft of Russia’s nuclear material.[28] However, though many programs in place aim at securing these materials, a high-level of political leadership is lacking. Adequate funding and attention is vital for nations to maintain their stockpiles. Another way in which nuclear armament can be prevented from landing in the hands of nuclear terrorists or nuclear nations is through the prevention of nuclear rods turning into nuclear bombs. Many nations seek the fuel of enriched uranium, but very insignificant quantities are being used for nuclear energy (Iran is a good example of this; the nation seeks to build its own nuclear power plants despite having low needs for fuel.) A third possibility by which nuclear disarmament can take place is through the prevention of new nuclear states from emerging. This effort calls forth the decreased necessity of nuclear arms in existing countries, and the agreements that bind countries in non-nuclear proliferation to extend. Of course, organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are helping to set up funds and forge agreements between nations in an effort to reduce nuclear arsenals and strengthen non-proliferation. The IAEA is the world’s nuclear inspectorate, monitoring “safeguarded nuclear material and activities that are not used for military purposes.”[29]

In the future, worldwide nuclear disarmament would be the preferred course of action, but continued advancements in nuclear technology diminish such an achievement. Of course, there is hope with the steady decline of nuclear weapons, and while nations, such as North Korea and Iran, experiment with nuclear testing, there are efforts that continue to take place that weaken these endeavors. Though complete nuclear disarmament throughout the world seems highly unrealistic, the continued vows to reduce nuclear weaponry by influential political figures and the voice of the people offer immense optimism.

Works Cited

Barnes, Julian. “Gates calls for modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons.” LA Times (2008)

Cirincione, Joseph. Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007.

Diehl, Sarah, and James C. Moltz. Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation. 2nd. Santa Clara: ABC-CLIO, 2008

Finn, Peter. “US, Israel Disagree on Iran Arms Threat.” The Washington Post 11 Mar 2009. 2 Apr 2009.

Kellerhals, Merle. “China Modernizing Its Military Power, Pentagon Says.” America.gov 25 Mar 2009 2 Apr 2009.

Mooney, Alexander. “Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons.” CNN (2009)

Richards, Paul; Won-Young, Kim. “Monitoring for Nuclear Explosions.” Scientific American (2009)

Sokov, Nikolai. "Modernization of Strategic Nuclear Weapons In Russia: The Emerging New Posture." NIS Nuclear Profiles Database. May 2008. NTI. 2 Apr 2009

(author unknown), “Pillars of Nuclear Cooperation.” IAEA. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2 Apr 2009

Weir, Fred. “Russia plans massive military investment.” Global News Blog 18 Mar 2009. 2 Apr 2009.

---

[1] http://www.atomic archive.com

[2] http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/LTBT

[3] http://www.nti.org/index.php

[4] Frank Barnaby, How to Build a Nuclear Bomb

[5] http://www.nti.org/index.php

[6] http://www.nti.org/index.php

[7] http://nnsa.energy.gov/about/index.htm

[8] http://www.nti.org/index.php

[9] http://www.etec.energy.gov/Regulation/Atomic-Energy-Act.html

[10] http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html

[11] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about

[12] This includes Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea, Iran

[13] Joseph Ciricione, Bomb Scare

[14]http://www.nuclearfiles.org

[15] Sarah Diehl and James C. Moltz, Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation

[16] Mitchell Reiss

[17] Diehl, Moltz

[18] Avner Cohen, South Africa

[19] Joe Goldman, Country Profiles: Argentina and Brazil

[20] Julian Barnes, “Gates calls for modernization of U.S. nuclear weapons”

[21] Alexander Mooney, “Obama says time to rid world of nuclear weapons”

[22] Fred Weir, “Russia plans massive military investment”

[23]Merle Kellerhals, “China Modernizing Its Military Power, Pentagon Says”

[24] Peter Finn, “US, Israel Disagree on Iran Arms Threat”

[25] Joseph Circinione

[26] Paul Richards and Kim Won-Young, “Monitoring for Nuclear Explosions”

[27] Diehl, Moltz

[28] Joseph Circinione

[29] “Pillars of Nuclear Cooperation”