Asks whether there are more promising ways of restraining testing than pressing for its total elimination. Examines the issues in the present debate (1) loss of reliability due to ageing of weapons (2) no more development of new weapons (3) the threshold of detectability. Analyzes present US and Soviet approaches to (1) a CTB (comprehensive test ban) as part of, or apart from, arms control (2) verification's military or political significance and the corresponding technological requirements. Sketches a phased approach, embedded in a broad commitment to arms control, to respond to the issues raised and to secure the familiar goals of a CTB.
Paul Doty is Director Emeritus of the Center for Science and International Affairs and Mallinckrodt Professor of Biochemistry at Harvard University.
Nuclear detonations are constant reminders of mankind’s capacity for violence. It is not surprising that people and governments conclude that if this symptom of supreme violence were exercised, the risk of nuclear war itself would diminish. Even though this position has psychological force and strong popular appeal, it bears deeper examination.
At issue is whether the single, radical step of ending all nuclear weapons testing, given the uncertainty of detecting lower-yield tests, is the best route to stopping the qualitative strategic arms race. Can such a step be pursued as an independent goal without linkages to other kinds of arms control and disarmament? Or are there more promising ways of restraining testing than its total elimination? In addressing this last question we need to examine the essential issues in the current debate and analyze current approaches. Then we can sketch a phased approach to a regime that would respond to most of the issues raised and secure the traditional goals of a comprehensive test ban (CTB) treaty, provided that it is embedded in a broad commitment to arms control.
II
The Soviet government’s position, from the first serious discussion of this matter in the U.N. Disarmament Commission in 1957 until the Reykjavik summit in late 1986, was that banning nuclear tests should be negotiated independently of other arms control measures. In 1957 this took the form of demanding a temporary moratorium (to allow negotiation of a total ban) as an immediate step, independent of disarmament. General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev took the same tack in July 1985 when he urged immediate negotiation of a CTB during a testing moratorium that the Soviets were about to initiate. It was evident that the Soviets felt that such a ban could be arrived at "in a matter of months." As late as September 1986 Gorbachev asked that "talks in any form—bilateral, tripartite or multilateral, and moreover without linkage to any other questions—be resumed or started."
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Calls for a more pragmatic judgment of the technological implications of military trends. Reviews significance of strategic defence, ICBMs and counterforce, targeting, basing, SLBMs and cruise missiles. Recommends "specific bilateral agreements and judicious unilateral choices in force modernization".
Despite a decline in share (from 85% in the 1960s to 68% now) the superpowers still dominate international arms transfers. If they choose not to sell to a combatant, he is forced into the black or grey market, which offers less advanced systems. Combatants are also affected by human factors, economic constraints, the need for large fast deliveries which only the superpowers can meet -- which is also true of satellite intelligence. Dependency is sustained by the need for modern, major systems, access to technological innovation and the need for support (financial, military, political). Explains how military aid has been a useful foreign policy tool.
Gives an account of problems encountered by START negotiators in 1988, as minor issues about particular types of weapons turned into major issues. Notes that these problems will persist post-Regan and concludes that "before a new administration can pick up where the old one leaves off in START" it should (1) impose some order in the chaos of US thinking about ICBMs (2) decide whether there is a militarily-sound mission for nuclear-armed SLCMs (3) develop a realistic plan for strategic defense R&D.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.