Report: No Need for Nuclear Tests

On the radar: Technical issues and the Test Ban Treaty; Debunking CTBT Myths; Assessing Iran, thinking about Iraq; The day after an Israeli strike; Questioning the nuclear dominoes theory; Next steps for nuclear security; and Why is an Iranian bomb always 18 months away?

April 2, 2012 | Edited by Mary Kaszynski

CTBT report -The National Academy of Sciences’ report on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, released Friday, concludes that the U.S. does not need to conduct nuclear tests in order to assure the reliability and safety of its arsenal, Matthew Wald reports for The New York Times.

--The NAS report, available here, also concludes that the U.S. has the technical capabilities to detect nuclear testing by other countries. http://owl.li/a1Jda

Myths Vs. Realities - The NAS report makes it clear that “the case for the Test Ban Treaty is stronger than ever,” write Tom Collina and Daryl Kimball in an Arms Control Association issue brief.

--The authors debunk common CTBT myths, showing that: 1. The CTBT strengthens nonproliferation efforts; 2. Another round of nuclear tests would undermine U.S. security; 3. the CTBT is verifiable; and 4. The CTBT bans all nuclear tests, including low-yield. http://owl.li/a1JbA

Ghosts of Iraq - “ The intelligence debacle on Iraq has deeply influenced the way they [intelligence analysts] do their work, with new safeguards intended to force analysts to be more skeptical in evaluating evidence and more cautious in drawing conclusions.” James Risen reports for The New York Times. http://owl.li/a1J8f

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Consequences - What if Israel bombs Iran? The repercussions would be serious, writes Gary Sick for CNN. Iran would almost certainly withdraw from the NPT, ending IAEA monitoring and inspections. Oil market disruption would drive up gas prices, putting the global economy at risk. The U.S. would likely be drawn into another war in the Middle East.

--”The greatest threat might well be the first year or more after an attack,” Sick writes, “Particularly if a major economic crisis was accompanied by growing evidence that Iran had proceeded underground and out of sight of the international community to produce a nuclear weapon.” http://owl.li/a1J6D

Strategy and the CTBT - Besides technical considerations, there’s a strategic case to be made for the CTBT. “The U.S. signing on would further isolate bad actors in world opinion and engender goodwill for the increasingly promising American effort to curb Iran’s nuclear efforts,” write the Bloomberg editors.

--”Ratifying the CTBT, further diversifying the U.S. nuclear program and developing a more reliable warhead would not just make America more secure, they would be part of a broader strategic goal we have endorsed: shifting our deterrent capacity away from Cold-War-legacy ballistic missiles and toward a smaller, smarter tactical arsenal adapted to the threats we face in the 21st century,” the editors argue. http://owl.li/a1J4R

Tweet - @FP_Magazine:”Steve Cook: Don't fear an arms race in the Middle East. http://owl.li/a1HTs”

Missed opportunities at Seoul - “The Seoul communiqué, intended to compile all things nuclear to ensure summit-level attention, fell short of its objective,” writes Duyeon Kim in The Bulletin. “Rather than communicating goal-oriented commitments, it tackled only the consensus agreements, which amounted to nothing more than baseline goals.”

--”Moving forward, the 2014 summit in the Netherlands must be drastically different...it should not only address new or evolving security concerns that may arise over the next two years, but also set future goals,” the author concludes. http://owl.li/a1J1E

Quote - “It only makes sense to seek maximum diplomatic leverage for something the United States is already doing anyway by ratifying the treaty,” writes Frank Klotz, CFR Fellow and former commander of Air Force Global Strike Command. http://owl.li/a1IYu

Manageable risk - “We will have a period of time essentially through the 30s when we will be at that 10-minimum number...that will impose additional risk on the Navy,” Rear Adm. Terry Benedict said in a Wednesday hearing. “We believe that is manageable.”

--An unnamed nuclear expert asks the obvious question: “If you can go four years with 11 [submarines] and nine years with 10 -- why do you need 12?” Elaine Grossman has the story. http://owl.li/a1ISI

Still 18 months away - Two years ago, Iran was 18 months away from being able to build a nuclear weapon. Today, experts say they are still 18 months away. The explanation, Doyle McManus writes in The LA Times is partly due to the uncertainty of estimates, and partly due to a combination of non-military options from sabotage to diplomacy. http://owl.li/a1IVt