Corporate Memory: Nuclear Scientist Provides Welcome Insights Into Reasons for Rejecting a Comprehensive Test Ban

(Washington, D.C.): To paraphrase
Smith-Barney’s famous ad campaign, when
Dr. James McNally warns against a
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) —
as he did in an important op.ed. article
in yesterday’s Washington Times
— Senators should listen. He
is, after all, a respected physicist long
associated with the U.S. nuclear weapons
program who, in addition, brings to the
topic considerable first-hand knowledge
of the real limitations of arms control
agreements.

Dr. McNally has spent more than twenty
years on nuclear weapons design and
testing at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. From 1986 to 1988, he served
as the Deputy Assistant Director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency’s
Verification and Intelligence Bureau. In
that capacity, he had the unenviable task
of trying to keep the arms controllers
honest by pointing out the shortcomings
of various agreements and the persistent
problem of other parties’ non-compliance
with their terms.

This wealth of relevant experience
makes Dr. McNally’s critique of the
Clinton Administration’s CTBT (see href=”index.jsp?section=papers&code=97-D_152at”>the attached)
required reading. In his article entitled
“The Importance of Nuclear
Testing,” he makes three critical
points:

• There is no substitute
  for nuclear testing when it comes
  to ensuring the safety and
  reliability of the U.S.
  deterrent. “Only
  actual testing can prove with
  certainty that judgment in
  modeling and extrapolating from
  laboratory experience works. The
  presence or absence of a Cold
  War…is irrelevant.”
• A “withdrawal clause”
  does not constitute sufficient
  protection from declining
  technical confidence. “Beyond
  the fact that…declining
  confidence [arising from a lack
  of testing] may not be recognized
  without testing, U.S. disavowal
  of a ratified treaty has no
  precedent in recent times.”
• There is no demonstrable
  relationship between stopping
  nuclear testing and stopping
  proliferation.
  “[The United States]
  has…sophisticated weapons that
  are not amenable to modeling in
  all aspects. A very different
  situation is present for
  non-nuclear (or ’emerging’)
  nuclear-weapon nations. These
  countries may elect a
  nuclear-weapon capability that
  involves straightforward,
  less-capable nuclear weapons that
  do not rely on testing.”

The Bottom Line

The Senate Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Subcommittee
is scheduled to begin hearings next week
under the chairmanship of Sen. Pete
Domenici (R-NM) to consider the
Comprehensive Test Ban. It would be a
serious disservice to the Senate — and
to the American people — if such
congressional deliberations fail to
provide an opportunity for testimony from
informed, experienced and respected
critics of the CTBT like Dr. McNally.