Order Code IB92099
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Nuclear Weapons:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
Updated June 21, 2006
Jonathan Medalia
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
History
National Positions on Testing and the CTBT
The CTBT: Negotiations and Key Provisions
Preparing for Entry into Force
Stockpile Stewardship
CTBT Pros and Cons
LEGISLATION
CHRONOLOGY
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Nuclear Weapons:
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
SUMMARY
A comprehensive test ban treaty, or
the CTBT to the Senate. On October 13, 1999,
CTBT, is the oldest item on the nuclear arms
the Senate rejected the treaty, 48 for, 51
control agenda. Three treaties currently limit
against, 1 present. It is now on the Senate
testing to underground only, with a maximum
Foreign Relations Committee’s calendar. It
force equal to 150,000 tons of TNT. Accord-
would require a two-thirds Senate vote to send
ing to the Natural Resources Defense Council,
the treaty back to the President for disposal or
the United States conducted 1,030 nuclear
to give advice and consent for ratification; few
tests, the Soviet Union 715, the United King-
see either event as likely.
dom 45, France 210, and China 45. The last
U.S. test was held in 1992; the last U.K. test,
In January 2002 the Administration, in
in 1991. Russia claims it has not conducted
briefings on the Nuclear Posture Review,
nuclear tests since 1991.
indicated that it continues to oppose the
CTBT, continues to adhere to the test morato-
Since 1997, the United States has held 22
rium, is considering modifying existing war-
“subcritical experiments” at the Nevada Test
heads for use against hard and deeply-buried
Site, most recently on February 23, 2006, to
targets, has not ruled out resumed testing, and
study how plutonium behaves under pressures
has no plans to test. These positions remain
generated by explosives. It asserts these exper-
current. It also indicated plans to reduce the
iments do not violate the CTBT because they
time between a decision to conduct a nuclear
cannot produce a self-sustaining chain reac-
test and the test itself, which is being done.
tion. Russia has reportedly held some since
Critics raised concerns about the implications
1998, including several in 2000.
of these policies for testing and new weapons.
Congress addresses nuclear weapon issues in
In May 1998, India and Pakistan each
the annual National Defense Authorization
announced several nuclear tests and declared
Act and the Energy and Water Development
themselves nuclear weapons states. Each
Appropriations Act.
declared a moratorium on further tests, but
separately stated, in the summer of 2000, that
Congress considers the Stockpile Stew-
the time was not right to sign the CTBT.
ardship Program, which seeks to maintain
nuclear weapons without testing. Appropria-
The U.N. General Assembly adopted the
tions for it (listed as Weapons Activities) were
CTBT in September 1996. As of June 21,
FY2002, $5.429 billion; FY2003, $5.954
2006, 176 states had signed it; 132, including
billion; FY2004, $6.447 billion; FY2005,
Russia, had ratified; 41 of the 44 that must
$6.626 billion; and FY2006, $6.370 billion.
ratify the treaty for it to enter into force had
The FY2007 request is $6.408 billion. Con-
signed; and 34 of the 44 had ratified. Four
gress also considers a U.S. contribution to a
conferences have been held to facilitate entry
global system to monitor events that might
into force, most recently in September 2005.
violate the CTBT. Appropriations were $18.8
million for FY2005 and $14.2 million for
In 1997, President Clinton transmitted
FY2006; the FY2007 request is $19.8 million.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB92099
06-21-06
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
Organization is scheduled to hold its 26th session June 20-23. On March 10, Vietnam
became the 132nd nation to ratify the CTBT. On February 23, the United States and United
Kingdom jointly conducted a subcritical experiment at the Nevada Test Site. On December
22, 2005, an Indian government official said, “India has stated that it will not stand in the
way of the Entry into Force of the [Comprehensive Test Ban] Treaty.” On December 8, the
U.N. General Assembly adopted, 168-2, a resolution sponsored by Japan, “Renewed
Determination Towards the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons,” that, among other
things, urged nations to ratify the CTBT and continue nuclear test moratoria. The fourth
conference on facilitating CTBT entry into force was held September 21-23 at U.N.
Headquarters in New York.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
History
A ban on nuclear testing is the oldest item on the arms control agenda. Efforts to curtail
tests have been made since the 1940s. In the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union
conducted hundreds of hydrogen bomb tests. The radioactive fallout from these tests spurred
worldwide protest. These pressures, plus a desire to reduce U.S.-Soviet confrontation after
the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned
nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in space, and under water. The Threshold Test Ban
Treaty, signed in 1974, banned underground nuclear weapons tests having an explosive force
of more than 150 kilotons, the equivalent of 150,000 tons of TNT, ten times the force of the
Hiroshima bomb. The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, signed in 1976, extended the
150-kiloton limit to nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. President Carter did not
pursue ratification of these treaties, preferring to negotiate a comprehensive test ban treaty,
or CTBT, a ban on all nuclear explosions. When agreement seemed near, however, he pulled
back, bowing to arguments that continued testing was needed to maintain reliability of
existing weapons, to develop new weapons, and for other purposes. President Reagan raised
concerns about U.S. ability to monitor the two unratified treaties and late in his term started
negotiations on new verification protocols. These two treaties were ratified in 1990.
With the end of the Cold War, the need for improved warheads dropped and pressures
for a CTBT grew. The U.S.S.R. and France began nuclear test moratoria in October 1990
and April 1992, respectively. In early 1992, many in Congress favored a one-year test
moratorium. The effort led to the Hatfield amendment to the FY1993 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Bill, which banned testing before July 1, 1993, set conditions
on a resumption of testing, banned testing after September 1996 unless another nation tested,
and required the President to report to Congress annually on a plan to achieve a CTBT by
September 30, 1996. President Bush signed the bill into law (P.L. 102-377) October 2, 1992.
The CTBT was negotiated in the Conference on Disarmament. It was adopted by the U.N.
General Assembly on September 10, 1996, and was opened for signature on September 24,
1996. As of June 21, 2006, 176 states had signed it and 132 had ratified.
CRS-1

---

IB92099
06-21-06
National Positions on Testing and the CTBT
United States: Under the Hatfield amendment, President Clinton had to decide whether
to ask Congress to resume testing. On July 3, 1993, he said, “A test ban can strengthen our
efforts worldwide to halt the spread of nuclear technology in weapons,” and “the nuclear
weapons in the United States arsenal are safe and reliable.” While testing offered advantages
for safety, reliability, and test ban readiness, “the price we would pay in conducting those
tests now by undercutting our own nonproliferation goals and ensuring that other nations
would resume testing outweighs these benefits.” Therefore, he (1) extended the moratorium
at least through September 1994; (2) called on other nations to extend their moratoria; (3)
said he would direct DOE to “prepare to conduct additional tests while seeking approval to
do so from Congress” if another nation tested; (4) promised to “explore other means of
maintaining our confidence in the safety, the reliability and the performance of our own
weapons”; and (5) pledged to refocus the nuclear weapons laboratories toward technology
for nuclear nonproliferation and arms control verification. He extended the moratorium
twice more; on January 30, 1995, the Administration announced his decision to extend the
moratorium until a CTBT entered into force, assuming it was signed by September 30, 1996.
On September 22, 1997, President Clinton submitted the CTBT to the Senate. He asked
the Senate to approve it in his State of the Union addresses of 1998 and 1999, but Senator
Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, rejected that request on
grounds that the treaty “from a non-proliferation standpoint, is scarcely more than a sham”
and was of low priority for the committee. In the summer of 1999, Senate Democrats
pressed Senators Helms and Lott to permit consideration of the treaty. On September 30,
1999, Senator Lott offered a unanimous-consent request to discharge the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee from considering the treaty and to have debate and a vote. The request,
as modified, was agreed to. The Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings October
5-7; the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing October 7. It quickly became clear that
the treaty was far short of the votes for approval, leading many on both sides to seek to delay
a vote. As the vote was scheduled by unanimous consent, and several Senators opposed a
delay, the vote was held October 13, rejecting the treaty, 48 for, 51 against, and 1 present.
At the end of the 106th Congress, pursuant to Senate Rule XXX, paragraph 2, the treaty
moved to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee calendar, where it currently resides.
The Nuclear Posture Review and Nuclear Testing: In the FY2001 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 106-398, Sec. 1041), Congress directed the Secretary of Defense,
in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to review nuclear policy, strategy, arms control
objectives, and the forces, stockpile, and nuclear weapons complex needed to implement
U.S. strategy. Although the resulting Nuclear Posture Review is classified, J.D. Crouch,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, presented an unclassified
briefing on it on January 9, 2002, dealing in part with the CTBT and nuclear testing. He
stated there would be “no change in the Administration’s policy at this point on nuclear
testing. We continue to oppose CTBT ratification. We also continue to adhere to a testing
moratorium.” Further, “DOE is planning on accelerating its test-readiness program” to
reduce the time needed between a decision to test and the conduct of a test, which was then
24 to 36 months. He discussed new weapons. “At this point, there are no recommendations
in the report about developing new nuclear weapons. ... we are trying to look at a number of
initiatives. One would be to modify an existing weapon, to give it greater capability against
... hard targets and deeply-buried targets. And we’re also looking at non-nuclear ways that
CRS-2

---

IB92099
06-21-06
we might be able to deal with those problems.” A Washington Post article of January 10,
2002, quoted White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer as saying that the President has not
ruled out testing “to make sure the stockpile, particularly as it is reduced, is reliable and safe.
So he has not ruled out testing in the future, but there are no plans to do so.”
Critics expressed concern about the implications of these policies for testing and new
weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said that since
increasing funding for test readiness “would amount to giving prior approval for testing, the
debate [in Congress] would be substantial.” A statement by Physicians for Social
Responsibility said, “The Administration’s plan ... would streamline our nuclear arsenal into
a war-fighting force, seek the opportunity to design and build new nuclear weapons, and
abandon a ten-year-old moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.”
In July 2002 a National Academy of Sciences panel report on technical aspects of the
CTBT concluded, in the words of an Academy press release, “that verification capabilities
for the treaty are better than generally supposed, U.S. adversaries could not significantly
advance their nuclear weapons capabilities through tests below the threshold of detection,
and the United States has the technical capabilities to maintain confidence in the safety and
reliability of its existing weapons stockpile without periodic nuclear tests.”
A U.N. draft document of August 5, 2005, for signature by heads of government and
state at the U.N. General Assembly meeting of September 2005, contained a provision that
the signers “resolve to ... [m]aintain a moratorium on nuclear test explosions pending the
entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and call upon all States to
sign and ratify the Treaty.” John Bolton, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., reportedly called
for major changes to the draft; the CTBT passage was one of many drawing his objection.
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom cannot test because it held its nuclear tests for
several decades at the Nevada Test Site and does not have its own test site. Its last test was
held in 1991. Britain and France became the first of the original five nuclear weapon states
to ratify the CTBT, depositing instruments of ratification with the United Nations on April
6, 1998. On February 14, 2002, and February 23, 2006, the United Kingdom conducted
subcritical experiments jointly with the United States at the Nevada Test Site.
France: On June 13, 1995, President Jacques Chirac announced that France would
conduct eight nuclear tests at its test site at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific, finishing by
the end of May 1996. The armed services had reportedly wanted the tests to check existing
warheads, validate a new warhead, and develop a computer system to simulate warheads to
render further testing unneeded. Many nations criticized the decision. On August 10, 1995,
France indicated it would halt all nuclear tests once the test series was finished and favored
a CTBT that “prohibit(ed) any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear
explosion.” France conducted six tests from September 5, 1995, to January 27, 1996. On
January 29, 1996, Chirac announced the end to French testing. On April 6, 1998, France and
Britain deposited instruments of ratification of the CTBT with the United Nations.
Russia: Several press reports between 1996 and 1999 claimed that Russia may have
conducted low-yield nuclear tests at its Arctic test site at Novaya Zemlya; other reports stated
that U.S. reviews of the data determined that these events were earthquakes. Several reports
between 1998 and 2000 stated that Russia had conducted “subcritical” nuclear experiments,
CRS-3

---

IB92099
06-21-06
discussed below, which the CTBT does not bar. Russia ratified the treaty on June 30, 2000.
In September 2005, Russia reportedly stated that it intends to continue to observe the
moratorium on testing until the CTBT enters into force as long as other nuclear powers do
likewise, and expressed its hope that the nations that must ratify the treaty for it to enter into
force will do so as soon as possible.
China: China did not participate in the moratorium. It conducted a nuclear test on
October 5, 1993, that many nations condemned. It countered that it had conducted 39 tests,
vs. 1,054 for the United States, and needed a few more for safety and reliability. The
Chinese government reportedly wrote to U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali after
its test that “after a comprehensive test ban treaty is concluded and comes into effect, China
will abide by it and carry out no more nuclear tests.” It conducted other tests on June 10 and
October 7, 1994, May 15 and August 17, 1995, and June 8 and July 29, 1996. It announced
that the July 1996 test would be its last, as it would begin a moratorium on July 30, 1996.
On February 29, 2000, the Chinese government submitted the CTBT to the National People’s
Congress for ratification. In a white paper of December 2004, China stated its support of
early entry into force and, until that happens, its commitment to the test moratorium. As of
April 2006, China had not ratified the treaty.
India: On May 11, 1998, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee announced that India had
conducted three nuclear tests. A government statement said, “The tests conducted today
were with a fission device, a low yield device and a thermonuclear device. ... These tests
have established that India has a proven capability for a weaponised nuclear programme.”
It announced two more tests May 13. An academic study concluded, based on seismic data,
that India and Pakistan overstated the number and yields of their tests. India has conducted
no tests since May 1998. However, Lalit Mansingh, India’s Foreign Secretary, “expressed
his sentiment that the U.S. should not expect India to sign a Treaty that the U.S. itself
perceives as flawed.” In an Indian-Pakistani statement of June 20, 2004, “Each side
reaffirmed its unilateral moratorium on conducting further nuclear test explosions” barring
“extraordinary events.” On December 22, 2005, Shri Rao Inderjit Singh, Minister of State
in the Ministry of External Affairs, said, “India has already stated that it will not stand in the
way of the Entry into Force of the Treaty.” As of April 2006, India had not signed the CTBT.
In a statement on U.S.-Indian nuclear cooperation of July 18, 2005, between President
Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the latter said “India will reciprocally
agree that it would be ready to ... continu[e] India’s unilateral moratorium on nuclear
testing.” In a Senate hearing of November 2, Robert Joseph, Under Secretary of State for
Arms Control and International Security, stated, “India’s pledge to maintain its nuclear
testing moratorium contributes to nonproliferation efforts by making its ending of nuclear
explosive tests one of the conditions of full civil nuclear cooperation.” At that hearing,
Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Stimson Center, argued that statements by Indian
government officials that there are no current plans to test “do not carry equal weight, nor
do they impose equal responsibility, to the obligations accepted by the 176 states that have
signed the CTBT.” Press reports of April 2006 said the sides were negotiating a detailed
nuclear cooperation agreement. The reports indicated that the United States would insist that
India maintain its moratorium on nuclear testing or else the United States would have the
right to terminate the agreement. In response, India argued that it had already pledged to
maintain the moratorium, rendering this provision out of place in the final agreement.
CRS-4

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Pakistan: Pakistan announced on May 28, 1998, that it had conducted five nuclear tests,
and announced a sixth on May 30. Reports placed the yields of the smallest devices between
zero and a few kilotons, and between 2 and 45 kilotons for the largest. Some question the
number of tests based on uncertain seismic evidence. Pakistan made no claims of testing
fusion devices. Pakistan’s weapons program apparently relies heavily on foreign technology.
Pakistan claimed that it tested “ready-to-fire warheads,” not experimental devices, and
included a warhead for the Ghauri, a missile with a range of 900 miles, and low-yield tactical
weapons. In response to the Indian and Pakistani tests, the United States imposed economic
sanctions on the two nations. In November 1999, Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar said that
his nation would not sign the CTBT unless sanctions were lifted, but that “[w]e will not be
the first to conduct further nuclear tests.” In August 2000, President Pervez Musharraf said
the time was not ripe to sign the CTBT because so doing could destabilize Pakistan. As of
April 2006, Pakistan had not signed the CTBT, but in September 2005 it reportedly said it
would not be the first nation in the region to resume nuclear testing.
North Korea: Negotiations to halt North Korea’s nuclear program have been underway
for years, most recently between that nation, the United States, China, Japan, South Korea,
and Russia. A CIA report of late 2004 stated that during talks in April 2003, “North Korea
privately threatened to ‘transfer’ or ‘demonstrate’ its nuclear weapons.” On February 10,
2005, North Korea declared, “We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to cope with
the Bush Administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK,” and
on June 9 it claimed it was building more such weapons. Press reports have raised the
possibility that that nation, which has not signed the CTBT, might conduct a nuclear test, but
as of April 2006 no test had been reported. On May 15, 2005, the United States warned that
it and other nations would take punitive action if North Korea conducted a nuclear test. (See
CRS Issue Brief IB91141, North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons Program, by Larry A. Niksch.)
The CTBT: Negotiations and Key Provisions
The Conference on Disarmament, or CD, calls itself “the sole multilateral disarmament
negotiating forum of the international community.” It is affiliated with, funded by, yet
autonomous from the United Nations. It operates by consensus; each member state can block
a decision. On August 10, 1993, the CD gave its Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban
“a mandate to negotiate a CTB.” On November 19, 1993, the United Nations General
Assembly unanimously approved a resolution calling for negotiation of a CTBT. The CD’s
1994 session opened in Geneva on January 25, with negotiation of a CTBT its top priority.
The priority had to do with extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That treaty entered into force in 1970. It divided the world into nuclear “haves” — the
United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China, the five declared nuclear powers,
which are also the permanent five (“P5”) members of the U.N. Security Council — and
nuclear “have-nots.” The P5 would be the only States Party to the NPT to have nuclear
weapons, but they (and others) would negotiate in good faith on halting the nuclear arms race
soon, on nuclear disarmament, and on general and complete disarmament. Nonnuclear
weapon states saw attainment of a CTBT as the touchstone of good faith on these matters.
The NPT provided for reviews every five years; a review in 1995, 25 years after it entered
into force, would determine whether to extend the treaty indefinitely or for one or more fixed
periods. The Review and Extension Conference of April-May 1995 extended the treaty
CRS-5

---

IB92099
06-21-06
indefinitely. Extension was accompanied by certain non-binding measures, including a
Decision on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non- Proliferation and Disarmament that
set forth goals on universality of the NPT, nuclear weapon free zones, etc., and stressed the
importance of completing “the negotiations on a universal and internationally and effectively
verifiable Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty no later than 1996.”
The extension decision, binding on States Party to the NPT, was contentious.
Nonnuclear States Party argued that the P5 failed to meet their NPT obligations by not
concluding a CTBT. They saw progress on winding down the arms race as inadequate. They
assailed the NPT as discriminatory because it divides the world into nuclear and nonnuclear
states, and argued for a regime in which no nation has nuclear weapons. The CTBT, in their
view, symbolized this regime because, unlike the NPT, the P5 would give up something
tangible, the ability to develop new sophisticated warheads. Some nonnuclear states saw
NPT extension as their last source of leverage for a CTBT. Other nonnuclear states felt that
the NPT was in the interests of all but would-be proliferators, that anything less than
indefinite extension would undermine the security of most nations, and that the NPT was too
important to put at risk as a means of pressuring the P5 for a CTBT. The explicit linkage
finally drawn between CTBT and NPT lent urgency to negotiations on the former.
The CD reached a draft treaty in August 1996. India argued that the CTBT “should be
securely anchored in the global disarmament context and be linked through treaty language
to the elimination of all nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework.” India also wanted a
treaty to bar weapons research not involving nuclear tests. The draft treaty did not meet these
conditions, which the nuclear weapon states rejected, so India vetoed it at the CD on August
20, barring it from going to the U.N. General Assembly as a CD document. As an alternate
way to open the treaty for signing, Australia on August 23 asked the General Assembly to
consider a resolution to adopt the draft CTBT text and for the Secretary-General to open it
for signing so it could be adopted by a simple majority, or by the two-thirds majority that
India sought, avoiding the need for consensus. A potential pitfall was that the resolution (the
treaty text) was subject to amendment, yet the nuclear weapon states viewed amendments as
unacceptable. India did not raise obstacles to the vote, which was held September 10, with
158 nations in favor, 3 against (India, Bhutan, and Libya), 5 abstentions, and 19 not voting.
A sixth 5-year NPT review conference was held April 24-May 19, 2000, in New York.
U.S. rejection of the CTBT, lack of Chinese ratification, U.S. efforts to seek renegotiation
of the ABM Treaty, and efforts to ban nuclear weapons in the Middle East led some to fear
dire outcomes from the conference. However, some contentious issues were ironed out,
some were avoided, and concessions were made. For example, a joint statement by the P5
to the conference on May 1 said, “No effort should be spared to make sure that the CTBT is
a universal and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty and to secure its earliest entry
into force.” As a result of effort by many nations, the final document of the conference was
adopted by consensus. The document included a 13-step Nuclear Disarmament Plan of
Action, the first two elements of which called for the early entry into force of the treaty and
a moratorium on nuclear explosions pending entry into force.
At the NPT Review Conference of May 2005, the CTBT was a point of contention. For
example, Alberto Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines, said, “Plans
to develop new nuclear weapons technology and failure to bring the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty (CTBT) into force seriously erode the historic foundations of the NPT.” Ihor Dolhov,
CRS-6

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Deputy Foreign Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, said, “Ukraine continues to underscore
the importance and urgency of an early entry into force of the Treaty and calls upon all States
who have not yet done so to adhere to the Treaty without delay and unconditionally...”
Ambassador Ronaldo Sardenberg of Brazil said, “Brazil has consistently called for the
universalization of the CTBT, which we consider to be an essential element of the disarmament
and non-proliferation regime.” (See CRS Report RL32857, The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
Review Conference: Issues for Congress, by Sharon Squassoni and Carl E. Behrens.)
The balance of this section summarizes key CTBT provisions. See “Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty: Message from the President ...,” cited below, for details.
Scope (Article I): The heart of the treaty is the obligation “not to carry out any nuclear
weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.” This formulation bars even very low
yield tests, as some in the nuclear weapon states had wanted, and bars peaceful nuclear
explosions, as China had wanted, but rejects India’s concern that a CTBT should “leave no
loophole for activity, either explosive-based or non-explosive based, aimed at the continued
development and refinement of nuclear weapons.”
Organization (Article II): The treaty establishes a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty Organization (CTBTO), composed of all member states, to implement the treaty.
Three groups are under this Organization. The Conference of States Parties, composed of
a representative from each member state, shall meet in annual and special sessions to
consider and decide issues within the scope of the treaty and oversee the work of the other
groups. An Executive Council with 51 member States shall, among other things, take action
on requests for on-site inspection, and may request a special session of the Conference. A
Technical Secretariat shall carry out verification functions, including operating an
International Data Center, processing and reporting on data from an International Monitoring
System, and receiving and processing requests for on-site inspections.
Verification (Article IV): The treaty establishes a verification regime. It provides for
collection and dissemination of information, permits States Party to use national technical
means of verification, and specifies verification responsibilities of the Technical Secretariat.
It establishes an International Monitoring System (IMS) with 321 stations in 90 countries,
provides for consultation on “possible non-compliance,” and provides for on-site inspections.
As of November 2004, 304 site surveys had been completed. As of December 31, 2004, 119
stations had been certified, and 204 had been completed or fully upgraded to specifications.
Review of the Treaty (Article VIII): The treaty provides for a conference ten years after
entry into force (unless a majority of States Party decide not to hold such a conference) to
review the treaty’s operation and effectiveness. Further review conferences may be held at
subsequent intervals of ten years or less.
Duration and Withdrawal (Article IX): “This treaty shall be of unlimited duration.”
However, “Each State Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to
withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter
of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests.” President Clinton indicated his
possible willingness to withdraw from the Treaty using this withdrawal provision, which is
common to many arms control agreements, in his speech of August 11, 1995, discussed
below, as one of several conditions under which the United States would enter the CTBT.
CRS-7

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Entry into force (Article XIV): The treaty shall enter into force 180 days after 44 states
named in Annex 2 have deposited instruments of ratification, but not less than two years after
the treaty is opened for signature. If the treaty has not entered into force three years after
being opened for signature, and if a majority of states that have deposited instruments of
ratification so desire, a conference of these states shall be held to decide how to accelerate
ratification. Unless otherwise decided, subsequent conferences of this type shall be held
annually until entry into force occurs. The 44 states are the ones with nuclear reactors that
participated in the work of the CD’s 1996 session and were CD members as of June 18,
1996. This formulation includes nuclear-capable states and nuclear threshold states (in
particular Israel, which, along with other States, joined the CD on June 17, 1996), and
excludes Yugoslavia. Of the 44, three states — India, North Korea, and Pakistan — had not
signed the treaty and 10 had not ratified it as of April 2006.
Protocol: The Protocol provides details on the International Monitoring System and on
functions of the International Data Center (Part I); spells out on-site inspection procedures
in great detail (Part II); and provides for certain confidence-building measures (Part III).
Annex 1 to the Protocol lists International Monitoring System facilities: seismic stations,
radionuclide stations and laboratories, hydroacoustic stations, and infrasound stations.
Annex 2 provides a list of variables that, among others, may be used in analyzing data from
these stations to screen for possible explosions.
Preparing for Entry into Force
States that had signed the CTBT established the Preparatory Commission (PrepCom)
for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) to prepare for entry
into force of the treaty, such as by creating the structures and instruments of the CTBT. The
PrepCom states that its main task “is to establish the global verification regime foreseen in
the Treaty so that it will be operational by the time the Treaty enters into force.” The
PrepCom held 25 meetings from November 1996 through November 2005, the next is
scheduled for June 20-23, 2006. Eight meetings of CTBTO working groups and advisory
groups are scheduled for 2006. CTBTO also holds training sessions, workshops, etc.
The only U.S. funding for the PrepCom is: FY2002 actual, $16.6 million; FY2003
actual, $18.2 million; FY2004 actual, $18.9 million; FY2005 actual, $18.8 million; FY2006
estimate, $14.2 million. These funds are in the International Affairs Function 150 budget in
Nonproliferation, Antiterrorism, Demining, and Related Programs. The FY2005 budget
justification stated that these funds “pay the U.S. share for the ongoing development and
implementation of the international monitoring system (IMS), which supplements U.S.
capabilities to detect nuclear explosions. Since the United States does not seek ratification
and entry-into-force of the CTBT, none of the funds will support Preparatory Commission
activities that are not related to the IMS.” The FY2006 request was $14.4 million; the
foreign operations conference report urged the State Department “to include sufficient funds
for CTBT” in the FY2007 request. The FY2007 request is $19.8 million.
Entry-into-force conferences under Article XIV were held in October 1999, November
2001, September 2003, and September 2005, and there have been other calls for entry into force.
In September 2002, a statement by 18 foreign ministers, including those of Britain, France, and
Russia, called for early entry into force. On November 22, 2002, the U.N. General Assembly
CRS-8

---

IB92099
06-21-06
adopted resolution 57/100 (164 for, 1 against (U.S.A.), 5 abstentions) urging states to maintain
their nuclear test moratoria and urging states that had not signed and ratified the CTBT to do so
as soon as possible and to avoid actions that would defeat its object and purpose. In a message
to the 2003 conference, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the nations that had to ratify
the treaty for it to enter into force, and especially North Korea, to ratify, and urged continuing the
moratorium: “No nuclear testing must be tolerated under any circumstances.” A conference of
the Non-Aligned Movement, which has 116 members, ended on February 25, 2003. Its Final
Document stated that the heads of state or government “stressed the significance of achieving
universal adherence to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), including by all
the Nuclear Weapons States.” On September 23, 2004, foreign ministers from 42 nations called
for prompt ratification of the CTBT, especially by nations whose ratification is required for entry
into force. The Article XIV conference of 2005 adopted its draft final declaration, which called
on all states to sign and ratify the treaty “without delay,” especially those states required for entry
into force, and adopted 12 measures to promote entry into force. A report by the Weapons of
Mass Destruction Commission, an international commission organized by Sweden, issued
a report in June 2006 that, among other things, urged all states that have not done so to sign
and ratify the CTBT “unconditionally and without delay.” It recommended that the 2007
conference of CTBT signatories “should address the possibility of a provisional entry into
force of the treaty.” It stated, “The Commission believes that a U.S. decision to ratify the
CTBT would strongly influence other countries to follow suit. It would decisively improve
the chances for entry into force of the treaty and would have more positive ramifications for
arms control and disarmament than any other single measure.”
Stockpile Stewardship
P5 states want to maintain their nuclear warheads under a CTBT and assert that they
need computers and scientific facilities to do so. They also want to retain the ability to
resume testing if other nations leave a CTBT, or if maintaining high confidence in key
weapons requires testing. Nonnuclear nations fear that the P5 will continue to design new
warheads under a CTBT, with computation and nonnuclear experiments replacing testing.
Maintaining nuclear weapons, especially without testing, is termed “stockpile stewardship.”
This is a contentious issue. This section focuses on the U.S. debate.
Stewardship bears on Senate advice and consent to CTBT ratification. Beginning with
the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, the United States has implemented “safeguards,” or
unilateral steps to maintain its nuclear weapons capability consistent with treaty limitations.
President Kennedy’s agreement to safeguards was critical for obtaining Senate approval of
the 1963 treaty. The safeguards were modified most recently by President Clinton. In his
August 11, 1995, speech announcing a zero-yield CTBT as a goal, he stated:
As a central part of this decision, I am establishing concrete, specific safeguards that
define the conditions under which the United States will enter into a comprehensive test
ban. These safeguards will strengthen our commitments in the areas of intelligence,
monitoring and verification, stockpile stewardship, maintenance of our nuclear
laboratories, and test readiness.
These safeguards are: Safeguard A: “conduct of a Science Based Stockpile Stewardship
program to insure a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of nuclear weapons
CRS-9

---

IB92099
06-21-06
in the active stockpile”; Safeguard B: “maintenance of modern nuclear laboratory facilities
and programs”; Safeguard C: “maintenance of the basic capability to resume nuclear test
activities prohibited by the CTBT”; Safeguard D: “a comprehensive research and
development program to improve our treaty monitoring”; Safeguard E: intelligence programs
for “information on worldwide nuclear arsenals, nuclear weapons development programs,
and related nuclear programs”; and Safeguard F: the understanding that if the Secretaries of
Defense and Energy inform the President “that a high level of confidence in the safety or
reliability of a nuclear weapon type which the two Secretaries consider to be critical to our
nuclear deterrent could no longer be certified, the President, in consultation with Congress,
would be prepared to withdraw from the CTBT under the standard ‘supreme national
interests’ clause in order to conduct whatever testing might be required.”
Regarding the stewardship program, President Clinton said that the Secretary of Energy
and the directors of the nuclear weapons laboratories had assured him that the United States
could maintain its nuclear deterrent under a CTBT through a program of science-based
stockpile stewardship. “In order for this program to succeed,” he said, “both the
administration and the Congress must provide sustained bipartisan support for the stockpile
stewardship program over the next decade and beyond.”
The ability of the stewardship program to maintain nuclear weapons without testing was
a crucial issue in the Senate debate on the CTBT. The treaty’s opponents claimed that
stewardship offered no guarantee of maintaining weapons, and that experiments, computer
models, and other techniques might offer no clue to some problems that develop over time.
They further argued that it could be perhaps a decade before the tools for the program were
fully in place, and by that time many weapon designers with test experience would have
retired. Supporters held that the program was highly likely to work, having already certified
the stockpile three times, and that safeguard “F” provided for U.S. withdrawal from the treaty
in the event high confidence in a key weapon type could not be maintained without testing.
By March 2005, DOD and DOE had completed the ninth stockpile certification.
Congress established the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) in 1999 as
a semiautonomous DOE agency to manage stewardship and related programs. In NNSA’s
budget, stewardship is funded by the Weapons Activities account, the main elements of
which are Directed Stockpile Work, activities directly supporting weapons in the stockpile;
Campaigns, technical efforts to develop and maintain capabilities to certify the stockpile for
the long term; and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, mainly infrastructure and
operations for the weapons complex. Appropriations were: FY2001, $5.006 billion; FY2002,
$5.429 billion; FY2003, $5.954 billion; FY2004, $6.447 billion; FY2005, $6.626 billion; and
FY2006, $6.370 billion. The FY2007 request is $6.408 billion. (See CRS Report RL32852,
Energy and Water Development: FY2006 Appropriations, coordinated by Carl E. Behrens.)
Subcritical experiments (SCEs): As part of the stockpile stewardship program, NNSA
is conducting SCEs. CRS offers the following definition based on documents and on
discussions with DOE and laboratory staff: “Subcritical experiments at Nevada Test Site
involve chemical high explosives and fissile materials in configurations and quantities such
that no self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction can result. In these experiments, the
chemical high explosives are used to generate high pressures that are applied to the fissile
materials.” The only fissile material that has been used in SCEs is plutonium-239. All SCEs
to date have been conducted in a tunnel complex, about 1,000 feet underground at Nevada
CRS-10

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Test Site. The complex could contain explosions up to 500 pounds of explosive and
associated plutonium. Another SCE is planned for FY2006 in a “down-hole” configuration
similar to an underground nuclear test, not in a tunnel. SCEs try to determine if radioactive
decay of aged plutonium would degrade weapon performance. Several SCEs have been used
to support certification of the W88 pit. (A pit is the “trigger” of a thermonuclear weapon.)
In 1998, Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson called SCEs “a key part of our scientific
program to provide new tools and data that assess age-related complications and maintain
the reliability and safety of the nation’s nuclear deterrent.” As they produce no chain
reaction, the Clinton Administration saw them as consistent with the CTBT. Critics counter
that they would help design new weapons without testing; are unnecessary; may look like
nuclear tests if not monitored intrusively; and are inconsistent with the spirit of a CTBT,
which, critics believe, is aimed at halting nuclear weapons development, not just testing.
NNSA states that most subcritical experiments cost between $15 million and $25 million,
with some costing as little as $5 million or as much as $60 million. (For further information
on subcritical experiments and test readiness, see CRS Report RL32130, Nuclear Weapon
Initiatives: Low-Yield R&D, Advanced Concepts, Earth Penetrators, Test Readiness, by
Jonathan Medalia.)
The 22 SCEs held so far are: 1997: Rebound, July 2; Holog, September 18; 1998:
Stagecoach, March 25; Bagpipe, September 26; Cimarron, December 11; 1999: Clarinet,
February 9; Oboe, September 30; Oboe 2, November 9; 2000: Oboe 3, February 3;
Thoroughbred, March 22; Oboe 4, April 6; Oboe 5, August 18; Oboe 6, December 14; 2001:
Oboe 8, September 26; Oboe 7 (held after Oboe 8), December 13; 2002: Vito (jointly with
U.K.), February 14; Oboe 9, June 7; Mario, August 29; Rocco, September 26; 2003: Piano,
September 19; 2004: Armando, May 25; 2006: Krakatau (jointly with U.K.), February 23.
NNSA’s FY2006 request stated that, for pit certification, “The major activities in FY2006
include the preparation and execution of subcritical experiments to confirm nuclear
performance of the W88 warhead with a newly-manufactured pit.” NNSA’s FY2007 request
states, “The Pit Campaign Support Activities at NTS provide support in fielding subcritical
experiments essential to pit certification with completion of activities at the end of FY2006.
There is no funding provided for these activities in FY2007. All subcritical experiment
activities in support of the LANL-manufactured W88 pit certification effort will be
completed in FY2006.” NNSA stated in March 2006 that one more SCE, Unicorn, is
planned for FY2006. It is the last SCE supporting the W88 pit program, but SCEs for other
purposes are anticipated.
Test Readiness: President Clinton directed DOE to be prepared to conduct a nuclear test
within three years of a decision to do so. Yet a September 2002 report by DOE’s Office of
Inspector General found this ability “at risk.” In January 2002 the Nuclear Posture Review
briefing called for an unspecified acceleration of nuclear test readiness, and in March 2002
the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear
Stockpile assessed that “test readiness should be no more than three months to a year.” The
FY2003 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 107-314, sec. 3142, required the Secretary
of Energy to report on alternative test readiness postures and recommend the optimal
readiness posture. The resulting report argued that the 3-year posture was increasingly at risk
and recommended moving to an 18-month readiness posture by the end of FY2005.
The FY2004 Weapons Activities request included $24.9 million to reduce the posture
from 3 years to 18 months. The National Defense Authorization Act and the Energy and
CRS-11

---

IB92099
06-21-06
Water Development Appropriations Act provided the funds requested. Conferees on the
latter expected NNSA to focus on a program that can meet the current 24-month requirement
“before requesting significant additional funds to pursue a more aggressive goal of an 18-
month readiness posture.” In contrast, the FY2004 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L.
108-136, sec. 3112) stated, “Commencing not later than October 1, 2006, the Secretary of
Energy shall achieve, and thereafter maintain, a readiness posture of not more than 18
months for resumption by the United States of underground tests of nuclear weapons.”
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 24, 2004, NNSA
Administrator Linton Brooks said that the goal of test readiness “is to achieve an 18-month
test readiness posture as directed by the Defense Authorization Act.” The FY2005 National
Defense Authorization Act provided the full $30.0 million requested for test readiness. In
the FY2005 energy and water bill, the House Appropriations Committee recommended
reducing the Primary Assessment Technologies campaign request of $81.5 million, which
included $30.0 million for test readiness, by $15.0 million “to limit the enhanced test
readiness initiative to the goal of achieving a 24-month test readiness posture. The
Committee continues to oppose the 18-month test readiness posture.” The FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act reduced this campaign by $7.5 million.
NNSA’s FY2006 test readiness request was $25.0 million “to continue improving the
state of readiness to reach an 18-month test readiness posture in FY2006.” In a Senate
Armed Services Committee hearing on February 15, 2005, Senator John Warner asked
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman whether DOE would meet the 18-month test readiness
requirement by October 1, 2006. Secretary Bodman replied, “We continue to be committed
to that requirement of the law” and was informed that DOE is on track to meet the October
1 deadline. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water
Development Subcommittee on April 14, 2005, Administrator Brooks explained the rationale
for the 18-month posture: “Shorter than that, and you were paying money for readiness you
couldn’t use, because the experiment [the nuclear test] wouldn’t be ready. Longer than that,
and you were running the risk of being ready to test to find out whether you had corrected
an important problem, but the test site wasn’t ready.” The House Appropriations Committee
continued to favor a 24-month posture and stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead
program “obviates any reason to move to a provocative 18-month test readiness posture.”
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act reduced test readiness funding to
$20.0 million; conferees directed DOE to maintain the 24-month posture. The National
Defense Authorization Act also provided $20.0 million; the accompanying conference report
did not address the readiness posture. (See Legislation, below, and CRS Report RL32929,
Nuclear Weapons: Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, by Jonathan Medalia.)
For FY2007, NNSA requests $14.8 million for test readiness and notes that the target
test readiness posture for FY2006-FY2011, 24 months, was achieved in FY2005. The House
Armed Services Committee’s report on FY2007 defense authorization states, “While the
committee has no indication of the need to resume underground nuclear testing in the near
future, it does believe that maintaining the 18 month readiness posture as directed by
Congress is important to national security. The committee notes that funding shortfalls have
precluded the Department of Energy from achieving the 18 month readiness posture as
required by law. “
CRS-12

---

IB92099
06-21-06
U.S. Nuclear Tests by Calendar Year
1945-1949
6
1960-1964
202
1980-1984
92
1950-1954
43
1965-1969
231
1985-1989
75
1955-1959
145
1970-1974
137
1990-1992
23
1975-1979
100
Total
1054
Source: U.S. Department of Energy.
Note: These figures include all U.S. nuclear tests, of which 24 were U.K. tests conducted at the Nevada Test
Site between 1962 and 1991. They reflect data on unannounced tests that DOE declassified on December 7,
1993. They exclude the two atomic bombs that the United States dropped on Japan in 1945. On June 27, 1994,
Secretary O’Leary announced that DOE had redefined three nuclear detonations (one each in 1968, 1970, and
1972) as separate nuclear tests. This table reflects these figures. She also declassified the fact that 63 tests,
conducted from 1963 through 1992, involved more than one nuclear explosive device.
CTBT Pros and Cons
A CTBT is contentious. Supporters argue it would fulfill disarmament commitments
the nuclear weapon states made in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its 1995 Review
and Extension Conference; end a discriminatory regime in which nuclear weapon states can
test while others cannot; and aid nonproliferation by preventing nonnuclear weapon states
from developing nuclear weapons of advanced design. Some supporters hold a CTBT would
freeze a U.S. advantage in nuclear weaponry and that the stockpile stewardship program can
maintain U.S. weapons without testing. A CTBT, it is argued, would also prevent the
development of weapons of advanced design by the P5, reducing future threats to the United
States, and impede India’s ability to develop a thermonuclear weapon. Some hold the treaty
would bar China from incorporating any lessons learned from espionage into new warheads.
Critics see testing as the one sure way to maintain confidence in the reliability and
safety of U.S. nuclear weapons. They contend that if friends and allies doubt U.S. nuclear
capability, they might feel compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons. Some
opponents believe that a CTBT would undercut confidence in the U.S. deterrent, increasing
the incentive for rogue states to obtain nuclear weapons. Critics also charge that nations
wanting to develop nuclear weapons would likely not sign a CTBT and in any event could
develop fairly sophisticated weapons without testing; that verification would be difficult; and
that the United States might need to develop new weapons to meet new threats. If other
nations become nuclear powers or if existing ones develop new weapons, the proper
response, in this view, is ballistic missile defense. (For a more detailed discussion, see CRS
Report RS20351, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Pro and Con, by Jonathan Medalia.)
LEGISLATION
H.R. 5122 (Hunter). National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007. Reported from
House Armed Services Committee (H.Rept. 109-452) May 5, 2006. Measure passed House,
amended, 396-31, May 11. The bill provided the amounts requested for test readiness ($14.8
million) and for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program ($27.7 million).
CRS-13

---

IB92099
06-21-06
H.R. 5427 (Hobson). Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, FY2007.
Reported from House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 109-474) May 19, 2006; passed
House, 404-20, May 24. It provided the amount requested, $14.8 million, for test readiness.
It increased RRW funding by $25.0 million, to $52.7 million, while fencing the added sum
pending receipt from DOE of a comprehensive plan to transform the nuclear weapons
complex.
S. 2766 (Warner). National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007. Reported from
Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 109-254) May 9, 2006. The bill provided the
amounts requested for test readiness ($14.8 million) and the RRW program ($27.7 million).
CHRONOLOGY
6/00/06 — The
26th meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization is scheduled for June 20-23.
3/10/06 —
Vietnam became the 132nd nation to ratify the CTBT.
2/23/06 —
The United States and United Kingdom conducted a subcritical experiment,
“Krakatau,” at the Nevada Test Site.
12/08/05 — The U.N. General Assembly adopted, 168-2, a resolution on nuclear
disarmament that, among other things, urged nations to ratify the CTBT.
11/00/05 —
The 25th meeting of the CTBTO Preparatory Commission was held
November 14-18 in Vienna, Austria.
9/00/05 —
A conference, Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty, was held September 21 to 23 at U.N. Headquarters.
8/29/05 —
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit reportedly stated that Egypt
would not ratify the CTBT until Israel joins the NPT.
5/16/05 —
The New York Times reported that on May 15 National Security Advisor
Stephen Hadley stated, “Action would have to be taken” if North Korea
conducted a nuclear test. The article also reported that Secretary General
Shinzo Abe of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party said if North Korea
“conducts nuclear testing, for instance, Japan will naturally bring the issue to
the U.N. and call for sanctions against North Korea.”
5/00/05 —
At the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, held May 2 to
27, some nations criticized the United States for not ratifying the CTBT.
3/10/05 —
The European Parliament passed a resolution that, among other things,
“reiterates its call for the USA ... to sign and ratify the CTBT.”
CRS-14

---

IB92099
06-21-06
2/10/05 —
North Korea declared, “We ... have manufactured nukes for self-defense to
cope with the Bush Administration’s evermore undisguised policy to isolate
and stifle the DPRK.”
For earlier chronology, see CRS Report 97-1007, Nuclear Testing and Comprehensive Test
Ban: Chronology Starting September 1992, by Jonathan Medalia.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Andreasen, Steve, and Sidney Drell, “Untested Solutions,” Foreign Affairs, March/April
2005: 173-174. [Responds to Deutch, “A Nuclear Posture for Today.”]
Bailey, Kathleen, and Robert Barker. “Why the United States Should Unsign the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Resume Nuclear Testing.” Comparative Strategy.
April-June 2003: 131-138.
Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty, “Draft final declaration and measures to promote the entry into force of the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty,” September 21, 2005, 8 p.
Deutch, John, “A Nuclear Posture for Today,” Foreign Affairs, January/February2005: 49-
60.
Federation of American Scientists. Nuclear Weapons/Nuclear Testing site.
[http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=315&projectId=7&projectName
=Nuclear+Weapons&contentTypeId=42&contentTypeDesc=Nuclear+Testing].
Giacomo, Carol, “Testing Is New Wrinkle in US-India Nuclear Deal,” Reuters newswire,
April 24, 2006.
Hansen, Keith, “CTBT: Forecasting the Future,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/
April 2005: 50-57.
Kessler, Glenn, “Signs Stir Concern North Korea Might Test Nuclear Bomb,” Washington
Post, April 23, 2005: 13.
Lynch, Colum, “Test Ban Network Probably Detected Quake but Was Unequipped to Warn
of Tsunami,” Washington Post, December 30, 2004: 24.
Meier, Oliver, “Hard Cases Stymie Test Ban Treaty,” Arms Control Today, November 2005:
30-32.
National Academy of Sciences. Committee on Technical Issues Related to Ratification of
the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Technical Issues Related to the
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Washington, National Academy Press, 2002.
Available at [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10471].
CRS-15

---

IB92099
06-21-06
“Nuclear Disarmament: The Long, Long Half-Life,” The Economist, June 10, 2006.
Parakilas, Jacob, “Congress Cuts CTBTO Funding,” Arms Control Today, December 2005:
25.
Robbins, Carla Anne, “U.S. Weighs Whether to Build Some New Nuclear Warheads,” Wall
Street Journal, December 14, 2005: 1, 15.
Sanger, David, “U.S. in Warning to North Korea on Nuclear Test,” New York Times, May
16, 2005: 1.
Scowcroft, Brent, and Daniel Poneman, “Confront North Korea,” Wall Street Journal, May
26, 2005: 12.
Sykes, Lynn, “Four Decades of Progress in Seismic Identification Help Verify the CTBT,”
Eos (a publication of the American Geophysical Union), October 29, 2002: 497, 500.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty: Message from the
President of the United States Transmitting Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty...,
Treaty Doc. 105-28, September 23, 1997. Washington: GPO, 1997, xvi + 230 p.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Republican Policy Committee. Anticipating a North Korean Nuclear
Test: What’s to Be Done to Avert a Further Crisis, May 19, 2005, 6 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. FY2007 Congressional Budget Request.
[http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/07budget/Start.htm]
U.S. Department of Energy. United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September
1992. DOE/NV-209 (Rev. 14), December 1994: viii + 97 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. Report to Congress:
Nuclear Test Readiness. April 2003, 15 p.
U.S. Department of Energy. National Nuclear Security Administration. The Nuclear Test
Program Presidential Authorization Process. September 22, 2004, 4 p.
U.S. White House. Office of the Press Secretary. “Joint Statement Between President George
W. Bush and [Indian] Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,” July 16, 2005.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms. June 2006, 227 p. [http://www.
wmdcommission.org/files/Weapons_of_Terror.pdf].
CRS-16

---