AFF/CTBT: SOLVENCY PERIODIC REVIEW SOLVES PROBLEMS CRITICS FIND WITH CTBT
CTBT IS ACCEPTABLE TO MORE IF YOU JUST INCLUDE PERIODIC REVIEW
Harold Brown Melvin R. Laird and William J. Perry; all former Defense Secretaries, January 9, 2001, The San Diego Union-Tribune SECTION: OPINION;Pg. B-7 HEADLINE: America needs the test-ban treaty //VT2002acsln
In our view, a periodic review of the treaty is the best way to address the Senate's concerns about whether the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal could be assured with absolute certainty beyond 10 years. Such a review could begin nine years after ratification, and be repeated at regular intervals.
The periodic review should allay fears that the treaty may in the long term do harm to American security and that of our allies. If a review could not give satisfactory assurances that the nuclear arsenal remained safe and reliable, the treaty could be set aside until such assurances could be provided.
PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CTBT ANSWERS MOST OF ITS CRITICS CONCERNS
John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1993 to 1997, January 06, 2001, The Washington Post SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A21 HEADLINE: The Test Ban Solution //VT2002acsln
In response to concerns about the test ban treaty's indefinite duration, I am recommending that the Senate and the executive branch conduct a joint review of the treaty's overall impact on national security 10 years after ratification. If serious concerns cannot be resolved, the president would exercise our right to withdraw.
High-level reconsideration of the test ban treaty and a sustained interagency effort to work toward ratification would also increase congressional support for other important aspects of U.S. defense policy. For example, a bipartisan commitment to a stronger stockpile stewardship program is more likely if the program remains closely linked to U.S. support for the test ban treaty.