PAST PREDICTIONS ON NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION DANGER HAVE BEEN GROUNDLESS
PAST PREDICTIONS THAT MANY NATIONS WOULD GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FALSE
Steven Mufson, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post July 17, 1999, Pg. A01 HEADLINE: Losing the Battle on Arms Control; Pakistan-India Nuclear Race Is Just Part of a Disturbing Trend //lnu-acs
For 35 years, the world's small club of nuclear powers has largely kept intact its monopoly on weapons of mass destruction, defying President John F. Kennedy's 1963 prediction that 15 to 20 countries would possess nuclear weapons by the early 1970s.
HAVING THE CAPABILITY DOES NOT MEAN HAVING THE INTENTION TO USE IT
Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Black, The Guardian (London), August 9, 1999; Pg. 12 HEADLINE: North Korea's war-game plan drives a global weapons race; Pyongyang's aims may be political, but the implications are frightening // Inu-acs
Inevitably, assessments of capabilities and intentions differ. Having a weapon does not mean using it to launch an attack, but the US has been extremely cautious since the CIA's embarrassing failure to spot the preparations for last year's tit-for-tat nuclear tests by India and Pakistan.
A NUCLEAR CAPABILITY IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A NUCLEAR THREAT
Duncan Lennox, is Editor of Jane's Strategic Weapon Systems, Jane's Intelligence Review September 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Control regimes fail to stem the spread // Inu-acs
There is considerable difference between a capability and an actual threat. Nothing that has been said above should be taken to imply that any of these countries intend to threaten another state, yet the technologies associated with ballistic or cruise missile development and operation are widely available. Should any new country wish to obtain missiles to threaten others, it is going to become much easier to do so within a very short timescale. Unfortunately, the same applies to chemical or biological weapons.