Our efforts to contain and reverse WMD proliferation should also involve putting real resources--diplomatic as well as financial--into existing multinational agreements and institutions. The United States should actively support the International Atomic Energy Agency in its role of verifying that non-nuclear states do not misuse their civilian technologies to advance nuclear weapons projects, while at the same time providing credible reassurances to would-be and existing proliferators that a willingness to share information openly or dismantle existing arsenals will be rewarded. The United States must also ensure that the ongoing Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference later this year is a success. Two other equally important multilateral treaties requiring the attention and leadership of the United States are the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which is due for renewal in 2006, and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, whose mandate to gradually eradicate all declared chemical weapons and facilities has already met with various delays.

Finally, it is time to rescue the much-maligned Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty from its current limbo and bestow real legitimacy on it by seeking to reverse the negative Senate vote of 1999. Some 120 of the total 175 signatory countries, including three of the five original nuclear weapon states, have already ratified it. An administration decision to resubmit the treaty for Senate approval would send a powerful message that President Bush is as serious about making the United States and the world safe from weapons of mass destruction as he is about fighting the global War on Terror.

Some argue against the test ban on the grounds that the United States may eventually have to test to ensure the reliability of its remaining nuclear warheads. But alternatives to explosive testing exist, including the current efforts exerted as part of the stockpile stewardship program. Moreover, by replacing current warheads that were designed with advanced capabilities and very narrow tolerances with smaller numbers of less sophisticated warheads designed for reliability, the United States can ensure--without nuclear testing--the continuing viability of its nuclear weapons in the narrow roles they could play in the nation's security.

There is no greater long-term threat to the United States than the prospect of a WMD attack. This administration has repeatedly drawn attention to this truly important issue, but more needs to be done. As a first step, the United States should make the fight against WMD proliferation an integral part of its relations with all foreign countries. It should seek to influence other countries' WMD policies through pressure and appropriate rewards. It is a matter of priorities. Every U.S. administration since Jimmy Carter has turned a blind eye to Pakistan's efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its truly evil black market trade in nuclear technology and materials. We are now paying the price for these decisions in both Iran and North Korea, and they may prove to be the most severe threats ever posed to U.S. security.

The historical record makes clear that nuclear weapons favor the weak. Given that the United States is currently the world's dominant military power and seems likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, it should do all within its powers to reduce the perceived utility of weapons of mass destruction, to contain and roll back their spread, and eventually to eliminate all such weapons. Anything less would be irresponsible and potentially catastrophic.

Essay Types: Essay