Iowa Should Lead on Banning Nuclear Weapons Testing

In an era when people say the
U. S. Senate is more partisan than it has been since reconstruction, it
was surprising when Sen. Chuck Grassley, recently said the
following regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty: “I voted
against ratification of the CTBT (in 1999) because I was not convinced
at that time that this treaty was in the best interests of the United
States. Should President Obama seek Senate approval of the CTBT, I will
again review the goals of this treaty and the implications for the U.S.
should the Senate ratify the CTBT.”

Even
to cynics, the last sentence is cause for hope that Grassley will
proceed on a path that may result in his changing his 1999 nay vote to
yea when the CTBT is considered by the Senate next year. There are
substantial reasons for him to do so.

During
the Cold War, the former Soviet Union had a superior nuclear weapons
array and the U.S. believed that nuclear proliferation was necessary
for deterrence. Twenty years after fall of the Berlin Wall, nuclear
weapons represent risk rather than U.S. security. The U.S., now
recognized as the last super power, negotiates from a position of
strength where nuclear weapons are no longer required as they may have
been previously.

As
President Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” Verification was a key flaw
in the CTBT Organization nuclear explosion monitoring system in 1999
when there were only 20 international monitoring stations. Since then,
more than 280 international monitoring stations have been constructed,
including some in Russia, China and Iran. They use advanced seismic
technologies to detect a nuclear explosion. There also is a new array
of “noble gas” monitoring stations that can detect minute amounts of
radioactive gases emitted by underground explosions. The current state
of the international monitoring stations is evidence of the
significantly improved ability of the CTBT Organization to verify nuclear test
explosions; enough so to ask Grassley to change his vote.

The
CTBT would outlaw testing, not nuclear arsenals. Opponents of the
treaty assert that the U.S. needs to test nuclear weapons to assure
their reliability. In a recently released report by the JASON Program
Office (an independent scientific advisory group that provides
consulting services to the U.S. government on matters of defense
science and technology), JASON concluded that the effectiveness of the
U.S. nuclear arsenal can be maintained indefinitely through the
existing stockpile stewardship program without nuclear test explosions.
If there is no scientific reason to test nuclear weapons, then another
primary objection to the CTBT has been removed. It is another reason
for Grassley to change his vote.

Perhaps
the most important reason for Grassley to change his vote is that Iowa
can and should lead with regard to nuclear disarmament. If a vote were
taken today, it would likely follow the recent party line vote to move
the Senate health care bill to a floor debate: 58 Democrats and 2
Independents on one side, 40 Republicans on the other. The seven other
required votes must come from Republicans. It is up to Grassley to lead.

Iowa
first sent Grassley to the Senate in 1980. Since then, he gained
seniority and the respect of his colleagues. During his last two
re-election bids, he won all 99 Iowa counties and even carried heavily
Democratic Johnson County with 33,347 votes in 2004. His voice has
become influential. If Grassley speaks in favor of the CTBT and of
nuclear disarmament, other senators will listen and Iowa would lead in
the next step towards a world free of nuclear weapons.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County.  Check
out his blog, Big Grove Garden.
   E-mail Paul Deaton