Go to Home Page
  Key Issues Nuclear Weapons Issues Terrorism Prevention Beyond UNSCR 1540

Beyond UNSCR 1540: the Forging of a WMD Terrorism Treaty

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Johan Bergenäs [1]
October 23, 2008

View the information directly on the CNS website

Printer Friendly

More on the Web
Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues

A number of factors, including US presidential elections, may open opportunities to negotiate a treaty combating WMD terrorism and initiate steps toward nuclear weapons disarmament.

The threat posed by weapon of mass destruction (WMD) terrorism, the recent reinvigoration of the disarmament debate, and the potential return of international cooperation upon the inauguration of the next president of the United States provides for an opportunity to look closely at how one can significantly strengthen the nonproliferation regime to reflect 21st century challenges. Presidential hopefuls Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) have core and important concurrences in their foreign policy agendas that could have profound effects in the international arena. Both candidates have:

  1. spoken out in favor of the return to multilateral cooperation;
  2. advocated further efforts to combat WMD terrorism; and
  3. supported making major reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a constructive step toward the end goal of general and complete disarmament.
Analyzing the political trends in the United States and globally, conditions appear ripe to initiate international negotiations on a treaty combating WMD terrorism, including binding provisions with regard to pragmatic steps toward nuclear weapons reduction and disarmament.
"Never measure the height of a mountain, until you have reached the top. Then you will see how low it was."
—1964 Journal entry by Former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld.


On October 3, 1945, less than two months after the dropping of the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. President Harry S. Truman wrote a letter to the United States Congress that read: "The hope of civilization lies in international arrangements looking, if possible, to the renunciation of the use and development of the atomic bomb, and directing and encouraging the use of atomic energy and all future scientific information toward peaceful and humanitarian ends." [2] Twenty-five years later, in 1970, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) went into force as a response to the greatest threat of the time—the widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons to more states. Today, the potential spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terrorist organizations has elevated the threat to international peace and security, and to civilizations itself. Because these groups are undeterrable and possess characteristics resembling a Lernaean Hydra—the serpent from Greek mythology whose head, if cut off, was immediately replaced with two other heads—it is of utmost importance to prevent terrorists from acquiring these weapons.

UNSCR 1540

The principal international measure currently in place to prevent WMD proliferation to terrorist organizations is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 (UNSCR 1540). However, during the negotiation's process and after its passage in 2004, UNSCR 1540 came under criticism. [3] First, many states expressed disapproval that UNSCR 1540 was primarily negotiated by the permanent five members in the Security Council, excluding a great majority of states from participating in the development of the resolution. [4] Second, states have raised concerns about the Security Council acting as a global legislator in passing the resolution. [5] Lastly, states have said that the language of UNSCR 1540 is ambiguous and lacks balance between nonproliferation and disarmament. [6] As a result, analysts questioned almost immediately whether the resolution could close the gaps in the chemical, biological, and nuclear nonproliferation regimes. [7] Also, UNSCR 1540 implementation challenges, the lack of ownership of and investment in the measure, especially in the southern hemisphere, have been well documented. [8]

Notwithstanding the criticism and implementation challenges, UNSCR 1540 has achieved some success and was in fact—as pointed out by a majority of UN member states—never meant to be a long term fix of the problem of dealing with the threat of sub-state actors acquiring WMD. UNSCR 1540 is not a "substitute for the development of strong and effective multilateral disarmament instruments." [9] UNSCR 1540 will continue to play a role in preventing WMD from falling into the hands of terrorist organizations in the short- to medium-term, but additional bold measures that will continue to build on the positive steps already taken to reduce the WMD terrorism threat are needed.

The conditions for treaty-making are optimal

Judging from political trends in the United States and globally, a strong case can be made for initiating international negotiations with a view to concluding a treaty combating WMD terrorism. Such a treaty should include: (1) binding provisions on the nonproliferation of WMD to terrorists much like the obligations established in UNSCR 1540 (discussed below); (2) a renewed declaration by all states on general and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons; and (3) binding and pragmatic steps toward disarmament, beginning with significant reductions in the U.S. arsenal, coupled with a challenge to other nuclear weapon states to follow suit. Such a treaty would strengthen the nonproliferation regime significantly and more accurately reflect the security landscape of the 21st century.

It must be recognized from the start that international treaty-making is always a challenge because, inter alia, states have intricate relationships in the context of arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament. Some analysts have further argued that even an aspirational goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is counterproductive. [10] However, parallel pursuit of nonproliferation and disarmament is reasonable—recognizing that the latter goal will not materialize for decades—since a great majority of states see nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament as two sides of the same coin. It is not only non-nuclear weapon states that argue this point; in the Conference of Disarmament in February 2008, then British Defense Secretary Des Browne endorsed the view that nonproliferation and disarmament are intertwined. [11]

The necessary preconditions for undertaking negotiations on a WMD terrorism treaty are present. First, WMD terrorism is widely considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, threat against international peace and security. Second, perhaps at no other time has the political space for substantive and serious discussions on the disarmament issue been greater. Third, there is reason to believe that the type of leadership necessary for a successful negotiating process will be present when the next president of the United States takes the oath of office. The next administration will set a new tone for the future of American foreign policy and that tone, judging from presidential campaign positions, is one of multilateralism and global cooperation.

Political space for substantive disarmament discussion

In two separate op-ed articles by former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former Senator Sam Nunn in The Wall Street Journal in the beginning of 2007 and 2008, the authors instilled hope for a renewed commitment toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. These four statesmen's op-eds have made it politically acceptable to speak of such a grand objective as a world free of nuclear weapons. Their articles have trigged numerous studies and conferences discussing pragmatic steps toward that goal. [12] The result is a growing force of advocates for a nuclear weapons free world. Even more encouraging, those joining the chorus are not strictly conservative, liberal, Republican, or Democratic; rather, the concept has gathered traction beyond party lines and past the water's edge.

In July of 2007, while serving as the UK Foreign Minister, Margaret Beckett called for a "revitalization" of both nonproliferation and disarmament efforts—basically calling for a recommitment to the "grand bargain" that was struck in the NPT in 1968. [13] More recently, on June 30, 2008, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind, and David Owen, all former UK Foreign Secretaries, and George Robertson, former North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary-General, wrote an op-ed in the London-based The Times that highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons and terrorism operating in the same world. According to the op-ed:

During the Cold War nuclear weapons had the perverse effect of making the world a relatively stable place. That is no longer the case. Instead, the world is at the brink of a new and dangerous phase – one that combines widespread proliferation with extremism and geopolitical tension. [14]

Because terrorist organizations cannot be dissuaded, the authors went on to bluntly state that "there is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons" and that such a reduction is possible through "a new historic initiative" in which states work "collectively and through multilateral institutions." [15] The authors concluded by saying that action is urgently needed and gave their support to the U.S.-based "campaign...for a non-nuclear weapons world."

US presidential leadership

As discussed above, the multilateral process, WMD provisions, and immediate and pragmatic steps toward disarmament would all be components of an effective treaty combating WMD terrorism. However, any major initiative in the international arena requires strong and steadfast leadership. Putting into place a treaty focused on WMD terrorism is an undertaking of such magnitude that only the most powerful nation, the United States, could anchor such efforts. Judging by the positions taken by the two presidential candidates, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL), the United States appears ready to embrace that leadership role.

Both presidential candidates have strong views about the threat posed by WMD terrorism. Senator Obama has stated that he believes that "The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon." [16] According to Senator McCain: "No problem we face poses a greater threat to [the United States] and the world than nuclear proliferation." [17] The Senator from Arizona has also highlighted the terrorism threat in combination with these weapons: "In a time when followers of a hateful and remorseless ideology are willing to destroy themselves to destroy us, the threat of suicide bombers with the means to wreak incomprehensible devastation should call the entire world to action." [18]

The public record indicates Senator McCain's readiness to be a global leader on this agenda:

To be an effective leader in the 21st century...it is not enough to be strong. We must be a model for others. That means not only pursuing our own interests but recognizing that we share interests with peoples across our planet. There is such a thing as good international citizenship, and America must be a good citizen of the world...engaging the world in a broad dialogue on the threat of violent extremists, who would, if they could, use weapons of mass destruction to attack us and our allies...I'd like to suggest some steps we should take to chart a common vision for the future. It is a vision in which the United States returns to a tradition of innovative thinking, broad-minded internationalism, and determined diplomacy, backed by America's great and enduring power to lead. It is a vision not of the United States acting alone, but building and participating in a community of nations all drawn together in this vital common purpose. [19]

Specifically on nuclear weapons, McCain has said that:

...we cannot achieve our non-proliferation goals on our own. We must strengthen existing international treaties and institutions to combat proliferation, and develop new ones when necessary...The United States cannot and will not stop the spread of nuclear weapons by unilateral action. We must lead concerted and persistent multilateral efforts. As powerful as we are, America's ability to defend ourselves and our allies against the threat of nuclear attack depends on our ability to encourage effective international cooperation. We must strengthen the accords and institutions that make such cooperation possible. [20]

Senator Obama has been equally clear and has candidly stated that no progress can be made on the most challenging international issues "unless [the United States] can draw on strong international support." [21] In front of an audience of 200,000 in Berlin on July 24, 2008, he said: "Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity." [22] Senator Obama believes that the United States has "to lead the entire world to reduce [the] threat" posed by terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and by so doing, he claims America's global leadership can be restored. [23]

Both presidential contenders have also endorsed the goal of a nuclear free world. To that end, as president, Senator Obama has promised that he "will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it." [24] Senator McCain's position is that "the United States should lead a global effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace." [25]

Finally, Senators McCain and Obama agree that there are real opportunities ahead for pragmatic steps toward the reduction of nuclear arsenals and disarmament. Senator McCain said in March 2008: "We do not need all the weapons currently in our [nuclear] arsenal." [26] In May he continued to elaborate on this point saying that:

the time has come to take further measures to reduce dramatically the number of nuclear weapons in the world's arsenals...I would ask the Joint Chiefs of Staff to engage in a comprehensive review of all aspects of our nuclear strategy and policy. I would keep an open mind on all responsible proposals...I will seek to reduce the size of our nuclear arsenal to the lowest number possible consistent with our security requirements and global commitments...I would also like to explore ways we and Russia can reduce—and hopefully eliminate—deployments of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. [27]

In connection to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), McCain has said that: "We should be able to agree with Russia on binding verification measures based on those currently in effect under the START Agreement, to enhance confidence and transparency." [28] Obama has said that he will "work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert... [and] we'll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global." [29] Further, in September 2008, Obama stated that:

The United States and Russia should seek real, verifiable reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons—whether deployed or non-deployed, whether strategic or non-strategic. I am committed to working with Russia and other nuclear-weapon states to make deep cuts in global stockpiles by the end of my first term. This process should begin by securing Russia's agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of START I prior to its expiration in December 2009. As president, I will also immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same. [30]

Both candidates are also on record saying that they would move swiftly toward the successful negotiation of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMTC). In May 2008, McCain said that the United States "should move quickly with other nations to negotiate a FMTC to end production of the most dangerous nuclear materials." [31] Obama agrees and has said that he "will lead a global effort to negotiate a verifiable treaty ending the production of fissile materials for weapons purposes." [32] Obama is also a strong advocate of the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and has said that building a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the 1996 treaty will be a priority in his administration. [33] McCain's position on the CTBT has been less specific. However, McCain, who voted against ratification of the CTBT in 1999, has said that as president he would be willing to take "another look at the [CTBT] to see what can be done to overcome the shortcomings that prevented it from entering into force." [34]

Recognizing that there are also some differences between the presidential candidates—for example on missile defense and how to deal with Iran—the next U.S. president will likely be open to reducing the nuclear weapons stockpile and moving in the direction of general and complete disarmament. Such a move would be welcomed by the American people, as well as people in other countries. [35] According to a major public opinion poll conducted in Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and the United States, over 70 percent in all countries surveyed supported eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world through an enforceable agreement (see Table 1). In the United States, the percentage that supports (either strongly or moderately) nuclear weapon elimination was 73.5 percent; in the non-nuclear European countries surveyed the rate was above 90 percent and in nuclear armed UK and France the rate was above 80 percent.

Table 1:

Country Britain France Germany Italy U.S.
Strongly Support 50.2% 51.5% 83.8% 78.3% 43.8%
Moderately Support 34.3% 35.1% 10.8% 17.1% 29.7%
Moderately Oppose 7.0% 6.9% 3.0% 2.3% 9.8%
Strongly Oppose 2.3% 1.0% 1.2% 0.8% 4.9%
Not Sure 6.2% 5.5% 1.2% 1.5% 11.8%
Responses to the question "Do you support or oppose eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world through an enforceable agreement?"
Source: "Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Weapons," Vancouver, Canada, September 2007.

In a different poll Americans and Russians were asked if they "favor or oppose the goal of eventually eliminating all nuclear weapons, which is stated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)." [36] Majorities in both countries, 69 percent in the United States and 67 percent in Russia, said they were in favor of that goal.

Will rhetoric turn to action?

It appears that in the not too distant future a political environment for the strengthening of the nonproliferation regime through a treaty combating WMD terrorism could exist. Although it is unlikely to be easy, if the current rhetoric turns to action there is hope for multilateral efforts. In that case, the following five key points are worth keeping in mind.

First, the proposed WMD terrorism treaty has a considerable head start compared to other treaty negotiations. Much like UNSCR 1373 (2001) on combating terrorism generally, which relied heavily on the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, UNSCR 1540 can guide negotiations for a new treaty combating WMD terrorism. The 1540's ambiguous language aside, and with the additions and modifications discussed above, the negotiating diplomats can draw heavily from provisions in UNSCR 1540 when forging a future WMD terrorism treaty.

Second, there are lessons to be learned from current UNSCR 1540 implementation efforts. For example, former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the two most recent 1540 Committee chairs have stated on multiple occasions that the UNSCR 1540 implementation process could benefit from localizing the efforts and utilizing regional and sub-regional organizations, in addition to the resources of the UN and its members. [37] Also, a recent comprehensive study on the role of regional organizations in implementing resolution 1540 came to the same conclusion. [38]

Third, regarding the specifics of reducing nuclear arsenals and moving toward general and complete disarmament, a myriad of ideas, plans, and paths are available to decrease U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles and move toward the ultimate goal of disarmament. Many prominent voices, including former U.S. Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell, have signed on to the Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn initiative. In June 2008, Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, said that: "Nonproliferation, disarmament, and the related problems of dealing with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction...should form a key part of a broader strategy for the next administration." [39] Pickering further posits that significant, as much as 50 percent, reductions in U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles are possible. [40] Members of the U.S. Congress have also weighed in. For example, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) has proposed that the United States and Russia should aim for no more than 1,000 deployed nuclear warheads, a number that has been discussed elsewhere as well. [41] Today, the United States has approximately 4,075 operational nuclear warheads including 3,575 strategic and 500 nonstrategic warheads. [42] Russia has approximately 5,200 nuclear operational nuclear warhead including about 3,100 strategic and 2,100 nonstrategic warheads. [43] In the process of reducing nuclear arsenals around the world, and eventually eliminating them, one needs not to aim for zero immediately. Throughout the reduction process one can continue to reevaluate the global security landscape. A first benchmark, as suggested by a number of analysts over time, could entail a reduction to 1000 deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia. Upon reaching that point one can take a new look on how states judge the security environment and perhaps new common ground can be found on what a minimal deterrent represents. New benchmarks can then be made on further nuclear weapons reductions.

Fourth, to jump start the process a bold sign of U.S. leadership could be in the form of a presidential announcement in early 2009 of a major reduction in the U.S. nuclear stockpile—for example the reduction and elimination of tactical nuclear weapons. [44] That step should be paired with a challenge to other nuclear nations to reduce their stockpiles as well. Russia may see merit in such reductions. Moscow has confronted terrorism and surely understands the danger of small, tactical nuclear weapons, which are susceptible to theft. U.S.-Russia cooperation in this area may be hindered at the moment in light of the recent crisis in Georgia; however, even at the height of Cold War tensions, Washington and Moscow were able to make progress in specific areas of mutual interest. For example, despite severe tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1960s, which included nuclear weapons tests and the Cuban missile crisis, both sides actively engaged in the negotiations of the NPT, which entered into force 1970.

Fifth, the United States can reap tremendous benefits by embarking on a journey to conclude a WMD terrorism treaty. U.S. reputation and popularity in the world would certainly benefit from a display of increased willingness to work multilaterally to strengthen the international legal framework in the field of nonproliferation and disarmament. As the U.S. reduces its nuclear arsenal, other states will recognize that the most powerful nation in the world is ready to not only lead by example, but also listen to the global community. A path back to treaty-making and cooperation would signal that the United States is again concerned not only with "hard power," but also recognizes the importance of "soft power."

Senator McCain has said that it is his dream to live in a world where nuclear weapons are banned; Senator Obama often quotes Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and speaks of the "the fierce urgency of now" and how what is thought to be impossible can be achieved through united effort. Not in recent history, and maybe never before in U.S. presidential election politics, have the foreign and defense policy platforms of the candidates engaged so many in the United States and beyond. [45] Leading the international community to a treaty combating WMD terrorism, which is perhaps the greatest threat of our time, would be a milestone achievement for America's next president. This accomplishment would solidify the universal human right to live free from fear from the world's utter destruction and underscore that it is a collective responsibility to work toward that goal. In the case of Senator McCain, he could proudly say that he lived his dream, and Senator Obama could alter the slogan that has defined his presidential candidacy to say "Yes We Did."

View previous Feature Stories.



[1] Tiffany Chow and Gautam Thapar provided research assistance to this article.
[2] President Harry S. Truman, "Message to Congress on the Atomic Bomb," Washington, DC, October 3, 1945.
[3] For example, see statements by member states during the following UN meeting and UN reports: United Nations Security Council 4950 Meeting on April 22, 2004, United Nations Security Council 4956 Meeting on April 28, 2004, United Nations Security Council 5106 Meeting on December 22, 2004, United Nations Security Council 5375 Meeting on February 21, 2006, United Nations Security Council 5886 Meeting on May 6, 2008, Report to the 1540 Committee submitted by India, Egypt, and South Africa.
[4] During Security Council meetings and in their reports to the 1540 Committee the following states have raised concerns with UNSCR 1540 not being negotiated in a multilateral forum or called for such negotiations: Algeria, Chile, Benin, Peru, New Zealand, India, Singapore, Switzerland, Cuba, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Republic of Korea, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Nigeria, Namibia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Brazil, and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
[5] For example, the following states raised concerns about the Security Council's role as a legislator compared to an enforcer as is the case with the NPT, BWC, and CWC: Pakistan, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Egypt, Mexico, Lichtenstein, Nepal, Namibia, Brazil, and South Africa.
[6] For example, UNSCR 1540 states that countries need to take "appropriate" and "effective" measure but the resolution does not explain further what that means. Also, the following states have spoken out in the Security Council with regard to the balance between nonproliferation and disarmament: Namibia, Germany, Canada, Peru, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Switzerland, Cuba, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Syrian Arab Republic, Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Mexico, Norway, Kazakhstan, Austria, Lichtenstein, Nigeria, Namibia, Kuwait, Thailand, Chile, Algeria, and Brazil.
[7] See, for example, Wade Boese, ''Progress on UN WMD Measure Mixed,'' Arms Control Today, (May 2007), p. 33.
[8] UNSCR 1540's implementation challenges have been widely publicized. See for example, Peter Crail, ''Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1540: A Risk-Based Approach,'' The Nonproliferation Review, (July 2006), pp. 355 – 399; Johan Bergenäs, "The Slippery Slope of Rational Inaction: Resolution 1540 and the Tragedy of the Commons," The Nonproliferation Review, (July 2008), pp. 373 – 380; Monika Heupel (2007), "Implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1540: A Division of Labor Strategy," Carnegie Paper, June 2007, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm? fa=view&id=19365&prog=zgp&proj=znpp;Lawrence Scheinman, ed., Implementing Resolution 1540: the Role of Regional organizations, A joint study by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, September 2008, http://www.cns.miis.edu/stories/080909_1540.htm; and Joseph C. Bristol et. al., "A New Urgency for Nonproliferation: Implementing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540," Princeton University, January 2007, http://wws.princeton.edu/research/final_reports/wws591f.pdf
[9] "Statement by the New Zealand Permanent Representative HE Mr Don MacKay," April 22, 2004, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website, http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Media-and-publications/ Media/MFAT-speeches/2004/0-22-April-2004a.php. Other countries have echoed this view including Algeria, Chile, Benin, Peru, India, Singapore, Ireland speaking on behalf of the European Union, Switzerland, Cuba, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Republic of Korea, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Nigeria, Namibia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Philippines, Brazil, and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
[10] See Harold Brown and John Deutch. "The Nuclear Disarmament Fantasy," Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007. Also see Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), "Next U.S. president should modernize nuclear arsenal," Financial Times, July 1 2008. Letter to the editor in response to Senator Kerry's Op-Ed, see endnote 41.
[11] Oliver Meier, "The EU's Nonproliferation Efforts: Limited Success," Arms Control Today (May 2008), p. 20.
[12] The op-ed pieces by Shultz, Kissinger, Perry, and Nunn spawned two conferences at Stanford University and one in Norway. The event drew interest from esteemed governmental and non-governmental personnel. Arms Control Today also published four articles discussing disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons in its June 2008 issue on the NPT, and U.S. Institute for Peace hosted an event on the same issues previously that year in March. Also the New America Foundation, the World Security Initiative, and the Henry L. Stimson Center have projects or are studying the nuclear reduction and disarmament issue. Also see George Perkovich and James M. Acton, "Abolishing Nuclear Weapons," Adelphi Paper, August 2008.
[13] The "grand bargain" refers to the understanding that, in order to conclude the NPT negotiations, non-nuclear weapon states agreed to not develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and in return these states would receive assistance in developing peaceful nuclear power. Also, depending on who you ask, complete and general disarmament by the nuclear weapon states was also part of the bargain. See remarks by Margaret Beckett, former UK Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at the Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference, June 25, 2007, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/index.cfm? fa=eventDetail&id=1004&&prog=zgp&proj=znpp.
[14] Douglas Hurd, et. al., "Start worrying and learn to ditch the bomb: It won't be easy, but a world free of nuclear weapons is possible," The Times of London, June 30, 2008.
[15] Ibid.
[16] See statement on Senator Barack Obama's website at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/.
[17] Remarks by John McCain on Nuclear Security at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado on May 27, 2008. See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/ Speeches/e9c72a28-c05c-4928-ae29-51f54de08df3.htm.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Senator Barack Obama's website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/.
[22] See remarks by Barack Obama in Berlin, Germany on July 24, 2008. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/obamaroadblog/gGxyd4
[23] See link to TV advertisement in "Obama Highlights Work with GOP Sen. Lugar in New Ad," on The Hill's Blog Briefing Room, http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/07/15/ obama-highlights-work-with-sen-lugar-in-new-ad/.
[24] See statement on Senator Barack Obama's website at http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear.
[25] "Remarks By John McCain To The Los Angeles World Affairs Council on March 26, 2008. See http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/ Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm
[26] Ibid.
[27] Remarks By John McCain on Nuclear Security, see endnote 17.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Senator Barack Obama's website, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/.
[30] "Arms Control and the 2008 Election," Arms Control Association website, September 24, 2008, http://www.armscontrol.org/2008election.
[31] "Remarks By John McCain on Nuclear Security," see endnote 17.
[32] "Arms Control and the 2008 Election," see endnote 30.
[33] Ibid.
[34] "Remarks By John McCain on Nuclear Security," see endnote 17.
[35] "Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Weapons," Vancouver, Canada, September 2007.
[36] "Americans and Russians on Nuclear Weapons and the Future of Disarmament," A Joint Study of WorldPublicOpinion.org and the Advanced Methods of Cooperative Security Program, CISSM, November 9, 2007, fielded by Knowledge Networks, Menlo Park, California Levada Center, Moscow, Steven Kull, John Steinbruner, Nancy Gallagher, Clay Ramsay, and Evan Lewis. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ pdf/nov07/CISSM_NucWeaps_Nov07_rpt.pdf
[37] For example, see UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's July 28, 2006, report to the Security Council, "A regional-global security partnership: challenges and opportunities"; Briefing by Ambassador Jorge Urbina, Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) on May 6, 2008; Talking points by Ambassador Peter Burian, the Chairman of the 1540 Committee, for the briefing of outgoing chairmen to the Security Council on December 17, 2007. http://www.un.org/sc/1540/docs/ chairbriefings/statement.chair.SC.14nov07.pdf
[38] See Scheinman, Implementing Resolution 1540: the Role of Regional organizations, endnote 8.
[39] Ambassador Thomas R Pickering, "New Opportunities for Nonproliferation," Arms Control Today (June 2008). http://www.armscontrol.org/node/2937.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Senator John Kerry (D-MA), "America looks to a world free of nuclear weapons," Financial Times, June 25, 2008. Also see Jeffrey Lewis, "Minimum deterrence," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (July/August, 2008) pp. 38-41. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/ articles/2008/minimum_deterrence_7552
[42] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "U.S. nuclear forces, 2008," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, (March/April 2008). http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/ pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf.
[43] Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, "Russian nuclear forces, 2008," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May/June 2008). http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/ t2j78437407v3qv1/fulltext.pdf
[44] See Pickering, see endnote 39.
[45] The US presidential election is achieving unprecedented traction beyond U.S. borders. For example, at a speech in Berlin, Germany, on July 23, 2008, reportedly about 200,000 people came out to see Senator Barack Obama speak.