[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 59 (Tuesday, May 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3027-H3029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDIA'S DETONATION OF THREE NUCLEAR DEVICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega)
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by all the
media hype and the reaction of certain nations around the world,
including our own country, concerning India's most recent announcement
of detonating three nuclear bombs.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may recall, India exploded its first
nuclear device in 1974. Since then over the years India has pleaded
with the five nuclear nations, namely China, France, then the Soviet
Union, now Russia, Great Britain, and the United States and with the
nations of the world that if the world is serious about the
implementation of the 1970 Nonproliferation
[[Page H3028]]
Treaty and the terms of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is
imperative that the five nuclear nations must, over a period of time,
dismantle their nuclear arsenals if these two treaties would ever have
any real meaning at all.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues and to the administration,
let us not be too quick to condemn the most populous democratic nation
in the world, India, with a population of approximately 980 million
people, for exploding these three nuclear devices, by the way, in their
own backyard.
Mr. Speaker, for some 24 years India and its leaders have pleaded
with the five nuclear nations and the nations of the world to stop this
nuclear madness. Mr. Speaker, I submit it is quite hypocritical for the
five nuclear nations to tell the world to sign on to the
Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty against
testing, but these same nuclear nations can keep their nuclear bombs to
maintain their nuclear options, and I suppose to use these nuclear
weapons of mass destruction against their enemies?
Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain our own nuclear bombs ready for
use, our Nation is expending about $35 billion a year to sustain our
nuclear options. I raise the question, Mr. Speaker, if the American
taxpayers know that our nuclear program alone costs approximately $35
billion a year, do we need to have these weapons? Is the cost worth the
effort?
Mr. Speaker, the issue of nuclear nonproliferation now has come to
the forefront. The issue is not that India has exploded these nuclear
bombs. The issue is whether the five nuclear nations are willing and
committed to the proposition that the manufacturing and production of
nuclear bombs is not in their interest and certainly not for the world
as well.
Mr. Speaker, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently
issued a statement and a tabulation or record of nuclear tests or
nuclear bombs that were exploded in the past, and that these nuclear
explosives were conducted by the five nuclear nations. For example,
China, since 1964, when it started its nuclear testing program, has
exploded over 45 nuclear bombs on this planet. France started its
nuclear testing program in Algeria, and after Algeria gained its
independence against French colonial rule, the French decided, they
needed to go somewhere else. Guess where they went? In the middle of
the South Pacific Ocean. Did they ask the French Polynesians whether
they wanted nuclear bombs there? No. President DeGaulle decided to go
there unilaterally and test over 210 nuclear bombs, which were exploded
in the atmosphere, on the surface, and under the ocean surface.
Let us look at the record of the Soviet Union or now Russia, which
started its nuclear testing program since 1949. It exploded 715 nuclear
bombs; 715 nuclear bombs. The British exploded nuclear bombs in a
number of 45. And now our own Nation, we exploded 66 nuclear bombs in
the Marshall Islands immediately following World War II. It was in 1954
that we exploded the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever known to mankind;
known as the Bravo shot, that hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more
powerful than the bombs we exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now
India has exploded only four.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues and to the American people,
India's explosion of these nuclear bombs is because its own national
security is at risk. China having a nuclear arsenal; if you were among
the 980 million Indians living in a country like India, I would feel
very uncomfortable if my neighbor has nuclear bombs and I do not have
any to defend myself. But that is not the issue. The issue here is
whether the five nuclear nations are willing to dismantle their own
nuclear arsenals and let us get rid of this nuclear madness.
[From Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 11, 1998]
India Tests Three Nuclear Devices
(By Joseph Cirincione and Toby Dalton)
India first demonstrated its nuclear capability when it
conducted a ``peaceful nuclear experiment'' in May 1974.
Twenty-four years later, India has conducted its second
series of tests today. Included in this series, according to
Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, were a ``fission device, a
low-yield device, and a thermo-nuclear device.'' This breaks
an international moratorium on nuclear tests; China conducted
its last test in 1996. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,
banning all tests everywhere, has been signed by 149 nations
and ratified by 13 of the required 44 nations.
WORLD NUCLEAR TESTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First No. of
Country test Last test tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
China.................................. 1964 1996 45
France................................. 1960 1996 210
Russia/USSR............................ 1949 1990 715
United Kingdom......................... 1952 1991 45
United States.......................... 1945 1992 1030
India.................................. 1974 1998 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a summary of the Indian nuclear program, current
capabilities, and delivery options, derived from Tracking
Nuclear Proliferation 1998, forthcoming from the Carnegie
Endowment.
nuclear weapons capability
After years of building larger-scale plutonium production
reactors, and facilities to separate the material for weapons
use, India is estimated to have approximately 400 kg of
weapons-usable plutonium today. Given that it takes about 6
kg of plutonium to construct a basic plutonium bomb, this
amount would be sufficient for 65 bombs. With more
sophisticated designs, it is possible that this estimate
could go as high as 90 bombs.
delivery options
India has two potential delivery options. First, India
posses several different aircraft capable of nuclear
delivery, including the Jaguar, Mirage 2000, MiG-27 and MiG-
29. Second, would be to mount the weapon as a warhead on a
ballistic missile. It is thought that India has developed
warheads for this purpose, but it is not known to have tested
such a warhead. India has two missile systems potentially
capable of delivering a nuclear weapon: Prithvi, which can
carry a 1000 kg payload to approximately 150 km, or a 500 kg
payload to 250 km; and Agni, a two-stage medium-range
missile, which can conceivably carry a 1000 kg payload to as
far 1500-2000 km. Reports in 1997 indicated that India had
possibly deployed, or at least was storing, conventionally
armed Prithvi missiles in Punjab, very near the Pakistani
border.
non-proliferation regime
India had not been a party to any aspect of the
international non-proliferation regime until 1997, when it
signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Among the significant
treaties it has not signed are the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and India has a
very limited safeguards agreement with the International
Atomic Energy Agency that does not cover any of its nuclear
research facilities. In this sense, there is no multilateral
mechanism through which to sanction India for its recent
nuclear tests. However, the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention
Act, passed by the U.S. Congress in 1994 with the leadership
of Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio), imposes automatic and severe
sanctions. These provision, codified as section 102(b) of the
Arms Export Control Act, are detailed below:
sanctions under the nuclear proliferation prevention act of 1994 (sec.
826(a))
Sanctions For Nuclear Detonations or Transfers of Nuclear
Explosive Devices
If . . . ``the President determines that any country,
[after 4/30/94] (A) transfers to a non-nuclear-weapon state a
nuclear explosive device, (B) is a non-nuclear weapon state
and either--(i) receives a nuclear explosive device, or (ii)
detonates a nuclear explosive device,''
Then . . . ``The President shall forthwith impose the
following sanctions:
(A) The United States Government shall terminate assistance
to that country under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
except for humanitarian assistance or food of other
agricultural commodities.
(B) The United States Government shall terminate--(i) sales
to that country under this Act of any defense articles,
defense services, or design and construction services, and
(ii) licenses for the export to that country of any item on
the United States Munitions List.
(C) The United States Government shall terminate all
foreign military financing for that country under this Act.
(D) The United States Government shall deny to that country
and credit, credit guarantees, or other financial assistance
by any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States Government, except that the sanction of this
subparagraph shall not apply--(i) to any transaction subject
to the reporting requirements of title V of the National
Security Act of 1947 (relating to congressional oversight of
intelligence activities), or (ii) to humanitarian assistance.
(E) The United States Government shall oppose, in
accordance with section 701 of the International Financial
Institutions Act (22 U.S.C. 262d), the extension of any loan
or financial or technical assistance to that country by any
international financial institution.
(F) The United States Government shall prohibit any United
States bank from making any loan or providing any credit to
the government of that country, except for loans or credits
for the purpose of purchasing food or other agricultural
commodities.
(G) The authorities of section 6 of the Export
Administration Act of 1979 shall be used to prohibit exports
to that country of specific goods and technology (excluding
food
[[Page H3029]]
and other agricultural commodities), except that such
prohibition shall not apply to any transaction subject to the
reporting requirements of title V of the National Security
Act of 1947 (relating to congressional oversight of
intelligence activities).''
Waiver: [None]. The President may delay the sanction for 30
days.
____________________