Pro-testing sentiment was so strong within the administration earlier this year that President Clinton had been expected to approve new tests. The law passed by Congress last year allowed some 15 safety and reliability tests before late 1996, and the Energy Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Defense and State Departments, and the National Security Council all pushed for a resumption. In April these agencies even suggested that tests, albeit under one kiloton, should continue after 1996, in violation of the legislation passed last year. Alarmed by the opposition to the one-kiloton proposal, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary, who had no prior experience with nuclear testing issues, took on her own weapons establishment. By choosing to pursue a CTB and other global agreements to constrain nuclear weapons activities, O'Leary's Energy Department could become a leader in nonproliferation efforts-a distinct departure from the past.
Many observers worry most about future testing by China.
Linking a future Chinese test to resumed U.S. testing may help deter China from testing. While the policy provides political cover, one can only hope that the administration will not take it too seriously. Testing in response to another nation's test would serve no national security purpose. By law, the United States is prohibited from conducting nuclear tests for any purposes other than safety and reliability. However, the price we would pay in conducting those tests now by undercutting our own nonproliferation goals and insuring that other nations would resume testing outweighs those benefits.