We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
On March 5, 1970, the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) went into effect, having been ratified by 47 states including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The treaty legally bars these three nuclear powers from transferring atomic weapons to nonnuclear states and formally pledges those nonnuclear states signing the treaty to refrain from developing such weapons or acquiring them from other powers. It thus caps a long effort by the United States to inhibit—so long as it could not preclude—the spread of nuclear weapons and to avoid the potential instabilities associated with that spread.
1 Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, article 10, paragraph 1.
2 For example, a Swedish study showed that an attack with some 200 comparatively small weapons (20–200 kilotons in yield) would kill from 30 to 40 percent of the population of Sweden and destroy from 30 to 70 percent of its industry. See Effects of the Possible Use of Nuclear Weapons and the Security and Economic Implications for States of the Acquisition and Further Development of These Weapons (United Nations Publication Sales No: E.68.DC.1 [UN Document A/6858]) (New York: United Nations, 1968), p. 13Google Scholar.
3 Statement by Ambassador Azim Hussain to the First (Political and Security) Committee of the United Nations General Assembly.(General Assembly Official Records … First Committee [22nd session], 1567th meeting, 05 14, 1968Google Scholar; quoted in the India News, May 24, 1968.)
4 New York Times, January 5, 1969, p. 3.
5 Quoted in the New York. Times, June 28, 1970, section 4, p. 3. Subsequently, a Japanese white paper on defense indicated that while the Japanese government will for the present refrain from manufacturing or possessing nuclear weapons, it would “not be impossible [under the constitution] to possess small nuclear weapons, the capability of which is within the minimum limits required for self-defence. …” For notes on the white paper see “Japanese Defense Policy,” Survival, 01 1971 (Vol. 13, No. 1), p. 5Google Scholar.
6 Richard M. Nixon, “United States Foreign Policy for the 1970's: A New Strategy for Peace,” reprinted in the New York Times, February 19, 1970, p. 20 m.
7 See the address by President Johnson, October 18, 1964, reprinted in Department of State Bulletin, November 2, 1964 (Vol. 51, No. 1303), p. 613.
8 United States Congress, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Hearings, 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 02 23, 1966, p. 12Google Scholar, quoted in Bader, William B., The United States and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons (New York: Pegasus Books, 1968), p. 110Google Scholar.
9 Security Council Resolution 255 (1968), June 19, 1968, for which these three countries voted:
1. Recognizes that aggression with nuclear weapons or the threat of such aggression against a non-nuclear-weapon State would create a situation in which the Security Council, and above all its nuclear-weapon State permanent members, would have to act immediately in accordance with their obligations under the United Nations Charter; [and]
2. Welcomes the intention expressed by certain States that they will provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is a victim of an act or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used. [Security Council Resolution 255, reprinted in the New York Times, June 18, 1968, p. 2.]
10 France, although separately indicating its willingness “to go to the assistance of any non-nuclear nation that was threatened with nuclear aggression,” abstained from voting on Resolution 255 and has indicated that it will not sign the NPT. Ibid.
11 The operative paragraphs of the American declaration preceding the Security Council vote were:
Aggression with nuclear weapons, or the threat of such aggression, against a non-nuclear-weapon State would create a qualitatively new situation in which the nuclear-weapon States which are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council would have to act immediately through the Security Council to take the measures necessary to counter such aggression or to remove the threat of aggression in accordance with the United Nations Charter, which calls for taking “effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace….”
The United States affirms its intention, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, to seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons that is a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used….”
The United States vote for the resolution before us and this statement of the way in which the United States intends to act in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations are based upon the fact that the draft resolution is supported by other permanent members of the Security Council which are nuclear-weapon States and are also proposing to sign the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that these States have made similar statements as to the way in which they intend to act in accordance with the Charter. [UN Document S/PV.1430, quoted in the New York Times, June 18, 1968, p. 3.]
12 New York Times, July 11, 1968, p. 16.
13 Wettig, Gerhard, “Soviet Policy on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1966–1968,” Orbis, Winter 1969 (Vol. 12, No. 4), especially pp. 1073–1075Google Scholar.
14 General Assembly Resolution 377 (V), November 3, 1950.
15 Fabian, Larry L., Soldiers without Enemies: Preparing the United Nations for Peacekeeping (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1971), p. 231Google Scholar.
16 See, for example, the report of the Indian Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses, summarized in the New York Times, September 8, 1968, p. 8.
