EXTENSIONS of REMARKS November 6, 1985 EXTENSIONS of REMARKS NEW REPORT SHEDS LIGHT on on Ratification of the TTBT
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
30916 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS November 6, 1985 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS NEW REPORT SHEDS LIGHT ON on ratification of the TTBT. In the past, the over Soviet underground tests, the science SOVIET A-TESTING CONTRO administration has opposed ratification of of verification has sometimes played a role VERSY the TTBT, citing verification uncertainties. in the dispute over arms control policy. But Dr. Thomas H. Jordan, who headed the "Our knowledge of seismological method ologies has significantly improved over the HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY Pentagon panel studying these issues, has past five years," said Thomas H. Jordan, a OF MASSACHUSETTS said that, "It appears to me right now that professor of geophysics at the Massachu IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES we can verify the Threshold Test Ban setts Institute of Technology, who was Treaty with existing national technical chairman of the expert panel. "We have Wednesday, November 6, 1985 means." If the technical hurdles have been seen a steady advance in capability." Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, for over 2 crossed, the administration should stop The Defense Intelligence Agency recently years, the Reagan administration has ac stalling and submit the treaty for ratifica completed a separate classified review that cused the Soviets of violating the Threshold tion. includes seismic and nonseismic data, such Test Ban Treaty [TTBTJ by testing some of Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to as intercepted Soviet communications. Some its nuclear warheads above the treaty's 150- experts who have read the report say the insert into the RECORD a copy of the afore review concludes that seismic information is ki!oton limit-despite what it has acknowl mentioned article. still the most important and reliable edged to be "ambiguities" and "uncertain The article follows: method for evaluating the yield of Soviet ties" in the evidence and the growing pre CFrom the New York Times, Nov. 4, 19851 tests. ponderance of scientific opinion that the NEW MEASURE SEEN FOR SOVIET A-TEST But that has not convinced some Adminis Soviets have not violated the 150-kiloton PANEL OF EXPERTS CALLS METHOD U.S. USES TO tration officials, who have taken an aggres limit. ESTIMATE SIZE OF EXPLOSIONS FAULTY sive stance on the issue of Soviet compli ance. For years, a number of prominent scien <By Michael R. Gordon> tists have contended that the evidence for WASHINGTON, Nov. 3.-Accusations by the "WE USE ALL SOURCES OF DATA" this -eharge is based on a formula-for con Reagan Administration that Soviet under "While the seismic community tends to be verting the seismic waves given off during ground nuclear tests may have violated the most vocal, we use all sources of data a test explosion into estimates of yield treaty limits are based on faulty assump when we do the analysis," said Manfred w hich does not fully account for the differ tions, according to a group of scientists. Eimer, assistant director of the bureau of ences in the geology of the Soviet test site The experts, chosen by the Pentagon to verification and intelligence at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. and that of the U.S. test site in Nevada. study test verification methods, have recom mended that the Government revise its pro Mr. Eimer said that further consideration Under pressure from the U.S. scientific cedures for estimating the power of Soviet of the issue was necessary, adding he could community, the United States had made tests. The Administration has said the test not yet say if the scientists' report would slight modifications in this formula. Out explosions were "likely" to have been bigger have an important influence on the Admin side critics, such as former DARPA con than the legal limit. istration's evaluation of Soviet compliance. sultant Jack Evernden, have long contend· The panel of eight scientists made its rec Seismology provides a window into the ed that further moves toward a more tech· ommendation last month in a classified secret world of verification research; much nically sound methodology have been re report to a Pentagon research agency and to seismic research is unclassified and has ap Richard L. Wagner Jr., the assistant De plication in nonmilitary matters, such as sisted for political reasons. fense Secretary for atomic energy. the measurement of earthquakes. Within a few weeks, we may know for If the group's recommendation is fol Underlying the debate over allegations of certain whether this is indeed the case. Yes lowed, the Government's estimates of the Soviet cheating is a dispute over whether terday's New York Times revealed that a yield of Soviet tests would be lowered by the current Administration view takes suffi secret Government panel has studied the about 20 percent, according to experts fa. cient account of distorting effects due to dif current test verification methods and con miliar with the report. An Administration ferences in geology at United States and cluded that our yield estimates should be official said the panel's report would lead to Soviet test sites. The treaty provides for the lowered by 20 percent-which should lead a reassessment of whether the Russians had exchange of geological data, but because the violated the treaty. United States has not ratified it, no data to a reassessment of whether the Soviets The Threshold Test Ban Treaty, signed by have been exchanged. had violated the TTBT. the United States and the Soviet Union in GEOLOGY IN NEVADA MORE ACTIVE The administration's forthcoming arms 1974, states that each side cannot conduct Experts say the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles control compliance study should reflect tests of explosives greater than 150 kilotons, northwest of Las Vegas, is more geologically this new finding. In the Times piece, I find the equivalent of 150,000 tons of TNT. Both active than the Soviet test site at Semipala rather disturbing indications that once the sides have said they would abide by the tinsk in central Asia. Some of the rocks be seismological evidence no longer supports treaty's limits, but the Administration has neath the Nevada site are· believed to be the finding of a Soviet TTBT violation, not ratified the agreement, saying it could partly molten. In contrast, the Soviet test not be verified unless American observers site "is older, cooler and more stable," said some administration spokesmen appear to were allowed to conduct measurements at be failing back on "nonseismic" evidence. Willard J. Hannon, who manages a seismic Soviet test sites. monitoring research program of the Law When these same spokesmen believed the On Feb. 1 the Administration said in a seismological evidence was on their side, rence Livermore National Laboratory in report to Congress, "Soviet nuclear testing California. they did not hesitate to use it. According to activities for a number of tests constitute a As a result of this and other differences, the Times piece, the Defense Intelligence likely violation of legal obligations under scientists say, some types of seismic waves Agency believes that seismological evidence the Threshold Test Ban Treaty of 1974." are stronger at the Soviet test site than is still the most important method for eval REPORT TO CONGRESS IS DUE they are at the test area in Nevada. Thus, a uating the yield of Soviet tests. It would The scientists' study comes as the Admln· test explosion in the United States produces seem to me that if the administration's istration ls preparing the latest in a series of a smaller discernible wave traveling through compliance study is going to have any reports to Congress on Soviet compliance the earth's interior than a Soviet test of the with arms control agreements. It ls due by same magnitude. shred of credibility, it should reflect the Dec. 1. This anomaly has long been known, and consensus of the expert seismological com· While the development of new weaponry Government estimates of the size of Soviet munity in its discussion of the TTBT issue. has gained widespread public attention, ad tests, based on seismic signals, have tried to The Times piece also raises questions vances in verification technology and analy take it into account by introducing a correc about the administration's current stance sis have not. Nevertheless, as in the debate tive factor in their calculations. But there e This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by the Member of the Senate on the floor. Boldface type indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. November 6, 1985 EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS 30917 has been a debate over how big the correc the Soviets are complying" with the thresh RESTOCK INADEQUATE MUNITIONS RESERVES tion should be. old test ban treaty. <By Denny Smith> The panel of scientists was commissioned The expert, who asked not to be identi in 1983 by the Defense Advanced Research fied, said that measurements using the The U.S. and its allies must build up their Projects Agency to determine the size of the panel's correction factor showed that some munitions stockpiles immediately. The need correction, or bias value, necessary in figur Soviet tests would still be over 150 kilotons. for such action is best demonstrated by re ing the size of Soviet tests. Several other But, he said, "given the uncertainty we counting an incident during the 1973 Yorn Government reviews, including one by the would not be comfortable in saying 'we Kippur War. By day six of that war Israeli Air Force Technical Applications Center caught you.' " forces were close to running out of muni have also reached the general conclusion Mr. Eimer of the arms control agency said tions.