CTBT concerns

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2001 22:02

There are recent reports that the present US govt. wants to bury the CTBT. The reasons stated are- cant be verified, proliferation will continue, and to assure the stockpile reliability. Unstated reasons could be verification of new designs. Having said this 1. What should India do if the treaty gets buried? Keep in mind the India GOI moratarium after POK-II and the ABV and Clinton joint statement eschewing further tests by both parties. It was not commented on at that time. 2. What if the moratarium is breached? And by whom? Here are some links -Yahoo: <A HREF="http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001070 ... _dc_1.html" TARGET=_blank>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2001070 ... _1.html</A> NYT: <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/07/world ... 86deb76da2" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/07/world ... eb76da2</A> TOI- Wolfowitz and Gen Gordon(NNSA) statements: <A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/04amrc1.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/04amrc1.htm</A>

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 10 Jul 2001 01:00

maybe they are planning to fight an extended and possibly nuclear `gulf' (type) war... against a technolgically/economically `soft' but militarily `hard' second/third world power. This power unlike the old sov block will not have a large number of tech/economic infrastructure targets but will have sufficient stockpiles of usable weapons and well developed military facilities that will be capable of withstanding several conventional attacks. If it were not possible to attack these facilities reliably with the current arsenal of nuclear weapons without large amounts of collateral damage, then a new generation of weapons will need testing.. if the US breaks it (as suggested in the ToI rumor) then will the chinese attempt tests of their weapons as well or will they attempt to pass on more nuclear technology to pakistan? The second choice on the chinese part forces us to test, but what about the first? [This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 09-07-2001).]

GGanesh · Post by **GGanesh** » 10 Jul 2001 01:42

Sunil, Could you elaborate on why we would be forced to test if the chinese do so??

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 10 Jul 2001 02:57

G Ganesh,If they test stuff that seems destined for pakistani hands or if they test something that vastly increases their ability to cause destruction to indian targets, then testing appears to be a reasonable choice. In the first case a test of a fully weaponised system seems the desirable thing. In the latter case it will probably be enough to prove that we have the ability to produce larger yeilds.This will most likely end all debate on the issue of yeilds and most importantly will convey to the leadership of the PRC, our resolve to match their aggressive posturing. The effect of this tests on pakistan would be to deepen fears of `hindoo domination' among their ruling classes. This would in time weaken their economy further either through the added cost of weapons development or by ill-timed unilateral action. Atleast this i think would fall within the regime of credible minimum deterrence. The key element in our response will be the behaviour of PRC. Our decision to test in the aftermath of the chinese test will produce interesting outcomes.

Vamsee · Post by **Vamsee** » 10 Jul 2001 17:37

Bush not to ask senate to ratify CTBT <A HREF="http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holnus/03101604.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/holn ... 604.htm</A>

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 10 Jul 2001 23:28

Apparently there is a new defense planning standard being put out. I assume that this applies only to conventional forces. <A HREF="http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/sf179.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/sf179.html</A> On the nuclear end I haven't been able to get my hands on more recent stuff about their posture, but in 1993 Joint Doctrine (Nuclear Forces), <A HREF="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctr ... tm#pageI-2" TARGET=_blank>http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctr ... pageI-2</A> is the following.. <quote> b. Wartime Considerations (1) Deterring the Use of WMD. In war, as in peacetime or during crisis, deterrence of WMD attack depends on the enemy's perception of its warfighting (and winning) capabilities and will relative to those of the United States. However, wartime circumstances may alter such perceptions, possibly because of changes in the strategic situation. Shifts in the strategic balance may result from military action in which one side suffers significant destruction of military forces and industrial and economic infrastructures. Thus, a prolonged conventional conflict may lower the nuclear threshold by posing greater costs to a nation and, therefore, make nuclear attack appear to be a less risky option. (2) Failure of Deterrence. Should deterrence fail, it is the objective of the United States to repel or defeat a military attack and terminate the conflict on terms favorable to the United States and its allies. Accomplishing this objective requires the capability for measured and effective response to any level of aggression while seeking to control the in-tensity and scope of conflict and destruction. Employment plans, in conjunction with political and other military action, must provide for selected military operations. Specific nuclear objectives are specified in Annex C to the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP). (3) Controlling Escalation. Nuclear weapons may influence the objectives and conduct of conventional warfare. Additionally, conventional warfare may result in attrition of nuclear forces and supporting systems (through antisubmarine warfare, conventional attacks in theater, sabotage, or antisatellite warfare), either unintended or deliberate, which could affect the forces available for nuclear employ-ment. If this attrition results in a radical change in the strategic force posture by eliminating intermediate retaliatory steps, there may be a rapid escalation. The ability to precisely gauge the attrition of conventional and nuclear forces will directly effect calculations on the termination of war and the escalation to nuclear war. </quote>The document also says.. Although nations possessing WMD have largely refrained from using them, their continuing proliferation and the means to deliver them increases the possibility that someday a nation may, through miscalculation or by deliberate choice, employ those weapons. This assumption does not rule out the possibility that an opponent may be willing to risk destruction or disproportionate loss in following a course of action based on perceived necessity, whether rational or in a totally objective sense. In such cases deterrence, even based on the threat of massive destruction, may fail. The strategic forum link seems to imply that such a threat has not receeded, whereas the the conventional picture has evolved considerably past the 2.5 war picture. I wonder if the first half-force needs low yeild nuclear weapons to be effective in its task. [This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 10-07-2001).]

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Jul 2001 01:30

The discussion is veering away from the topic of what should India do if there is a) demise of CTBT and b) breakdown of the test moratarium? I think these are two different questions and have to be answered. Sunil does provide some ideas. Need to explore them further. Also consider that Kakodkar had said that the test site limit was ~60kt due to proximity of inhabitated villages. Also from WOP all of the deep shafts have been exhausted. The 'sixth' test site was also a shallow well- NT-3 and the device was part of the sub-kt or 'chotus' as RC calls them. So what ever has to be a new design and the site has to be upgraded if not already done.Meantime G. Balachandran writes in Jul 01 issue of IDSA's Strategic Analysis on the issue of the CTBT accession. Note he gives subtle updates since the POK-II tests. Something to consider here. <A HREF="http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jly-4.01.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jly-4.01.htm</A>

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 12 Jul 2001 02:33

The CTBT (the old timers will remember by its more endearing name of shitty-bitty which is how Pranab Mukherjee allegedly pronounced it when he was a Cabinet Minister ) is a dying animal. The only chance if its being revived is for the Democrats to control both the White House and the Senate. India should let the CTBT die an unheralded death, but honor the moratorium on testing , conditional on other countries not testing(IOW an NFT - no first test - policy).India is a defacto NWS (or more precisely a State with Nuclear Weapons). The path to gaining de jure status (which has some significance) is through negotiations with individual countries such as USA on NMD and China on CBM , with explicit reference to the Nuclear capability of India. Once you have an agreement which mentions India's nuclear weapons, you have in essence the de jure recognition as a NWS.It is heartening to see a CTBT thread last this long. In the old days (after POK II) when I initiated such a thread it would promptly sink because of apathy and ennui.Kaushal [This message has been edited by Kaushal (edited 11-07-2001).]

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 12 Jul 2001 09:00

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The CTBT ... is a dying animal. The only chance of its being revived is for the Democrats to control both the White House and the Senate.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Kaushal:Even that wouldn't do it. Recall that ratification of treaty requires a two-thirds majority vote of approval in the Senate. There will never be 67 votes in the US Senate to ratify CTBT, no matter which party has nominal control of that august body.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Jul 2001 11:30

There are two issues. 1) CTBT demise. The Admin doesnt want it and wants it to end. So there is consensus that it will be dead. No tears for this. 2) Breakdown of test mortarium. One can pontificate but those who need to test will do so. The question is what should India do? Lets see who can test and what. The US, China and Russia in that order are the capable P-5 powers as they have test sites. The ex colonials dont have access to test sites and can be discounted. However they have arangements with US to obtain lates test data and presumably can use them. What can they test? Well the PTBT prohibits the US and Russia from testing greater than 150kt. So that could be the upper limit. No such constraint is there for China. Who will breakout? Obviously the US as can be seen by the statements from the first post. Who will follow? Well China had halted its 1996 test program to assuage the world opinion about its tests. It had announced a series of tests(number ?) and halted them as run up to the CTBT. So there could be a reason to complete them. Also could be part of demonstrating resolve to the new Admin. Russia has been sliding in its conventional forces and increasing its reliance on nuke forces and there could be some incentive there. But then again they could be persuaded to exercise restraint with economic carrots from EU. Wehre does India fit in? As Sunil says its difficult to gauge without insight. But all the info after POK-II lets us make some guesses. - The test site is good for 60kt due to proximity of inhabited villages. - The doubts about the S-1 need to be set to rest to clam up pseudo experts - no need to elaborate here. - All useful shafts have been used up in the series and need to dig new ones. Based on WOP by Chengappa. - It takes two to three years to convert the design to usable configuration based on G Balchandran's article in above link. Its now three years and could be ready for a demo. Is it important to follow-up the US? Maybe as the window could be a short one. So has to be finessed with great care and make sure that it is not lost.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 12 Jul 2001 11:55

Kaushal and others:I have always questioned why we (willingly) refer to India as a SNW rather than a NWS. The definition was arbitrary when it was created, and India fits the description of the definition at the time of its creation. Why do we bend backwards to acknowledge the legitimacy of the framework that created the NWS.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 12 Jul 2001 13:23

"If India resumed testing unilaterally, would that change the world testing scenario today??"By "resume testing unilaterally" I presume you mean: conduct another test, or series of tests, before anyone else does?I think this would be an act of monumental stupidity, and I cannot imagine the GoI doing this for any reason whatsoever. OTOH, if the US tests, and then China tests -- that's a different story altogether. Under those (admittedly hypothetical) circumstances, India should go ahead and test at least one TN device and one ER device (neutron bomb). At least one of each.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 12 Jul 2001 15:28

CTBT is dead. Good riddance to bad rubbish!With regard to the need for the US to test. What are the compulsions? Why do they need to test? Do they not have enough data to simulate? Was it not one of the main reasons for the P5 to agree to CTBT?I remember reading somewhere that the US is preparing or improving a test site in Alaska? Is it true? I did not even know that they had such a site over there? Would be nice if the good Dr. Tim shares his views on the questions.If there are tests by the US and China that would present India with an opportunity to do so. IIRC the statement put out after the POK II said "this brings to an end the current series of test" so we can have a new series perhaps. In POKII we tested some weapons and weaponisable devices. Perhaps those devices can now be tested as weapons. However, what is the rationale that India is likely to advance for such tests? We have since claimed that the last series of tests are adequate for the MND purposes. We need not provide a rationale but I would like to hear from others what will be the official reason for India to test. To disprove the claims of a bunch of biased western scientists regarding the TN device? To make our western neighbour further deplete their limited stocks of chinese patakas

? I am talking largely about the letter that ABV will write this time round and not the real rationale that might force us to test.In any case, in my opinion, India should test at least a couple of sub-kiloton devices just as a kind of net practice once every 4 years. General (s)cum Dictator (s) cum El Presidente (s)cum Butcher next door will at least be kept busy finding/stealing/begging (cannot afford to buy) more patakas to bust

in keeping with their national formula of doing whatever India does plus one. Rajaram

Arun A · Post by **Arun A** » 13 Jul 2001 21:31

<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/opinion/13BUTL.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/13/opini ... TL.html</A> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The test ban treaty was signed by President Bill Clinton in September 1996, after its adoption by the United Nations General Assembly by a vote of 158 to 3. (Five nations abstained; nineteen others were either absent or so behind in their dues they could not vote.) The United States voted for it. The three states actively opposed were India, Bhutan (acting under Indian pressure) and Libya. If the United States now destroys the test ban treaty and moves to resume nuclear testing, other nuclear- weapons states will follow suit, and still other states will consider acquiring nuclear weapons. The nonproliferation regime will perish. Not only will the world be made a much more dangerous place in the obvious ways, but it will become a world in which the word of the United States will have been exposed as meaningless. There is such a thing as national honor. However intangible, it nonetheless exists and is the basis for successful relationships between states. The consequences of simply refusing to honor national commitments — of the United States going back on its word — are incalculable for American and global security. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>CTBT, RIP. Good riddance. The decision to signal a resumption in testing comes suspiciously close to rumsfelds defense review.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Jul 2001 23:25

While I lke to encourage newbie enthusisasm, I would like informed comment rather than tirades against those who provide oppurtunities. Yes it is after a review and shows delibration and not whimsy. I would be concerned if it were without review. BTW I dont agree with the NYT. The extension in perpetuity of the NPT prevents any others from breaking the bargain. The three powers India, Israel and Pakistan had not signed it are not bound by it only norms. Also as I said before UK and France cant test as they have no access. So giving the prolif. arguement is disingenous. Also think about this. The US Admin knows all these arguements and more and yet it is thinking of reviving testing. That is not a whim but a carefully thought out matter. BTW, even if the CTBT were in force the supreme national interest clause allows the P-5 to test. The worry in the elite circles was that a US President might not invoke it. Hence better to abort the flawed treaty which could fetter future generations.

Arun A · Post by **Arun A** » 13 Jul 2001 23:37

Ramana,New member doesnt always mean newbie

And i disagree with the op-ed piece too. The fact that richard butler is squirming means there is something going on about resuming testing.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 14 Jul 2001 00:07

The pretensions of CTBT are out in the open. CTBT was specifically designed to catch India by the P5.Implicit within it was also the primacy of the role to be given to China in Asia.Now the side effects of introducing CTBT are being felt by US and others. Balachandran's article gives some idea of a road map to where India will proceed in its relationship with P-5.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 19 Jul 2001 00:10

Varun sekhar had sent me this link in Current Science( July 10, 2001) for a Research Commuication by UK scientists. Looks like they argue that the CTBT monitoring system could detect clandestine tests as they would be deeply buried and hence in water logged strata leading to close coupling and hence detectable signature. Looks like some quarters are still pursuing the four letter treaty! Some please tell them the US Admin doesnot propose to bring it up for revote again. <A HREF="http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsc ... 001/72.pdf" TARGET=_blank>http://tejas.serc.iisc.ernet.in/~currsc ... /72.pdf</A> BTW, Kudos to CS for publishing this. Is some one going to still complain that CS is not peer reviewed there for this article should be ignored?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Jul 2001 21:40

Chidamabaram addresses the Indian National of Sciences in Bangalore. He reaffirms that the yields were per design and talks of ref. weapon design. He also confirms all objectives were realized and all tests were of weapon configuration. This talk could be to rebut the CS article. <A HREF="http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/0221000h.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/0221000h.htm</A> Thanks varun for your interest in the subject.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 23 Jul 2001 22:00

A finger on the Earth’s pulse K S Dakshina Murthy Gauribidanur, July 22 WANT DATA of a little-known Russian nuclear test explosion in October 24, 1990, details of every Chinese test, or nuclear tests conducted by India and Pakistan? The statistics are all here. Nestled deep in the grassland-shrubs of Gauribidanur, some 80 km from Bangalore, is the seismology division of the Bhaba Atomic Research Centre which can give information in a jiffy. Since 1965, when this division became functional, it has kept details of each tremor even in the remotest corner, like the Arctic Circle. While the centre has data of tremors caused by earthquakes and nuclear explosions since 1965, it has minute-to-minute information on the seismic state of the Earth from 1990 onwards. India keeps its fingers on the pulse of the world through this centre. Highly-classified and strictly kept away from public gaze, the seismology centre opened its doors briefly for the first time in 15 years to the media. According to chief scientist, Dr. G.J. Nair, the division has made rapid strides in the system of collecting and storing data. From the bulky analog systems until about a decade ago, the division is now moving onto a far more superior indigenously-innovated digitized system of collecting, processing and storing data. "Sanctions have been a blessing, as it helped us to devise our own systems, comparable to the best in the world," a scientist gushed. In the process, India has saved at least Rs 10 crore in foreign exchange. Earlier, analog spools with 24 tracks would record data for three days at a stretch. To process a day's data, it would take three hours. Now, there are meta tapes (the size of an audio-cassette) that can store 25 days of data at a stretch. And, the time taken for processing is just 10 minutes. The meta-tapes with a capacity of 5000 MB each (equivalent to 50 normal floppies) costs a measly Rs. 350. The division is now moving onto the next stage of recording and processing data -- the optical system where everything will revolve around CD-ROMs and Digital video recorders. "Access time will be superfast," comments a scientist. The significance of the data collected is mind-boggling. No nuclear explosion or earthquake, however, small can escape attention of Indian scientists. "With an array of 20 highly-sensitive seismometers, we rank among the world's top seismology stations," says Dr. Nair. During the Gujarat earthquake, the Government depended almost entirely on Gauribidanur to get accurate data. "In three days, we recorded 400 minor tremors, the after-shocks," he said. Normally, there are on an average 20 tremors that the station records each day from various parts of the world. Until 1996, the seismic station functioned in collaboration with the United Kingdom. "We used to share data with UK during that period. Once the agreement lapsed, we have not gone in for fresh collaboration. India is on its own now, and we don't share our data with anyone," the scientists here say.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 23 Jul 2001 22:40

Wonder if Dr. G.J. Nair has any tapes of the May 13 tests? BTW the US wanted this station to be part of the seismic montoring network of the CTBT. Gives one an idea of its importance. Dr. G.J.Nair co-authored all of the BARC articles on seismic estimates. He also re-appraised the '74 PNE in the eighties.

GGanesh · Post by **GGanesh** » 02 Aug 2001 22:48

Sunil, First thanks for the informative post. More questions to pick your brain and other experts.As a follow-up to your answer, what do you think India should test?? More sub-kiloton tactical weapons or concentrate on the megaton TM city busters?? And then where do we test?? Pokhran might pose problems in the aftermath of the earthquake in Gujarat, especially for testing any TM devices (with their presumably larger yields).

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 03 Aug 2001 00:23

G Ganesh,> As a follow-up to your answer, what do you think India should test?? A real answer to that question would require detailed knowledge about the present state of our programme and our target list and i don't have either. However i make the following guesses. If china tests a weapon for pakistan, and then hands it over to the pakistanis, then it will most likely give impetus to the adventurists in the pakistani govt. This impetus can probably be annulled by our demonstrating the possession of a `weapon' of similar/greater yeild.If China tests a weapon/device which can be used/placed on the delivery systems arrayed against targets in india, then we must demonstrate something which deters them from deploying it. To that end a number of options seem possible (again from a position of ignorance), but _if_ we choose to test something in response to this.. then i suppose we could test a large yeild device (within the limits imposed on us by the test site) and then release just enough data into the media so as to make it clear that we are capable of something bigger. [This message has been edited by sunil sainis (edited 02-08-2001).]

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 04 Aug 2001 19:36

Pakistan Talks Up CTBT On March 20, the Pakistan Observer reported that the country’s Army corps commanders had given their approval - at a meeting reportedly held on March 19 - for the government to sign the CTBT without waiting for India to make a similar announcement. According to the newspaper: Except for very negligible dissent, senior commanders are reported to have agreed that Pakistan has achieved a certain level of nuclear deterrence and the country may go ahead with the signing of [the] CTBT.” The report predicted intense consultations on the issue between the government and other groups in coming weeks, with the pro-CTBT case to be argued personally by Pakistan’s military ruler General Pervez Musharraf. The apparent acceleration of efforts to sign the test ban followed a visit to Japan by Pakistan Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar, during which the connection between the CTBT and the lifting of sanctions against Pakistan was openly acknowledged. Speaking on his return to Pakistan on March 19, Sattar told reporters: ”[W]e are moving in the direction of a better understanding that would ultimately lead towards the lifting of the sanctions in the not-too-distant future... [W]e supported this treaty [CTBT] and voted for it in 1996... We consider it to be a good treaty as it safeguards Pakistan’s interests.” Referring to Pakistan’s nuclear policy more generally, Sattar added: “[W]e do not allow diversion [of materials or equipment], and [we] do not provide an excuse to some perverse elements to exploit the sentiments in Pakistan on [the] nuclear issue... [T]his government has taken unilateral measures to strengthen controls on nuclear technology [and] exports...[and to prevent] accidental and authorised use.”On March 31, India conducted a successful test-firing of its Prithvi medium range surface-to-surface ballistic missile, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. The test was described in glowing detail by a Press Trust of India (PTI) report on March 31:“Mounted on a mobile...transporter erector launcher....the indigenously developed 8.56 metre high and one metre thick sleek missile...blasted off [from the Chandipur-on-sea Interim Test Range (ITR)]...The main objective of today’s flight mission was to gauge the propulsion parameters of the missile, which for the first time was put on trial on a solid instead of a liquid fuel system. ... Prithvi can be fired on targets located at a minimum of 40 km and take just 300 seconds to reach its target at a distance of 150 km. It had a launch weight of 4.6 tonnes which included [a] one tonne payload. However, if the payload is cut in half it can hit the targets up to [a] 250 km range...”On March 23, Samar Mubarakmand, Chair of Pakistan’s National Engineering and Scientific Commission, told The Nation newspaper that the country’s Shaheen-II ballistic missile was in a state of technical readiness for testing: “Shaheen-II is available for testing... It is for the government to decide [whether and when to test]. I am sure,, sooner or later, this decision will be taken by the government.”On March 25, The News in Pakistan published a special report, drawing heavily on information provided by Jane’s Intelligence Review, suggesting that Pakistan was moving towards the nuclearisation of its “more modest” deterrent force faster than India. On March 26, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued a statement insisting: “Let it clearly understood that India’s minimum credible deterrent, based on proven indigenous technologies and under civilian command and control, effectively addresses any threat to the country’s security and territorial integrity. There need be no ambiguity or any doubt in this regard.” Also on March 26, General Musharraf spoke of the nuclear posture required by Pakistan: “We are always outnumbered... [W]e maintain a minimum deterrence, which we will always maintain. ... [We require the] ability to [threaten the] enemy’s vulnerable targets...[and inflict damage which would] go beyond their tolerance threshold...”Reports: CTBT safeguards Pak interests, says Sattar, The Nation (Pakistan), March 19; Pak. evolves nuclear doctrine, The Hindu, March 20; Pak army clears Musharraf’s way to sign CTBT - reports, Rediff.com, March 20; ‘Shaheen-II missile ready for testing’, The Hindu, March 23; ‘Pak. developing n-weapons faster than India,’ The Hindu, March 25; Pak army green signals Govt to sign CTBT, The Times of India, March 27; Nuclear deterrent can meet any threat, says India, Dawn, March 27; Minimum deterrence essential, says CE, Dawn, March 27; India tests nuclear-capable missile, Agence France Presse, March 31; Prithvi successfully test-fired, Deccan Herald, March 31; India tests guided missile, Dawn, April 1.© 2001 The Acronym Institute. <A HREF="http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd56/56ctbt.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd56/56ctbt.htm</A>

Bharat Rakshak

CTBT concerns

CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns

Re: CTBT concerns