Hubbry Logo
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban TreatyComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban TreatyMain
Open search
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Community hub
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Map of states' adoption of the CTBT
  •   Signed and ratified
      Signed but not ratified
      Non-signatory
  • !!! Sovereign states listed in Annex 2
  • !!! Sovereign states not listed in Annex 2
Signed24 September 1996; 29 years ago (1996-09-24)
LocationNew York City
EffectiveNot in force
9 Annex 2 states still need to take further action for the treaty to enter into force.

6 are signatories who have not ratified:
China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Russia and the United States.

3 are non-signatories and have not ratified:
India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
Condition180 days after ratification by
all 44 Annex 2 countries
Signatories187
Ratifiers178
DepositarySecretary-General of the United Nations
LanguagesArabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish
www.ctbto.org

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) is a multilateral treaty to ban nuclear weapons test explosions and any other nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes, in all environments. It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996, but has not entered into force, as nine specific nations have not ratified the treaty.

History

[edit]

Background

[edit]

The movement for international control of nuclear weapons began in 1945, with a call from Canada and the United Kingdom for a conference on the subject.[1] In June 1946, Bernard Baruch, an emissary of President Harry S. Truman, proposed the Baruch Plan before the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, which called for an international system of controls on the production of atomic energy. The plan, which would serve as the basis for U.S. nuclear policy into the 1950s, was rejected by the Soviet Union as a US ploy to cement its nuclear dominance.[2][3]

Between the Trinity nuclear test of 16 July 1945 and the signing of the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) on 5 August 1963, 499 nuclear tests were conducted.[4] Much of the impetus for the PTBT, the precursor to the CTBT, was rising public concern surrounding the size and resulting nuclear fallout from underwater and atmospheric nuclear tests, particularly tests of powerful thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs). The Castle Bravo test of 1 March 1954, in particular, attracted significant attention as the detonation resulted in fallout that spread over inhabited areas and sickened a group of Japanese fishermen.[5][6][7][8][9] Between 1945 and 1963, the US conducted 215 atmospheric tests, the Soviet Union conducted 219, the UK conducted 21, and France conducted 4.[10]

In 1954, following the Castle Bravo test, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of India issued the first appeal for a "standstill agreement" on testing, which was soon echoed by the British Labour Party.[11][12][13] Negotiations on a comprehensive test ban, primarily involving the US, UK, and the Soviet Union, began in 1955 following a proposal by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.[14][15] Of primary concern throughout the negotiations, which would stretch—with some interruptions—to July 1963, was the system of verifying compliance with the test ban and detecting illicit tests. On the Western side, there were concerns that the Soviet Union would be able to circumvent any test ban and secretly leap ahead in the nuclear arms race.[16][17][18] These fears were amplified following the US Rainier shot of 19 September 1957, which was the first contained underground test of a nuclear weapon. Though the US held a significant advantage in underground testing capabilities, there was worry that the Soviet Union would be able to covertly conduct underground tests during a test ban, as underground detonations were more challenging to detect than above-ground tests.[19][20] On the Soviet side, conversely, the on-site compliance inspections demanded by the US and UK were seen as amounting to espionage.[21] Disagreement over verification would lead to the Anglo-American and Soviet negotiators abandoning a comprehensive test ban (i.e., a ban on all tests, including those underground) in favor of a partial ban, which would be finalized on 25 July 1963. The PTBT, joined by 123 states following the original three parties, banned detonations for military and civilian purposes underwater, in the atmosphere, and outer space.[22][23][24]

The PTBT had mixed results. On the one hand, enactment of the treaty was followed by a substantial drop in the atmospheric concentration of radioactive particles.[25][26] On the other hand, nuclear proliferation was not halted entirely (though it may have been slowed) and nuclear testing continued at a rapid clip. Compared to the 499 tests from 1945 to the signing of the PTBT, 436 tests were conducted over the ten years following the PTBT.[27][14] Furthermore, US and Soviet underground testing continued "venting" radioactive gas into the atmosphere.[28] Additionally, though underground testing was generally safer than above-ground testing, underground tests continued to risk the leaking of radionuclides, including plutonium, into the ground.[29][30][31] From 1964 through 1996, the year of the CTBT's adoption, an estimated 1,377 underground nuclear tests were conducted. The final non-underground (atmospheric or underwater) test was conducted by China in 1980.[32][33]

The PTBT has been seen as a step towards the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968, which directly referenced the PTBT.[34] Under the NPT, non-nuclear weapon states were prohibited from possessing, manufacturing, and acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All signatories, including nuclear weapon states, were committed to the goal of total nuclear disarmament. However, India, Pakistan, and Israel have declined to sign the NPT on the grounds that such a treaty is fundamentally discriminatory as it places limitations on states that do not have nuclear weapons while making no efforts to curb weapons development by declared nuclear weapons states.[35][36][37][38]

A comprehensive ban

[edit]

In 1974, a step towards a comprehensive test ban was made with the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT), ratified by the US and Soviet Union, which banned underground tests with yields above 150 kilotons.[28][39] In April 1976, the two states reached agreement on the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET), which concerns nuclear detonations outside the weapons sites discussed in the TTBT. As in the TTBT, the US and Soviet Union agreed to bar peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) at these other locations with yields above 150 kilotons, as well as group explosions with total yields over 1,500 kilotons. To verify compliance, the PNET requires that states rely on national technical means of verification, share information on explosions, and grant on-site access to counterparties. The TTBT and PNET entered into force on 11 December 1990.[40]

Reagan and Gorbachev, December 1987

In October 1977, the US, UK, and Soviet Union returned to negotiations over a test ban. These three nuclear powers made notable progress in the late 1970s, agreeing to terms on a ban on all testing, including a temporary prohibition on PNEs, but continued disagreements over the compliance mechanisms led to an end to negotiations ahead of Ronald Reagan's inauguration as president in 1981.[34] In 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev announced a unilateral testing moratorium, and in December 1986, Reagan reaffirmed US commitment to pursue the long-term goal of a comprehensive test ban. In February 1987, the Soviets ended their test moratorium as the US had not reciprocated. In November 1987, negotiations on a test ban restarted, followed by a joint US-Soviet program to research underground-test detection in December 1987.[34][41]

Partially pressured by the protests causing the shutdown of the Semipalatinsk Test Site, in October 1991, the Soviet Union announced another unilateral testing moratorium. Three days before its expiration, George H. W. Bush signed into law a reciprocal testing moratorium. President Bill Clinton later repeatedly extended this until the 1996 Treaty signature opening.[42]

The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996.[43] It opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996.[43] The United States was the first nation to sign the treaty. Ratification by the US Senate was delayed by almost three years. On 13 October 1999, the resolution to ratify the CTBT, including an amendment of six safeguards, was defeated by a 51-48 vote, mostly along party lines. Unlike previous nuclear treaties, which had weeks of committee hearings and days of floor consideration, the CTBT received zero committee hearing and 18 hours of floor consideration. It was the first security-related treaty to be rejected by the Senate since the Treaty of Versailles, 80 years prior.[44]

In the aftermath, and leadup to the 2000 United States presidential election, Republican candidates such as George W. Bush and John McCain voiced their opposition to the CTBT, but support for the testing moratorium. Following Bush's election victory, there was speculation testing would resume, pointing to the CTBT's "supreme national interest" provision where nations may withdraw if they feel their security is threatened by deteriorating warheads.[45]

In October 2023, Russian president Vladimir Putin stated that since the United States had not ratified the CTBT, consideration could be given to withdrawing Russia's ratification of the treaty. Later in the month, a law revoking ratification of the CTBT was passed by the Russian parliament.[46] On 2 November, Putin officially signed into law the withdrawal of ratification of the treaty.[47]

Negotiations

[edit]

Given the political situation prevailing in the subsequent decades, little progress was made in nuclear disarmament until the end of the Cold War in 1991. Parties to the PTBT held an amendment conference that year to discuss a proposal to convert the Treaty into an instrument banning all nuclear-weapon tests. With strong support from the UN General Assembly, negotiations for a comprehensive test-ban treaty began in 1993.

Adoption

[edit]

Extensive efforts were made over the next three years to draft the Treaty text and its two annexes. However, the Conference on Disarmament, in which negotiations were being held, did not succeed in reaching consensus on the adoption of the text. Under the direction of Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, Australia[48] then sent the text to the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where it was submitted as a draft resolution.[49] On 10 September 1996, the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted by a large majority, exceeding two-thirds of the General Assembly's Membership.[50]

Obligations

[edit]

(Article I):[51]

  1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
  2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.

Status

[edit]
Further information: List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

The Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10 September 1996.[52] It opened for signature in New York on 24 September 1996,[52] when it was signed by 71 states, including five of the eight then nuclear-capable states. As of March 2024, 178 states have ratified the CTBT and another nine states have signed but not ratified it.[53][54]

The treaty will enter into force 180 days after the 44 states listed in Annex 2 of the treaty have ratified it. These "Annex 2 states" are states that participated in the CTBT's negotiations between 1994 and 1996 and possessed nuclear power reactors or research reactors at that time.[55] As of 2023, nine Annex 2 states have not ratified the treaty: China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have signed but not ratified the Treaty; India, North Korea and Pakistan have not signed it; while Russia signed and ratified the treaty but subsequently withdrew its ratification prior to its entry into force.[56]

Monitoring

[edit]

Geophysical and other technologies are used to monitor for compliance with the Treaty: forensic seismology, hydroacoustics, infrasound, and radionuclide monitoring.[57] The first three forms of monitoring are known as wave-form measurements. Seismic monitoring is performed with a system of 50 primary stations located throughout the world, with 120 auxiliary stations in signatory states.[58] Hydroacoustic monitoring is performed with a system of 11 stations that consist of hydrophone triads to monitor for underwater explosions. Hydroacoustic stations can use seismometers to measure T-waves from possible underwater explosions instead of hydrophones.[59] The best measurement of hydroacoustic waves has been found to be at a depth of 1000 m. Infrasound monitoring relies on changes in atmospheric pressure caused by a possible nuclear explosion, with 41 stations certified as of August 2019. One of the biggest concerns with infrasound measurements is noise due to exposure from wind, which can affect the sensor's ability to measure if an event occurred. Together, these technologies are used to monitor the ground, water, and atmosphere for any sign of a nuclear explosion.[60]

Radionuclide monitoring takes the form of either monitoring for radioactive particulates or noble gases as a product of a nuclear explosion.[61] Radioactive particles emit radiation that can be measured by any of the 80 stations located throughout the world. They are created from nuclear explosions that can collect onto the dust that is moved from the explosion.[62] If a nuclear explosion took place underground, noble gas monitoring can be used to verify whether or not a possible nuclear explosion took place. Noble gas monitoring relies on measuring increases in radioactive xenon gas. Different isotopes of xenon include 131mXe, 133Xe, 133mXe, and 135Xe. All four monitoring methods make up the International Monitoring System (IMS). Statistical theories and methods are integral to CTBT monitoring providing confidence in verification analysis. Once the Treaty enters into force, on-site inspections will be conducted where concerns about compliance arise.[63]

The Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), an international organization headquartered in Vienna, Austria, was created to build the verification framework, including establishment and provisional operation of the network of monitoring stations, the creation of an international data centre (IDC), and development of the on-site Inspection capability.[64] The CTBTO is responsible for collecting information from the IMS and distribute the analyzed and raw data to member states to judge whether or not a nuclear explosion occurred through the IDC. Parameters such as determining the location where a nuclear explosion or test took place is one of the things that the IDC can accomplish.[65] If a member state chooses to assert that another state had violated the CTBT, they can request an on-site inspection to take place to verify.[66]

The monitoring network consists of 337 facilities located all over the globe. As of May 2012, more than 260 facilities have been certified. The monitoring stations register data that is transmitted to the international data centre in Vienna for processing and analysis. The data are sent to states that have signed the Treaty.[67]

Possible violations

[edit]

Fission yields

[edit]

In 2020, the United States alleged that Russia had, between 1996 and 2019, carried out an unspecified number of low-yield nuclear tests in underground facilities. It also alleged that China's 2019 expansion of the Lop Nur test site would allow similar secret testing.[68]

Extremely small fission yields are created during some Z Pulsed Power Facility and the National Ignition Facility experiments (see below).[69]

Inertial confinement fusion

[edit]

Laser-driven

[edit]

There is a question surrounding whether the experiments of inertial confinement fusion facilities around the world, which initiate thermonuclear fusion in small deuterium-tritium pellets, qualify under the Treaty's total ban on the undertaking of all "nuclear explosions". John Nuckolls, the Livermore scientist credited as one of the pioneers of the field of ICF, himself described the fusion of less than one milligram of deuterium-tritium as an "explosion".

The American National Ignition Facility, the French Laser Mégajoule, and the Russian ISKRA-5, all have a dual-use, supporting scientific research for both peaceful purposes, and for the continual verification and maintenance of their countries' thermonuclear weapon stockpile.

In the 1990s, the Treaty, and especially the "zero-yield" non-criticality standard for weapons-related fission testing, was the impetus for the American Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program. Under this program, computational and experimental fusion research facilities were funded for weapon verification, including the magnetic confinement Z Pulsed Power Facility, and the inertial laser implosion OMEGA laser and the 1997 National Ignition Facility. In 1999 the US Department of Energy, in response to concern from Senator Tom Harkin, stated "NIF experiments are not considered nuclear explosions" and that "the large size of the facilities required to achieve inertial confinement fusion rules out weaponization".[70] In 1998, Princeton policy researchers published "The question of pure fusion explosions under the CTBT". They sought a ban on testing above 1014 neutrons, and on the use of tritium, which enhances the yield approximately twenty-fold versus deuterium-deuterium reactions, and forms the majority of the fusion yield in boosted and thermonuclear weapons.[71] These were not adopted, and fusion yield has increased 11,000 times since then.

In 2022, the NIF achieved 3.15 MJ and for the first time an energy gain greater than one, equivalent to the chemical explosion of 752 grams of TNT, or three sticks of dynamite, and on a timescale of nanoseconds instead of a chemical explosive's milliseconds. This led to increased concern over the status of such experiments under the Treaty, and the development of pure fusion weapons.[70]

Non-laser-driven

[edit]

In 1992, Russian scientists used high-explosive implosions to trigger fusion in less than a nanogram of deuterium-tritium gas, releasing 1014 neutrons and the energy equivalent of 60 milligrams of TNT.[72] Experiments on fusion in hypervelocity projectiles dates back to 1980.[73] This approach has been demonstrated commercially by the startup company First Light Fusion. The Z Pulsed Power Facility has carried out pulsed plasma compression experiments using electrical current and magnetic fields.

Subsequent non-signatory nuclear tests

[edit]

Three countries have tested nuclear weapons since the CTBT opened for signature in 1996, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, all non-signatories. India and Pakistan both carried out two sets of tests in 1998. North Korea carried out six announced tests, one each in 2006, 2009, 2013, two in 2016 and one in 2017. All six North Korean tests were picked up by the International Monitoring System set up by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission. A North Korean test is believed to have taken place in January 2016, evidenced by an "artificial earthquake" measured as a magnitude 5.1 by the U.S. Geological Survey. The first successful North Korean hydrogen bomb test supposedly took place in September 2017. It was estimated to have an explosive yield of 120 kilotons.[74][75][76][77]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Sources

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The (CTBT) is a that prohibits all test explosions or any other nuclear explosions conducted by states parties, in any environment. Adopted by the on 10 September 1996 and opened for signature on 24 September 1996, the treaty establishes a comprehensive verification regime including an International Monitoring System to detect and deter violations. Its objectives include ending the development of new s, preventing qualitative improvements to existing arsenals, and contributing to global non-proliferation efforts by reinforcing the norm against nuclear testing. As of September 2025, the CTBT has been signed by 187 states and ratified by 178, establishing near-universal adherence but falling short of , which requires ratification by all 44 states enumerated in Annex 2 that possessed reactors or research reactors in 1996 or were members of the at that time. Nine Annex 2 states—, , , , , the Democratic People's Republic of , , the , and the —have yet to provide the necessary ratifications, with Russia having ratified in 2000 before suspending its ratification in November 2023 amid escalating geopolitical tensions. Despite lacking legal force, the treaty has fostered a international taboo on nuclear testing, evidenced by the absence of tests by declared nuclear powers since India's and Pakistan's 1998 detonations, though has conducted multiple explosions since 2006 in defiance of the norm. The CTBT's verification infrastructure, operated by the (CTBTO) Preparatory Commission, includes over 300 global monitoring stations and has demonstrated high reliability in detecting events, such as 's tests, while supporting civilian applications in and climate research. Controversies surrounding the treaty include debates over its zero-yield prohibition potentially constraining nuclear through subcritical or simulated testing alternatives, U.S. Senate concerns in 1999 about verification gaps for low-yield explosions, and criticisms that non-entry into force undermines its deterrent value against proliferators like . Russia's 2023 suspension highlighted risks of reversal by major powers, raising questions about the treaty's resilience in an era of renewed nuclear competition.

Historical Background

Pre-CTBT Nuclear Test Bans

Efforts to restrict nuclear testing began with voluntary moratoria in the late 1950s amid growing concerns over radioactive fallout and escalation. On August 22, 1958, U.S. President proposed a one-year moratorium on nuclear tests contingent on Soviet reciprocation, leading to a unilateral halt by the , , and starting October 31, 1958. This informal suspension, which included both atmospheric and underground tests, lasted until September 1961, when the resumed testing, prompting the U.S. to follow suit. The first multilateral treaty addressing nuclear tests emerged from post-Cuban Missile Crisis negotiations. The Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in and Under Water—commonly known as the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT)—was signed on August 5, 1963, by the , , and in . The PTBT prohibited all nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, , or underwater environments, including those producing radioactive fallout beyond the testing state's borders, but permitted underground tests provided they did not vent radioactively. By 1963's end, over 100 nations had signed, with on October 10, 1963, after ratifications by the original parties; and , however, declined to join and continued atmospheric testing into the and , respectively. The treaty's primary motivations included reducing global fallout health risks and signaling détente, though verification challenges and incomplete coverage limited its scope. Subsequent bilateral agreements between the and targeted underground testing limitations. The Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT), signed on July 3, 1974, established a 150-kiloton yield ceiling for underground tests conducted after March 31, 1976, aiming to curb escalation in sophistication while allowing continued reliability checks. Verification provisions included on-site inspections and seismic data sharing, though initial ratification delays stemmed from U.S. concerns over Soviet yield measurement accuracy. Complementing the TTBT, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET), signed May 28, 1976, extended similar yield limits and monitoring to non-weapon explosions for civilian purposes, such as engineering projects, entering into force alongside the TTBT in December 1990 after approval. These pacts represented incremental steps toward restraint but fell short of a full ban, as they exempted low-yield tests and lacked universal adherence.

Motivations and Push for Comprehensive Prohibition

The initial impetus for prohibiting all nuclear tests emerged in the early Cold War era, driven by fears of an escalating arms race and the environmental hazards of radioactive fallout. In 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proposed a global halt to nuclear weapons testing as a step toward curbing proliferation and preventing further weapon advancements, reflecting concerns among non-nuclear states about the dominance of the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs. Atmospheric tests, which had conducted over 500 detonations by the U.S., USSR, UK, and France between 1945 and 1962, released strontium-90 and other isotopes into the biosphere, correlating with elevated childhood cancer rates in downwind populations, such as a 1960s study linking fallout to leukemia increases in Utah. These empirical health risks, combined with public opposition evidenced by the 1963 partial test ban's domestic support in the U.S. and USSR, underscored the causal link between open-air explosions and global contamination, motivating calls for broader restrictions beyond partial measures. Efforts for a comprehensive, zero-yield ban faltered in the and due to verification challenges and strategic interests in maintaining qualitative improvements through underground testing, which evaded atmospheric fallout but enabled refinements like boosted fission designs. U.S. President , advocating a test ban since 1956, viewed it as essential to impede other nations' acquisition of nuclear capabilities, arguing that continued testing would accelerate proliferation to states like , which conducted its first test in 1964. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), ratified by over 100 states, prohibited atmospheric, underwater, and space tests but permitted underground explosions, allowing the U.S. to conduct 928 such tests by 1992; this gap fueled demands for totality, as partial bans failed to halt vertical proliferation—defined as enhancements to yield, reliability, or . Similarly, the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty capped underground yields at 150 kilotons but lacked comprehensive scope, highlighting persistent military incentives to retain testing for stockpile confidence amid superpower rivalry. Post-Cold War de-escalation in the early 1990s catalyzed renewed momentum, as unilateral moratoria—USSR in 1990, U.S. in 1992—demonstrated feasibility without undermining deterrence, shifting focus to non-proliferation and environmental imperatives. Advances in seismic monitoring and detection mitigated verification doubts, enabling the to commence substantive CTBT negotiations in January 1994, with primary aims to constrain non-state actors and emerging nuclear powers from achieving reliable arsenals, as a single test series could suffice for basic weaponization. Proponents emphasized causal realism: a total ban would impede "fourth-generation" nuclear designs requiring explosive validation, while halting all explosions would eliminate residual underground venting risks, which had contaminated sites like with half-lives exceeding 24,000 years. The U.S., under President Clinton, endorsed the treaty in 1996, citing simulations as substitutes for live tests, thereby aligning with global norms against testing's dual harms of proliferation and ecological persistence. This convergence of technological, geopolitical, and empirical drivers propelled the treaty's adoption, though strategic holdouts persisted over doubts on long-term weapon maintainability without empirical data.

Negotiation and Adoption

Key Negotiation Phases (1994-1996)

Negotiations for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) commenced on January 25, 1994, when the (CD) in directed its Committee to draft a universal, multilaterally verifiable instrument prohibiting all nuclear explosions. Early discussions centered on the treaty's scope, with proponents advocating a zero-yield standard to ban all nuclear test explosions, while some states preferred thresholds allowing low-yield tests; progress stalled amid these debates, culminating in no agreement by September 1994, partly due to a short-lived U.S. proposal for a 10-year duration that was subsequently withdrawn in favor of a permanent ban. Talks resumed in January 1995, gaining momentum from Australia's push for zero-yield consensus and the U.S. commitment to permanence, though verification mechanisms— including seismic monitoring and on-site inspections—remained contentious, requiring technical working groups to address compliance challenges. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in April-May 1995 provided a critical impetus, with participants agreeing to indefinite NPT extension conditional on CTBT conclusion by , thereby pressuring CD members to resolve sticking points like the International Monitoring System's design and entry-into-force provisions. In 1996, negotiations intensified amid unilateral testing moratoriums by major powers, including China's final underground test in July, shifting focus to finalizing the text. On June 28, Chairman Jaap Ramaker tabled a compromise draft reconciling disputes over verification protocols and the treaty's zero-yield prohibition, though objected to Article XIV's requirement for ratification by all 44 Annex 2 states (those with nuclear capabilities participating in 1994-1996 talks) before . Unable to achieve consensus due to 's veto under the body's unanimity rule, submitted the draft to the UN on August 22, leading to adoption via Resolution A/RES/50/245 on by a vote of 158-3 (opposed by , , and ), opening the for on September 24. This circumvention of deadlock highlighted the pragmatic shift to UNGA approval while preserving the treaty's core elements, including a robust verification regime to deter evasion.

Adoption, Signing, and Early Ratifications

The (CTBT) was adopted by the on September 10, 1996, through resolution A/RES/50/245, following the conclusion of negotiations in the . The resolution approved the treaty text and designated the Secretary-General as the . The treaty opened for signature on September 24, 1996, at Headquarters in New York, with 71 states signing on the opening day, including all five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: the , , the , , and . The was the first to sign, followed by other major powers, reflecting broad initial support amid post-Cold War disarmament momentum. Early ratifications began swiftly after signing, with becoming the first state to ratify on October 10, 1996. By April 1998, the and had ratified, marking the first nuclear-weapon states to do so and demonstrating commitment from established nuclear powers to the ban. These initial ratifications, primarily from smaller and non-nuclear states, built momentum, though progress among Annex 2 states—essential for —remained uneven in the treaty's early years.

Treaty Provisions

Core Obligations and Scope

The core obligations of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) are specified in Article I, which mandates that each State Party shall not carry out any test explosion or any other , and shall prohibit and prevent such explosions at any place under its or control. States Parties are further required to refrain from causing, encouraging, or participating in any test explosion or other in the territory of any other State. These prohibitions extend universally without distinction between and civilian purposes, encompassing explosions in all environments, including the atmosphere, underground, underwater, and . The treaty's scope establishes a comprehensive, zero-yield ban on all nuclear explosions capable of producing a self-sustaining, supercritical , regardless of yield or intent, thereby precluding both weapons-related tests and purportedly peaceful nuclear explosions. This absolute prohibition applies to all States Parties upon entry into force and is reinforced by a requirement to take necessary measures to implement the treaty domestically, including legislative and administrative actions. Non-explosive activities, such as computer simulations, hydrodynamic tests, or subcritical experiments that do not produce a , fall outside the ban's purview. The CTBT is a multilateral instrument open to signature by all states, with no reservations permitted, ensuring uniform application and preventing selective interpretations that could undermine its objective of halting nuclear explosion-based advancements in nuclear capabilities. By , the treaty's obligations aim to constrain the qualitative improvement and development of nuclear weapons while allowing verification through an international monitoring , though the latter is addressed separately.

Verification Regime and International Monitoring System

The verification regime of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) comprises the International Monitoring System (IMS), the International Data Centre (IDC), and provisions for on-site inspections, consultation, and , enabling detection of nuclear explosions conducted underground, , or in the atmosphere. This multi-faceted approach relies on continuous global monitoring to gather empirical data on potential treaty violations, with the IMS forming the backbone by detecting seismic, acoustic, and signatures indicative of nuclear detonations. As of 2024, over 90% of the IMS network is operational, demonstrating substantial progress toward full implementation despite the treaty's pending . The IMS consists of 321 monitoring stations and 16 laboratories distributed worldwide, utilizing four complementary technologies to maximize detection sensitivity and reduce false positives. Seismic stations, numbering 50 primary and 120 auxiliary, detect ground vibrations from underground explosions, with primary stations designed for high-fidelity global coverage and auxiliary ones enhancing regional resolution. Hydroacoustic stations, totaling 11 (including 6 arrays and 5 T-phase stations), monitor underwater signals propagated through ocean sound channels, capable of identifying explosions at distances exceeding 5,000 kilometers. Infrasound arrays, 60 in number, capture low-frequency atmospheric waves from aerial or surface bursts, with each array comprising multiple sensors spaced to triangulate event locations. Radionuclide stations (80 total, with 40 equipped for detection) and laboratories sample airborne particulates and isotopes, providing direct chemical evidence of fission products unique to nuclear reactions. Data from IMS stations are transmitted in near real-time to the IDC in , , where automated and analyst-reviewed processing generates event bulletins, screening analyses, and products distributed to all state signatories within 48 hours of detection. The IDC's role extends to archiving raw data and facilitating national technical means integration, ensuring transparency while states retain sovereignty over interpretation; for instance, it has processed signals from over 2,000 seismic events annually, distinguishing explosions from earthquakes via characteristics and historical baselines. On-site inspections serve as the regime's ultimate verification tool, permitting up to 25 to deploy within six days of a request by 30 or more states, using techniques such as drilling for subsurface samples, overflight visual observations, and environmental sampling to confirm or refute evidence within a 1,000-square-kilometer area. Triggered only post-IMS detection and Executive Council approval, OSIs are limited to 130 days duration and cannot occur until treaty , underscoring their role in resolving ambiguities rather than routine enforcement. Complementary mechanisms include voluntary , such as national reports on unusual events, and consultation procedures to address data discrepancies without immediate escalation.

Ratification and Entry into Force

Ratification Milestones and Timeline

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) opened for signature on 24 September 1996 at the in New York, attracting 71 initial signatories on the first day, including the five recognized nuclear-weapon states under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The was the first to sign, followed rapidly by others, bringing total signatures to 187 states by 2025. Ratifications commenced shortly thereafter, with depositing its instrument as the first state on 10 1996. Among the 44 states listed in Annex 2—whose ratifications are required for the treaty's —progress was uneven but marked by several pivotal steps. The and , both nuclear-weapon states, ratified simultaneously on 6 April 1998, becoming the first such states to do so and signaling early commitment from established nuclear powers. followed on 30 June 2000, advancing the count of Annex 2 ratifiers. Overall ratifications reached 100 states by 30 April 2003, when acceded, reflecting growing global adherence despite the treaty's provisional status. By 2009, the tally approached 150, with Liberia's ratification in August contributing to near-universal momentum among non-Annex 2 states. A significant Annex 2 milestone occurred on 6 February 2012, when ratified, elevating the number of Annex 2 ratifiers to 36 and leaving eight holdouts at that time. The treaty's total ratifications continued to climb, reaching 178 states by September 2025. However, Russia's withdrawal of its —formally enacted by President Putin on 2 November 2023 following parliamentary approval—reversed its 2000 endorsement and reduced the effective Annex 2 ratifiers to 35, amid escalating geopolitical tensions. This action, while not constituting a full withdrawal from the treaty itself, underscored vulnerabilities in the ratification process.
Key Annex 2 Ratification MilestonesDateState(s)
First nuclear-weapon states to ratify6 April 1998,
Additional nuclear power ratification30 June 2000
36th Annex 2 ratification6 February 2012
Revocation reducing count to 352 November 2023 (withdrawal)

Current Status of Annex 2 States

As of September 2025, 35 of the 44 states listed in Annex 2 to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)—those identified during negotiations as possessing nuclear reactors for power generation or research and having nuclear weapons or pursuing advanced —have deposited instruments of . The treaty specifies that it enters into force 180 days after by all Annex 2 states, a threshold unmet due to persistent non-ratifications and one revocation. Russia's 2000 ratification was revoked by presidential decree signed on November 2, 2023, following parliamentary approval, reducing the number of ratifying Annex 2 states from 36 to 35; this action has been described by UN Secretary-General as deeply regrettable, citing risks to the global norm against nuclear testing. No further ratifications among Annex 2 states have occurred as of October 2025. The nine Annex 2 states yet to provide effective ratification are detailed below, including their signature status and key positions:
StateSignedRatification StatusKey Details
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedConditions ratification on U.S. action; maintains testing moratorium.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea ()NoNot signed or ratifiedConducted nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, and 2017; no adherence to treaty.
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedLinks ratification to nuclear-weapon-free zone progress.
NoNot signed or ratifiedConducted tests in 1998; opposes treaty without universal coverage including fissile material cutoff.
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedMaintains no nuclear weapons policy but advances enrichment; faces international scrutiny.
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedPolicy of nuclear ambiguity; has not conducted known tests post-1979.
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedConducted tests in 1998; ties ratification to India's actions.
Yes (1996)Ratified (2000), revoked (2023)Revocation cited U.S. non-ratification and concerns over verification; continues de facto moratorium.
Yes (1996)Not ratifiedSigned under ; Senate rejected in 1999; maintains testing moratorium since 1992.
These holdouts include all five recognized nuclear-weapon states except and the , which ratified in , underscoring geopolitical barriers to universality. Despite non-entry into force, the treaty's Provisional Technical Secretariat oversees a partially operational International Monitoring System, contributing to verification norms.

Reasons for Holdouts and Non-Ratification

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) requires ratification by all 44 Annex 2 states for entry into force, yet eight remain holdouts as of October 2025: , , , , , , , and the . These states cite imperatives, verification shortcomings, and geopolitical asymmetries as primary barriers, reflecting a prioritization of deterrence capabilities over global non-proliferation norms. In the United States, the rejected on October 13, 1999, by a 51-48 vote, primarily due to concerns over the treaty's verification regime's inability to reliably detect low-yield nuclear tests below 1 kiloton, potentially allowing covert cheating by adversaries. Critics also argued that forgoing explosive testing would undermine confidence in the reliability and safety of the U.S. nuclear stockpile, especially amid aging warheads and evolving threats, without proven alternatives like computer simulations fully compensating. Subsequent administrations have maintained a testing moratorium since 1992 but avoided resubmission, citing persistent technical doubts and the need for unilateral flexibility in . China, having signed the CTBT on September 24, , has adhered to a voluntary testing moratorium since its last test in but conditions ratification on U.S. approval, viewing American possession of advanced stockpiles and non-ratification as evidence of unequal commitments. emphasizes its restraint—conducting no tests post-signature—while expressing reservations about intrusive on-site inspections that could compromise sensitive facilities, prioritizing strategic parity with the U.S. amid expanding its own . India and Pakistan, neither having signed the treaty, link non-participation to regional rivalries and perceived discrimination in the nuclear order, where established powers retain advantages without parallel . objects to the CTBT's zero-yield ban as overly restrictive for ensuring against and , insisting on linkages to a verifiable cutoff treaty and broader . mirrors this stance, refusing to act first due to 's conventional and nuclear superiority, historical sanctions post-1998 tests, and the need for testing rights to match asymmetric threats. North Korea has neither signed nor ratified, continuing nuclear development through six declared tests from 2006 to 2017, driven by regime survival and deterrence against perceived U.S. aggression, with no inclination toward verification mechanisms that could expose its program. Its 2018 testing pause was tactical, tied to summits rather than commitments, underscoring rejection of constraints on explosive experimentation for advanced warhead designs. In the , —signed but unratified—cites existential security threats and the absence of a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone, avoiding commitments that might limit qualitative improvements to its undeclared arsenal amid hostile neighbors. and , both signatories without , condition action on Israel's accession and regional stability, with demanding progress toward denuclearization and highlighting Israeli opacity alongside its own disputed enrichment activities as barriers to trust. These positions entrench a , where mutual suspicions preclude unilateral restraint.

Implementation and Compliance Mechanisms

CTBTO Preparatory Commission Role

The (CTBTO PrepCom) was established on 19 November 1996 through a resolution adopted by the States Signatories to the CTBT at Headquarters in New York, with its first session convening the following day. Headquartered in , , the Commission's dual mandate encompasses promoting the Treaty's entry into force—requiring by all 44 specified Annex 2 States—and preparing the requisite infrastructure for its verification regime to ensure operability upon activation. This preparatory function persists due to the Treaty's provisional status, as would trigger the transition to the full CTBTO. The Commission's structure includes a plenary body composed of representatives from all 187 States Signatories, which convenes regular sessions to oversee progress and decision-making. It is supported by subsidiary organs such as , addressing administrative, financial, and legal matters; , focused on verification regime development; and an Advisory Group providing financial expertise. Day-to-day operations are managed by the Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS), established on 17 March 1997 and staffed by over 300 professionals from approximately 93 Member States, divided into divisions for the International Monitoring System (IMS), International Data Centre (IDC), on-site inspections, and administrative support. Funding derives primarily from assessed contributions scaled to the formula, supplemented by voluntary inputs, with the 2025 budget approved at US$139.31 million. Central to the PrepCom's responsibilities is constructing the IMS, a global network of 321 monitoring stations and 16 radionuclide laboratories employing seismic, hydroacoustic, , and detection technologies to identify potential nuclear explosions anywhere on Earth. The IDC processes and analyzes data from these facilities, disseminating bulletins to States Signatories for review. Additional efforts include negotiating host-state agreements for IMS installations, developing operational manuals and procedures for on-site inspections, conducting training exercises, and certifying equipment to ensure readiness. The Commission also fosters international cooperation, such as through a 2000 agreement with the for administrative support and data-sharing for civil applications like early warnings. These activities have advanced the verification system's technical maturity, enabling provisional monitoring of compliance despite the absence of full legal enforcement.

On-Site Inspections and Confidence-Building Measures

On-site inspections (OSIs) constitute the final verification measure in the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty's (CTBT) regime, allowing a requesting State Party to investigate suspected nuclear explosions on the territory of an inspected State Party. A request is triggered by data from the International Monitoring System or national technical means indicating a possible violation, specifying the event's time, location, and environment; the Executive Council must approve or reject it within 96 hours following initial processing by the Technical Secretariat. Once approved, an international team of up to 40 inspectors, experts in fields such as , , and detection, deploys within six days to an area not exceeding 1,000 km² centered on the suspected site. The inspection proceeds in phases: an initial period of up to 25 days for field activities, extendable to 60 days, with a further 70-day extension possible if approved, for a maximum duration of 130 days. Permitted techniques include visual observation, mobile ground-based measurements, airborne sampling, and, with inspected State Party consent, drilling up to 30 meters or overflights; these aim to detect radioactive isotopes or other explosion signatures while respecting constraints. Inspectors produce a first progress report within 25 days, preliminary findings within 24 hours of completion, and a final report assessing compliance, which the inspected State Party reviews before submission to all States Parties and the Executive Council. No OSIs have occurred under the Treaty, as it has not entered into force, though preparatory exercises simulate these procedures to ensure readiness. Confidence-building measures (CBMs), outlined in Part III of the CTBT Protocol, are voluntary actions by States Parties to enhance transparency and reduce ambiguities in verification data. These include advance notification to the (CTBTO) of chemical explosions equivalent to 300 tonnes or more of TNT, which could mimic seismic signals of nuclear tests, as well as reports on releases of radioactive or effluents from nuclear facilities that might produce detections. Additional CBMs cover explosions for monitoring equipment and voluntary data sharing on large-scale civil explosions or mining activities to aid in distinguishing benign events from potential violations. By fostering cooperation, these measures support the Treaty's objective of promoting compliance without mandatory intrusive access, though their effectiveness relies on participation levels among States Parties.

Handling Alleged Violations

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty establishes procedures for addressing suspected violations primarily through its verification regime, beginning with consultation and clarification mechanisms under Article IV. Upon detection of a potential via the International Monitoring System (IMS), which includes over 300 global stations for seismic, hydroacoustic, , and monitoring, any State Party may request the suspected state to provide clarification regarding the event's nature and compliance with the treaty. The CTBTO's Technical Secretariat facilitates this by sharing IMS data with Member States in near real-time, enabling independent analysis to assess whether the event constitutes a prohibited test explosion or other . If clarification proves insufficient, a State Party may invoke Article V to request an on-site inspection (OSI) of the suspected site to verify compliance. The OSI request must specify the suspected event's location, date, and rationale, and is forwarded to the Executive Council, which decides within 96 hours by a two-thirds majority vote, including at least half the members from each regional group excluding the inspected state's group. Inspections, limited to 130 days and involving teams of up to 40 inspectors, employ techniques such as visual observation, sampling for radionuclides, seismic monitoring, and environmental sampling to collect evidence of a . The inspected state must permit access to the site and provide logistical support, though confidentiality protections apply to non-relevant information. Since the CTBT has not entered into force, OSIs remain provisional and unconducted, with compliance handled through the CTBTO Preparatory Commission (PrepCom), which operates the IMS and conducts exercises like Integrated Field Exercises to test OSI readiness. In practice, alleged violations by signatories or ratifiers prompt data-driven responses; for instance, following U.S. allegations of Russian low-yield tests at in 2019, CTBTO analysis of samples from global stations found no evidence of products, underscoring the IMS's role in debunking unsubstantiated claims. Persistent non-compliance can lead to complaints under Article VI, referral to the UN Security Council for investigation or sanctions, though enforcement relies on Council consensus, which geopolitical tensions often hinder. Confidence-building measures complement these processes, allowing voluntary data exchanges and visits to clarify ambiguities without formal inspections. The system's effectiveness is evidenced by the IMS's detection of all declared nuclear tests since 1996, including 's six events (2006–2017), though non-signatories like face no direct treaty obligations, limiting recourse to diplomatic isolation and UN resolutions.

Controversies and Alleged Breaches

Suspected Nuclear Explosions by States

In 1997, a magnitude 3.5 seismic event detected on August 16 near Russia's test site prompted initial suspicions of a clandestine , amid reports of Russian activities at the facility. Russia denied conducting a test, attributing the event to a natural in the . U.S. intelligence, including the CIA, investigated and concluded the event was not a , though it concurred with evidence of related non-nuclear weapons experiments at the site. Subsequent seismological analyses supported the origin, highlighting challenges in distinguishing low-magnitude events but underscoring the effectiveness of global monitoring in resolving ambiguities without confirming a violation. More persistent allegations emerged in the concerning Russia's adherence to the zero-yield standard underpinning the CTBT, with U.S. assessing that Russia conducted approximately 10 low-yield nuclear tests (below 1 kiloton) at since 1998. In 2019, publicly stated that Russia "probably is not adhering" to the moratorium in a zero-yield manner, citing on "supercritical" hydrodynamic tests involving that exceeded zero yield. Russia rejected the claims, maintaining that its activities—such as hydronuclear experiments—remained at zero yield and complied with its interpretation of the CTBT, which lacks an explicit yield threshold in its text banning "nuclear weapon test explosion or any other ." These U.S. assertions, reiterated in compliance reports through 2022, relied on classified intelligence rather than verifiable seismic data from the CTBTO's International Monitoring System, which has not detected evidence of such explosions. Critics, including experts, argue the allegations may conflate permitted subcritical tests (zero yield, no ) with prohibited explosions, potentially reflecting U.S. domestic debates over CTBT rather than irrefutable evidence of breach. No on-site inspections occurred due to the treaty's non-entry into force, leaving the dispute unresolved and highlighting interpretive ambiguities in low-yield activities. No similar suspicions of nuclear explosions have been credibly leveled against other CTBT signatories or ratifiers, such as the , , , or , which maintain voluntary moratoria and conduct only zero-yield experiments.

Inertial Confinement Fusion and Subcritical Tests

Subcritical nuclear experiments involve the use of conventional high explosives to compress fissile materials, such as , without initiating a self-sustaining supercritical or producing any nuclear yield. These tests are permitted under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which prohibits only test explosions or other nuclear explosions, as they maintain a zero-yield standard consistent with the treaty's scope. The has conducted 34 such experiments since its 1992 testing moratorium, with the most recent on May 14, 2024, at the PULSE facility in the Nevada National Security Site's U1a Complex. These experiments provide empirical data on material behavior under extreme conditions, supporting the U.S. Program to certify the safety, security, and reliability of nuclear warheads without full-scale detonations. Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) experiments, conducted at facilities like the National Ignition Facility (NIF) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, employ high-powered lasers to compress and heat fusion fuel targets, achieving inertial confinement without relying on fission chain reactions for yield. On December 5, 2022, NIF achieved scientific breakeven ignition, producing 3.15 megajoules of fusion energy from 2.05 megajoules of laser input, marking the first controlled experiment to yield net energy gain from fusion. While primarily advancing fusion energy research, ICF also informs nuclear weapons physics by simulating implosion dynamics and high-energy-density states relevant to warhead primaries, all while adhering to subcritical conditions that avoid supercritical fission. Critics, including some Russian officials prior to 2024 statements, have questioned whether advanced ICF or subcritical tests erode the CTBT's non-proliferation goals by enabling weapons refinement without explosive yields. However, U.S. authorities and independent analyses affirm compliance, noting that these methods do not circumvent the treaty's ban, as no self-sustaining fission occurs, and itself acknowledged in May 2024 that a recent U.S. subcritical experiment posed no violation. Such activities sustain deterrence credibility amid testing restraints but have prompted calls for enhanced transparency measures, like data-sharing protocols, to build confidence among CTBT states. Empirical validation from these tests remains essential for addressing aging uncertainties, as computer simulations alone cannot fully replicate explosive hydrodynamics.

Russia's 2023 Revocation and Geopolitical Tensions

On November 2, 2023, Russian President signed a revoking Russia's of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it had originally ratified in 2000. The move followed the Russian State Duma's approval of the bill on , 2023, and the Council's concurrence, effectively aligning Russia's legal status under the treaty with that of the , which signed but has not ratified the CTBT. Russian officials emphasized that the revocation does not permit or intend a resumption of nuclear explosive testing, stating that would adhere to its voluntary moratorium on such tests—observed since 1990—unless other states, particularly the U.S., end theirs. Russia cited the U.S. failure to ratify the treaty, despite signing it in , as a primary justification, arguing that this asymmetry undermined the CTBT's universality and entry-into-force requirements under Article XIV, which necessitate by all 44 2 states. Additionally, expressed concerns over perceived U.S. advancements in simulated and subcritical nuclear testing capabilities at sites like the National Security Site, which Russia views as eroding the treaty's non-proliferation objectives without violating its terms. The decision was framed as a reciprocal measure to restore parity, amid broader grievances including NATO's expansion and support for , which Russian statements linked to the degradation of post-Cold War frameworks. The revocation drew sharp condemnation from Western governments and international bodies, who described it as a destabilizing step that jeopardizes the global norm against nuclear testing, established since the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963. , via its High Representative, urged Russia to reverse the action and reaffirmed the CTBT's role in preventing proliferation, while the U.S. State Department called it "deeply regrettable" but reiterated its own commitment to the testing moratorium. Analysts noted that the move increases the number of non-ratifying Annex 2 states to nine, further delaying the treaty's and heightening risks of miscalculation in an era of eroding , including 's 2023 suspension of inspections and prior withdrawals from treaties like the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces agreement. Geopolitically, the revocation amplified tensions in the Russia-West confrontation, particularly over the conflict, where has invoked nuclear deterrence rhetoric to deter involvement. It signaled Russia's willingness to leverage nuclear policy for strategic leverage, potentially encouraging other holdout states like or to delay ratifications, though no immediate testing resumption has occurred as of 2025. Critics, including experts, argue that while the U.S. non-ratification bears responsibility, Russia's action disproportionately harms the treaty's verification regime, managed by the (CTBTO), by withdrawing from obligations like on-site inspections. This has prompted calls for renewed U.S. consideration of to counterbalance the setback, though domestic political divisions persist.

Strategic Implications

Impact on Nuclear Deterrence and Reliability

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has sparked debate over its effects on the reliability of established nuclear arsenals and the credibility of deterrence postures, particularly for states like the that have adhered to a testing moratorium since 1992. Critics contend that prohibiting all nuclear explosion tests impedes the ability to detect and remedy latent defects in aging warheads, such as plutonium pit degradation or component failures, which could compromise yield and performance under operational stresses. For instance, full-yield testing has historically revealed "infant mortality" issues in newly deployed weapons and enabled iterative improvements to features, processes that simulations alone cannot fully replicate due to uncertainties in modeling complex hydrodynamic and nuclear interactions. This limitation raises concerns about long-term stockpile confidence, as untested modifications—for example, to enhance or adapt to new delivery systems—risk unverified outcomes, potentially eroding the perceived invulnerability of deterrence signals to adversaries. In response, the U.S. (NNSA) maintains that the Program (SSP), established post-1992, sustains a safe, secure, and effective deterrent through advanced computational simulations, subcritical experiments, and enhanced surveillance without explosive testing. Annual assessments by NNSA laboratories, including Lawrence Livermore, [Los Alamos](/page/Los Alamos), and Sandia, certify reliability, with the 2025 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan affirming no resumed testing is required to address identified issues in the current arsenal of approximately 3,700 . Subcritical tests, conducted 27 times since 1997 at the Nevada Site, probe material behaviors under extreme conditions without nuclear yield, while supercomputing campaigns model full-system performance, reportedly achieving confidence levels comparable to pre-moratorium eras. However, skeptics, including some defense analysts, argue these methods introduce epistemic risks, as they extrapolate from partial data and cannot validate integrated weapon effects at scale, potentially masking subtle degradation over decades—evidenced by historical test data showing discrepancies between predictions and actual explosions. From a deterrence perspective, a reliable underpins extended deterrence commitments, such as U.S. assurances to allies against threats from or , where any perceived doubt in functionality could invite miscalculation or embolden revisionist actors. Proponents of the CTBT assert that the treaty reinforces deterrence by constraining adversaries' qualitative improvements, as seen in the post-1996 norm limiting explosive testing globally, though non-signatories like have conducted six tests since 2006. Yet, from the U.S. experience—over 30 years without testing and no certified failures—suggests short-term reliability holds, but first-principles analysis of indicates that without occasional full-yield validation, cumulative uncertainties could degrade deterrence credibility amid evolving threats, such as hypersonic delivery systems or advanced countermeasures. 's 2023 legislative revocation of CTBT ratification, citing needs for "readiness" amid Ukraine-related tensions, exemplifies how perceived reliability gaps can prompt doctrinal shifts toward potential resumption, heightening global risks.

Stockpile Stewardship Challenges Without Testing

The United States has maintained its nuclear stockpile without full-scale explosive testing since the 1992 moratorium, relying on the Science-Based Program (SSP) administered by the (NNSA). This program employs advanced computational simulations, subcritical experiments, hydrodynamic testing facilities like the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT) at Los Alamos, and at the (NIF) to assess weapon performance, safety, and reliability. However, these methods cannot fully replicate the integrated physics of a , leading to inherent uncertainties in certifying the stockpile's long-term efficacy. A primary challenge involves the aging of plutonium pits, the fissile cores of nuclear warheads, which degrade over decades due to processes like helium accumulation from , potentially affecting implosion symmetry and yield. NNSA estimates pit lifetimes at 85 to 100 years or more, but without explosive testing, validation relies on surrogate materials and models that may not capture subtle failure modes in aged primaries. This has delayed life extension programs (LEPs), such as the W87-1 warhead, where certification of refurbished components depends on high-fidelity simulations rather than empirical data from integrated tests. Critics, including former national laboratory directors, argue that such approaches risk undetected degradations, as historical testing data from over 1,000 U.S. explosions prior to cannot be perfectly extrapolated to modern modifications without verification. Another limitation is the erosion of institutional knowledge, as the cohort of scientists and engineers with direct experience in nuclear testing—numbering in the thousands during the —has largely retired, with no replacements gaining equivalent hands-on expertise. SSP efforts to train new personnel through simulations and non-nuclear experiments have proven insufficient for complex boost gas dynamics and secondary stage performance, areas historically resolved via underground tests. audits have highlighted surveillance program gaps, including incomplete component tracking and delays in addressing technical limitations identified in annual assessments. In an environment of peer competition, where adversaries like and may conduct covert or threshold tests, these constraints amplify risks to deterrence credibility, prompting calls for resuming limited testing to resolve uncertainties. Subcritical and hydronuclear experiments, permitted under the CTBT, provide data on materials under extreme conditions but fall short for full-system validation, particularly for low-yield boosts or altered designs in LEPs. NNSA's FY2025 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan acknowledges ongoing investments in exascale computing to mitigate these gaps, yet independent reviews, such as those by the JASON advisory group, have repeatedly flagged persistent modeling discrepancies that testing could resolve. Without explosive tests, stewardship prioritizes refurbishment over innovation, limiting adaptability to evolving threats while assuming stockpile reliability based on probabilistic confidence rather than deterministic proof.

Effectiveness Against Proliferation and Evasion Tactics

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) seeks to impede by prohibiting all test explosions, thereby constraining the development of new designs and the refinement of existing arsenals that typically require empirical testing to ensure reliability and yield. However, its effectiveness remains limited, as non-signatory states such as and conducted nuclear tests in 1998 after the treaty's opening for signature, and has performed six declared tests since 2006 despite the global norm against testing. These instances demonstrate that determined proliferators unbound by the treaty can advance capabilities through overt explosions, underscoring that the CTBT's non-entry into force—requiring by 44 specific states, eight of which have not—undermines its enforceability against non-participants. Even among signatories, proliferation risks persist due to potential evasion of the treaty's zero-yield on self-sustaining supercritical chain reactions, allowing activities like subcritical experiments that implore without achieving but still yield data on weapon behavior. The , for instance, has conducted over 30 subcritical tests since 1997 to support without violating the CTBT's terms, as these do not produce nuclear yield; similar approaches could enable incremental advancements by other states, blurring the line between permitted research and proliferation-enabling work. Critics argue this loophole, combined with advanced simulations and hydrodynamic testing, allows sophisticated actors to iterate designs covertly, reducing the treaty's barrier to qualitative improvements in arsenals. Verification challenges further erode effectiveness against evasion, with the International Monitoring System (IMS) capable of detecting explosions above 1 kiloton with high confidence via seismic, , and hydroacoustic sensors, yet struggling with yields below 10 kilotons if in large underground cavities to attenuate signals by factors of 70-100 in magnitude. Cavity decoupling, a historically studied method involving tests in salt domes or mined voids, remains a credible evasion tactic for yields up to hundreds of tons, as seismic masking could render events indistinguishable from natural quakes or blasts. Mine masking, where explosions coincide with industrial seismic noise, and spoofing techniques like chemical explosions to simulate or obscure signatures, pose additional hurdles, though noble gas detection (e.g., isotopes) can corroborate illicit activity if leakage occurs—yet advanced containment reduces its utility for low-yield evasions. National Academy of Sciences assessments indicate that while atmospheric, oceanic, or fully coupled underground tests are reliably detectable, the most feasible evasions—decoupling and masking—require significant infrastructure and yield trade-offs, limiting their appeal to states seeking high-confidence weapons but not eliminating the risk for rogue actors prioritizing minimal testing. On-site inspections, triggered by member states upon evidence, offer remedial verification but depend on political will and host cooperation, as seen in unproven allegations of low-yield Russian tests at post-1998 moratorium. Overall, the CTBT constrains overt proliferation through normative pressure and detection capabilities but falls short against technically adept evasion, particularly for sub-kiloton activities, highlighting verification gaps that persist despite IMS buildout.

Post-CTBT Global Nuclear Testing Landscape

Tests by Non-Signatories (e.g., , , Pakistan)

conducted five underground nuclear tests at the test range on May 11 and 13, 1998, marking its first such detonations since 1974. The May 11 tests involved three devices—a fission , a low-yield experimental device, and a purported thermonuclear device—with Indian officials claiming combined yields of 43-45 kilotons, though seismic data and independent analyses suggested lower figures around 12-15 kilotons total. The May 13 follow-up included two sub-kiloton devices. These tests, dubbed Operation Shakti, prompted but led to declare a voluntary testing moratorium thereafter. In direct response, carried out six nuclear tests in the Chagai Hills and on May 28 and 30, 1998. The initial five detonations on May 28 yielded an estimated 40 kilotons combined, including boosted fission devices, while the single test on May 30 produced about 12 kilotons. Like India, Pakistan imposed a self-declared moratorium on further testing post-1998, citing the establishment of a minimum credible deterrent amid regional tensions. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea () has conducted six nuclear tests since 2006, all at the Punggye-ri site, defying UN Security Council resolutions and the informal global testing norm promoted by the CTBT. These explosions escalated in claimed sophistication and yield, with North Korea asserting advancements toward hydrogen bombs and for delivery systems. No tests have been detected since September 2017, though indicated site preparations as late as 2022.
DateEstimated Yield (kilotons)Notes
October 9, 2006<1First test; plutonium-based device.
May 25, 20092-5Response to international .
February 12, 20136-7Higher yield; amid developments.
January 6, 2016~10Claimed hydrogen bomb test.
September 9, 201610-20Miniaturized warhead claim.
September 3, 2017100-250Largest; advanced thermonuclear assertion, causing magnitude 6.3 seismic event.
These post-1996 tests by non-signatories highlighted the CTBT's lack of , as the treaty requires universal adherence for binding effect, yet they reinforced a global moratorium among most states while exposing enforcement gaps against proliferators.

Evolution of the Testing Norm and Recent Developments (2023-2025)

Despite the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) not entering into , a international norm against nuclear explosive testing emerged among major powers following their last tests in 1996 ( and ) and 1998 ( and , with the and adhering to moratoria thereafter), reinforced by the treaty's verification regime and diplomatic pressure that has constrained proliferation. This norm, distinct from formal legal obligations, has been credited with halting over 99% of global nuclear testing since 1996, as evidenced by the International Monitoring System's detection capabilities and the absence of verified explosive tests by declared nuclear states. However, the norm's fragility has been highlighted by geopolitical shifts, including advancements in simulated testing technologies that reduce reliance on explosions while raising questions about long-term stockpile confidence without live tests. Russia's withdrawal of its 2000 ratification of the CTBT on November 2, 2023, marked a significant challenge to the norm, with President citing the ' failure to ratify and ongoing nuclear modernization efforts as justifications, though affirmed it would maintain its testing moratorium absent provocations by others. This action, enacted amid heightened tensions from the conflict, prompted concerns among nonproliferation experts that it could embolden other holdout states or erode voluntary restraints, potentially leading to a cascade of resumed testing if perceived verification asymmetries favor adversaries. Despite these risks, no nuclear explosive tests were conducted by any state in 2023, 2024, or through October 2025, preserving the zero-test streak for major powers and underscoring the norm's resilience, as tracked by comprehensive tallies from monitors. In 2025, efforts to bolster the norm intensified through diplomatic channels, including the 14th Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT held in September, where ministers from over 50 states urged the eight remaining Annex 2 holdouts—China, Egypt, India, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the United States—to ratify, emphasizing the treaty's near-universal support (187 signatures, 178 ratifications) and its role in constraining advanced nuclear developments. The conference highlighted ongoing CTBTO engagement with non-ratifiers, including technical briefings on the International Monitoring System's 99% global coverage, amid warnings of emerging arms races that could test the norm's limits without legal binding. The International Day Against Nuclear Tests on August 29, 2025, further reinforced commitments, with UN statements noting the de facto ban's success in ending most testing despite geopolitical standoffs, though skeptics argue the norm remains vulnerable to evasion via subcritical experiments or non-signatory activities like North Korea's missile advancements. As of October 2025, the CTBT's entry into force remains stalled, yet the testing norm endures without breaches, supported by mutual deterrence and verification confidence rather than enforceable prohibitions.

References

  1. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/the-treaty
  2. https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/14th-article-xiv-conference-calls-renewed-action-ctbt-entry-force
  3. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/ending-nuclear-tests
  4. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-glance
  5. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-testing-and-comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-ctbt-timeline
  6. https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  7. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/limited-ban
  8. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/199116.htm
  9. https://treaties.un.org/pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=08000002801313d9
  10. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/isn/5204.htm
  11. https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties/threshold-test-ban-treaty
  12. https://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/NMHB2020rev/chapters/chapter12.html
  13. https://unidir.org/files/publication/pdfs/in-pursuit-of-a-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-a-guide-to-the-debate-in-the-conference-on-disarmament-en-431.pdf
  14. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/212186.htm
  15. http://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  16. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/future-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  17. https://geneva.usmission.gov/2011/05/11/nuclear-test-ban/
  18. https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/1996/09/1996-09-23-chronology-of-steps-to-test-ban-treaty.html
  19. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/weapons-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  20. https://wmdcenter.ndu.edu/Publications/Publication-View/Article/1093696/the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-negotiations-a-case-study/
  21. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-4&chapter=26
  22. https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/2022_treaty_booklet_E.pdf
  23. https://www.ctbto.org/resources/for-the-media/press-releases/eighth-anniversary-opening-signature-comprehensive-nuclear
  24. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/states-signatories
  25. https://media.nti.org/pdfs/aptctbt.pdf
  26. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/16411.htm
  27. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/212166.htm
  28. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/verification-regime
  29. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/international-monitoring-system
  30. https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/2024-07/CTBT%2520Brochure%2520Verification_final_Jul_11_2024.pdf
  31. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/ims-map
  32. https://inis.iaea.org/records/dsq77-vs010
  33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2022.2129948
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X23002503
  35. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/international-data-centre
  36. https://resources.inmm.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/finalpaper_490_0428101733.pdf
  37. https://www.ctbto.org/what-we-do/on-site-inspection/overview
  38. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-ctbt/
  39. https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/russian-federations-support-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  40. https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-reaches-100-ratifications
  41. https://news.un.org/en/story/2009/08/310042
  42. https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2023-11/nuclear-disarmament-monitor
  43. https://www.ctbto.org/resources/for-the-media/press-releases/statement-dr-robert-floyd-executive-secretary-comprehensive
  44. https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/CTBT-Art.XIV-2025-WP.1.pdf
  45. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/article-xiv-conferences
  46. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-4&chapter=26&clang=_en
  47. http://www.en.kremlin.ru/catalog/countries/US/events/72635
  48. https://press.un.org/en/2023/sgsm22022.doc.htm
  49. https://www.icanw.org/russia_revokes_ratification_of_nuclear_test_ban_treaty_ctbt
  50. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assessment-russias-withdrawal-comprehensive-test-ban-treaty/
  51. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/11/02/russia-statement-by-the-high-representative-on-behalf-of-the-european-union-on-the-revocation-of-the-ratification-to-the-nuclear-test-ban-treaty/
  52. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/159264.htm
  53. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/the-logic-for-us-ratification-of-the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty/
  54. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-09/features/damage-assessment-senate-rejection-ctbt
  55. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/whats-the-deal-with-senate-republicans-and-the-test-ban-treaty/
  56. https://www.nti.org/risky-business/comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-what-has-changed-22-years/
  57. https://un.china-mission.gov.cn/eng/chinaandun/202510/t20251002_11722744.htm
  58. https://www.armscontrol.org/events-and-remarks/2025-09/ngo-statement-2nd-meeting-ctbto-article-xiv-conference
  59. https://southasianvoices.org/ctbt-at-20-why-india-wont-sign-the-treaty/
  60. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999-11/pakistan-says-it-will-not-be-first-test
  61. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/north-korea-nuclear-disarmament/
  62. https://warontherocks.com/2018/06/a-way-forward-with-north-korea-the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty/
  63. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.2968/066002002
  64. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25751654.2022.2078140
  65. https://youthgroup.ctbto.org/node/2649
  66. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/the-organization/the-preparatory-commission
  67. https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/ctbto-preparatory-commission/
  68. https://www.ctbto.org/our-mission/the-organization
  69. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/on-site-inspection
  70. https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/ctbto_brochure-osi_single.pdf
  71. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/on-site-inspection/procedures-for-an-on-site-inspection
  72. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/on-site-inspection/on-site-inspection-techniques
  73. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA389105.pdf
  74. https://www.ctbto.org/our-work/international-monitoring-system/
  75. https://www.ctbto.org/resources/information-materials/frequently-asked-questions
  76. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-11/special-report-major-exercise-tests-ctbt-site-inspections
  77. https://www.ctbto.org/resources/for-the-media/press-releases/ctbto-gem-statement-alleged-low-yield-nuclear-tests
  78. https://www.ctbto.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/ctbt_factsheet_sept23.pdf
  79. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/issue-briefs/aftershocks-novaya-zemlya-earthquake
  80. https://seismo.berkeley.edu/~rallen/research/nuke/NZ.97/exec.sum.html
  81. https://www.deseret.com/1997/8/29/19331035/russia-denies-tremor-was-nuclear-test/
  82. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-10/press-releases/cia-says-seismic-event-near-russian-test-site-not-nuclear-explosion
  83. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/05/world/us-says-russian-tremor-was-not-nuclear.html
  84. https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ssa/bssa/article-abstract/92/6/2400/103043
  85. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-07/news/us-questions-russian-ctbt-compliance
  86. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/29/russia-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-probably-violating-us
  87. https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-get-away-nuclear-test
  88. https://www.armscontrol.org/policy-white-papers/2019-08/us-claims-illegal-russian-nuclear-testing-myths-realities-next-steps
  89. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/preserving-the-nuclear-test-ban-after-russia-revoked-its-ctbt-ratification/
  90. https://www.americansecurityproject.org/russia-the-ctbt-need-for-concern-or-false-accusations/
  91. https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/is-the-nuclear-test-ban-the-next-us-arms-control-target/
  92. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-completes-subcritical-experiment-pulse-facility-nevada
  93. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-06/news/us-conducts-34th-subcritical-nuclear-experiment
  94. https://www.llnl.gov/article/45371/subcritical-experiment-captures-scientific-measurements-advance-stockpile-safety
  95. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2020.0012
  96. https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-us-subcritical-experiment-does-not-violate-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-2024-05-21/
  97. https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/new-confidence-building-measures-can-reduce-tensions-around-subcritical-tests/
  98. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-11/features/reducing-tensions-over-nuclear-testing-very-low-yield
  99. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-revokes-russias-ratification-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-2023-11-02/
  100. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/2/putin-revokes-russias-ratification-of-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  101. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/putin-signs-bill-revoking-russias-ratification-of-a-global-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  102. https://www.sipri.org/commentary/expert-comment/2023/russias-potential-withdrawal-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-underlines-urgent-arms-control
  103. https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2023-10-17/russias-self-destructive-move-de-ratify-ctbt
  104. https://www.jiia.or.jp/en/strategic_comment/2023/11/2023-11.html
  105. https://en.unav.edu/web/global-affairs/from-treaty-to-tension-russias-ctbt-withdrawal-explored
  106. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/10/russias-withdrawal-from-the-nuclear-test-ban-treaty-is-an-own-goal?lang=en
  107. https://rlg.fas.org/010216-aaas.htm
  108. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/executive-summary-the-comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-and-us-nuclear-disarmament
  109. https://www.heritage.org/arms-control/report/ctbt-new-study-fails-resolve-differences-over-risks-us-nuclear-arsenal
  110. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/articles/nnsa-releases-2025-stockpile-stewardship-and-management-plan
  111. https://sd.llnl.gov/nuclear-deterrence/stockpile-stewardship
  112. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/why-the-administrations-stockpile-stewardship-will-harm-the-us-nuclear-deterrent
  113. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/198238.htm
  114. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-and-update-of-technical-issues-related-to-the-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban-treaty
  115. https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/us-nuclear-weapons-stockpile
  116. https://nnss.gov/mission/stockpile-stewardship-program/
  117. https://str.llnl.gov/sites/str/files/2024-04/08.15.1.pdf
  118. https://issues.org/mello/
  119. https://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/dd/dd53/53stock.htm
  120. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105671.pdf
  121. https://cgsr.llnl.gov/sites/cgsr/files/2024-08/CGSR_Occasional_Stockpile-Stewardship-Era-Renewed-Competition.pdf
  122. https://globalsecurityreview.com/it-is-time-to-test-again/
  123. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-06-261.pdf
  124. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-12-188.pdf
  125. https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2024-10/FY2025%2520Stockpile%2520Stewardship%2520and%2520Management%2520Plan.pdf
  126. https://physicstoday.aip.org/features/the-big-science-of-stockpile-stewardship
  127. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-11/features/future-nuclear-weapons-without-nuclear-testing
  128. https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/212170.htm
  129. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/comprehensive-test-ban-treaty/
  130. https://www.llnl.gov/sites/www/files/2020-05/Subcrit-STR-JulAug-00.pdf
  131. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12849/chapter/7
  132. https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=phy_fac
  133. https://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CTBT-3.11.11-electronic-version.pdf
  134. https://cgsr.llnl.gov/sites/cgsr/files/2024-08/CGSRctbtONLINE.pdf
  135. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002-09/technical-issues-related-comprehensive-nuclear-test-ban
  136. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-11/features/legacy-indias-nuclear-weapons-test
  137. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998-05/features/false-accusations-undetected-tests-and-implications-ctb-treaty
  138. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008-06/looking-back-1998-indian-and-pakistani-nuclear-tests
  139. https://nuke.fas.org/guide/pakistan/nuke
  140. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/arms-control-and-proliferation-profile-north-korea
  141. https://fas.org/publication/north-korean-nuclear-weapons-2024/
  142. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2006-11/north-korean-test-provokes-widespread-condemnation
  143. https://www.armscontrol.org/node/7652
  144. https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/North-Korean-nuclear-weapons-2024.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.