Skip to main content
USNI Logo USNI Logo USNI Logo
Donate
  • Cart
  • Join or Log In
  • Search

Main navigation

  • About Us
  • Membership
  • Books & Press
  • USNI News
  • Proceedings
  • Naval History
  • Archives
  • Events
  • Donate
USNI Logo USNI Logo USNI Logo
Donate
  • Cart
  • Join or Log In
  • Search

Main navigation (Sticky)

  • About Us
  • Membership
  • Books & Press
  • USNI News
  • Proceedings
  • Naval History
  • Archives
  • Events
  • Donate

Sub Menu

  • Essay Contests
    • About Essay Contests
    • Fiction
    • General Prize
    • Leadership
    • Marine Corps
    • Midshipmen and Cadets
    • Naval Intelligence
    • Naval and Maritime Photo
  • Current Issue
  • The Proceedings Podcast
  • U.S. Naval Institute Blog
  • American Sea Power Project
  • Contact Proceedings
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Media Inquiries
  • All Issues

Sub Menu

  • Essay Contests
    • About Essay Contests
    • Fiction
    • General Prize
    • Leadership
    • Marine Corps
    • Midshipmen and Cadets
    • Naval Intelligence
    • Naval and Maritime Photo
  • Current Issue
  • The Proceedings Podcast
  • U.S. Naval Institute Blog
  • American Sea Power Project
  • Contact Proceedings
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Media Inquiries
  • All Issues

World Naval Developments: Debating the Test Ban Treaty

By Norman Friedman
December 1999
Proceedings
Article
View Issue
Comments

In October the U.S. Senate voted down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty—not a bad way to end a century marked by many futile attempts to ensure security by treaty. The vote may ultimately signal a more realistic U.S. approach to foreign threats. The Clinton administration is treating it as a politically motivated disaster, comparable, perhaps, to U.S. rejection of the League of Nations in 1920. The senators who voted against the treaty can be forgiven for fearing that the administration's real hope was to delay the vote until next year, when rejection would have been a useful stick with which to beat Republicans during the election. There is little reason to imagine that the vote would have been very different in a year. Moreover, contrary to the administration's claims, the issue had been argued at length since President Clinton signed the treaty in 1996. In 1999, he seems to have seen the treaty as a kind of capstone to his administration. Others might see it as the epitome of a series of self-delusions.

Premium Member-Only Content

Don't miss out. Become a member of the Naval Institute today.

Join Today

Already a member? Sign in to continue reading.

Digital Proceedings content made possible by a gift from CAPT Roger Ekman, USN (Ret.)

Quicklinks

Footer menu

  • About the Naval Institute
  • Books & Press
  • Naval History Magazine
  • USNI News
  • Proceedings
  • Oral Histories
  • Events
  • Naval Institute Foundation
  • Photos & Historical Prints
  • Naval Institute Archives

Receive the Newsletter

Sign up to get updates about new releases and event invitations.

Sign Up Now
Example NewsletterPrivacy Policy
USNI Logo White
Copyright © 2022 U.S. Naval Institute Privacy PolicyTerms of UseContact UsAdvertise With UsFAQContent LicenseMedia Inquiries
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Powered by Unleashed Technologies