[sbaoufbasfub]

I was doing some research into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (would ban underground nuclear tests, US has been voluntarily complying since the 90s but Republican Senators have refused to ratify) the other day. As I was researching, I stumbled upon an old Heritage Foundation position on the treaty. I knew of their reputation so I began reading with skepticism.

The author of the position piece made a number of very reasonable criticisms. He said that, for instance, while the treaty text bans "explosive" tests, and this is understood in some quarters to mean zero yield, it doesn't say that explicitly. He made two other sensible points that were at about the same order of magnitude maybe one more and one or two very hawkish points.

While I am not a diplomat or other professional in the field, I thought, hey some of these make a lot of sense, maybe they should workshop the treaty and fix these few points. I'm sure most countries would go along with a few amendments even if they've already signed it if they can get the US to say yes.

Instead he wholesale rejected the treaty and recommended that we signal total withdrawal and declare that we will no longer voluntarily comply with its terms. So essentially, he took a few reasonable points and then used them to support an extreme position.

I laughed and said aloud, "That's the Heritage Foundation that I know!"

http://www.heritage.org/arms-control/report/us-should-reject...