The May 1998 tests elicited wide media publicity. A Series of articles were published in the most important dailies. See FilkinsDexter, “Tests Bring Wave of Pride for Indian,”Los Angeles Times, May 13, 1998, Dan Balz; William Drozdiak, “U.S. Responds with Penalties, Persuasion,” Washington Post, May 14, 1998, Tim Weiner, “India-Pakistan Region Now Among Most Dangerous”, The New York Times, May 17, 1998. See also Russell Watson, “An Explosion of Indian Self-Esteem”, Newsweek, May 25, 1998
2.
U.S. Congress, H. RES 439, 105 Congress, 2nd Session, May 14, 1998
3.
The “Joint Statement by the Department of Atomic Energy and Development Organisation” issued in New Delhi on May 17, 1998 noted that “the tests have provided critical data for the validation of our capability in the design of nuclear weapons of different yields for different applications and different delivery systems. These tests have significantly enchanced our capability in computer simulation of new designs and taken us to the stage of sub-critical experiments in the future.”
4.
DiamondHoward, “India Conducts Nuclear Tests; Pakistan Follows Suit,”Arms Control Today; vol. 28, no. 4, May 1998, pp. 22–23
5.
Arms Control Today, pp. 22–23
6.
McGearyJohanna, “Asia's Crisis”, Time, 25, 1998
7.
U.S. Congress, Senate, To express the sense of the Senate regarding the May 11, 1998, Indian nuclear tests. SRES 227 IS, 105 Congress, 2nd Session, May 12, 1998. See also U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, concerning India's recent detonation of 5 nuclear devices, HRES 439IH, 105 Congress 2nd Session, May 14, 1998
8.
TalbottStrobe, “Dealing with the Bomb in South Asia”, Foreign Affairs, March/April 1999, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 116–117
9.
Defence Research and Development Organization, 17 May 1998; Gregony Van der Yink et al., “False accusations, Undetected Tests and Implications for the CTB Treaty,” Arms Control Today, May 1998. A recent summary of U.S. technical assessments, mostly sceptical of the tests is provided by Mark Hibbs, “India Exaggerated Test Yields, U.S. Earth Scientists Conclude,” Nucleonics Week, June 10, 1999
10.
“Press Statement” by the Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, on the release of the Jeremiah Report. CIA Press Release, June 2, 1998
11.
WeinerTim, “Report Finds Basic Flaws in U.S. Intelligence Operations,”New York Times, June 3, 1998
12.
BunnGeorge, “Nuclear Tests Violate International Norm,”Arms Control Today, vol. 28, no. 4, Washington, May 1998, pp. 26–27
13.
See StumphWaldo, “South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Programme: From Deterrence to Dismantlement”, Arms Control Today, vol. 25, no. 10, December 1995/January 1996, pp. 3–8
14.
KhanS. A.KhanShafqat Ali, “Pakistan”, (ed.) ArnettEricNuclear Weapons After the Comprehensive Test Ban, Sipri (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 81–82
15.
“Hatfield-Exon Amendment Nine Months Moratorium on Nuclear Testing,”Congressional Record, September 18, 1992
16.
MedaliaJonathan, “Nuclear Weapons Testing and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty”, CRS Report, U.S. Congress (Washington, D.C., June 19, 1987), p. 2
17.
“Nuclear Weapons Testing and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty”, p. 2
18.
“Nuclear Weapons Testing and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty”, p. 3
19.
“Nuclear Weapons Testing and Negotiation of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty”, p. 3
20.
WeinerTim, “U.S. Suspects India Prepares to Conduct Nuclear Test”, New York Times, December 15, 1995
21.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearingson Nuelear Tests in South Asia., Subcommittee on the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1998), June 3, 1998
22.
The Council on Foreign Relations and The Brookings Institutions have debated the pros and cons of U.S. policy in the aftermath of the 1998 nuclear tests. See Report of an Independent Task Force, U.S. Policy Toward India and Pakistan (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations, 1998)
23.
hearings on Nuclear Tests in South Asia, n. 25
24.
WatsonRussell, “An Explosion of Indian Self-Esteem,”Newsweek, May 25, 1998, pp. 31–32
25.
Newsweek, pp. 31–32
26.
SynottHillary, The Causes and Consequences of South Asia's Nuclear Tests, Adelphi Paper 332. (New York, The International Institute for Strategic Studies and Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 13–17
27.
PerkovichGeorge, “Nuclear Proliferation,”Foreign Policy, 112, Fall 1998, pp. 12–13
“Nuclear Detonations in India,”The Congressional Record, May 13, 1998
35.
“Statement by Senator Snowe on Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,”Office of Senator Olympia Snowe, Washington, D.C., May 28, 1996
36.
Congressional Record, 106th Congress, September 10, 1999
37.
Congressional Record, May 14, 1998
38.
Congressional Record, June 19, 1998
39.
40.
Congressional Record, May 12, 1998
41.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings on Nuclear Tests in South Asia, Subcommittee on the Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1998), June 3, 1998
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement and Enlargement, White House, February 1996
47.
PosenBarryRossAndrew, “Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy”International Security, vol. 21, no. 3, Winter 1996/97, pp. 17–23. In this essay the authors analyse the principal theoretical trends that have emerged in response to America's “unipolar” moment. In particular, the authors examine the practical policy implications of neo-isolationism, selective engagement, cooperative security, and U.S. hegemony
48.
KatzensteinPeter, ed., Between Power and Plenty: Foreign, Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978). See also, “U.S. to Partially Lift Sanctions on India and Pakistan” NNCOM/WORLD/asuaocf/9811/07/U.S.india.pakistan.01
49.
See Appendix II
50.
SuhrawardyNilofer, “US Trade Interests Overshadow NPT Zeal”, Times of India, April 6, 1995
51.
U.S. Congress, n. 45
52.
The Glenn Amendment to Section 102(b) of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to any non-nuclear-weapons state that detonates a nuclear explosive device. It makes no provision for the lifting of sanctions once they are imposed. See Appendix I, for the text of Glenn Amendment
53.
DiamondHoward, “India Conducts Nuclear Tests: Pakistan Follows Suit”, Arms Control Today, vol. 28, no. May 4, 1998, pp. 23–24
54.
DrozdiakWilliam, “U.S. Responds with Penalties, Persuasion”, Washington Post, May 14, 1998, Section A, p. A01
55.
U.S. Congress, Hearings on Nuclear Tests in South Asia Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs, Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1998) June 3, 1998
56.
PomperMiles A., “U.S. intelligence Takes the Heat For Dim Insight on Nuclear Proliferation,”C. Q. Weekly, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., June 6, 1998
57.
PoerBarbara Leitch Le (coordinator), India-Pakistan Nuclear Tests and U.S. Response, CRS Report, U.S. Congress, (Washington, D.C.: November 1998)
58.
Congressional Record, September 10, 1999
59.
CemielloCraig, “South Asian Nuclear Tests Cloud Prospects for CTBT Ratification,”Arms Control Today, vol. 28, no. 4, Washington, May 1998, pp. 24–27
60.
“U.S. Presses India to Join Nuclear Treaty,”Reuters, August 25, 1998
61.
TalbottStrobe, “US Diplomacy in South Asia: A Progress Report,” speech given at The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., November 12, 1998
62.
TalbottStrobe, “Dealing with the Bomb in South Asia,”Foreign Affairs, vol. 78, no. 2, March/April 1999, pp. 120–121
63.
Report of an Independent Task Force, A U.S. Policy Towards India and Pakistan, The Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1998)
