NARRATOR: Eight nations have the bomb today. Still more nations are lining up outside the nuclear clubhouse door.

FRANK GAFFNEY: The future of nuclear weapons, I believe, is going to be that they will find their way into the hands of people who may well decide to make use of them.

["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]

Admiral GENE LaROCQUE: Welcome once again to "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR."

In the past 50 years since the explosion of the first atomic bomb, many people have been working to try to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Unfortunately, the results of those efforts have been very meager. And regret- tably, today there are many nations that are trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And the question we have to ask ourselves is what, if anything, can we Americans do to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Our program's on that subject and I think you'll find it very interesting.

NARRATOR: March 1943: Scientists arrive at Los Alamos in the New Mexico desert. Their mission: To develop and build an atomic weapon.

August 6, 1945: The United States destroys the Japanese city of Hiroshima with a single atomic bomb dubbed "Little Boy." But there was nothing little about its effects.

August 9, 1945: The Japanese have yet to surrender. A US bomber attacks the city of Nagasaki with another atomic bomb, known as "Fat Man." Six days later, the Japanese surrender. World War II has finally ended.

By the end of 1950, 340,000 Japanese had died from the blast, heat, and radiation of these two atomic bombs.

HAROLD WILLENS: What I saw in 1945 was two cities totally devastated, each by one bomb.

NARRATOR: Harold Willens was a Marine Corps intelligence officer. He visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few weeks after the nuclear bombs fell.

The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York rekindled these memories for Harold Willens.

Mr. WILLENS: Here in the World Trade Center some lives were lost, a small number of people died, unfortunately, a much larger number, about a thousand, were injured, and a building was damaged. If these terrorists, if that's what they were, or any terrorists were armed with nuclear weapons, no matter how small, even as small as the ones -- we think of them as being very small, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs -- just think what would happen.

Secretary of Defense LES ASPIN (27 March '93, Budget briefing):

"There is, first of all, a new nuclear danger, which is -- The old nuclear danger was being an exchange, a superpower exchange of nuclear weapons that would not only blow out the United States and the Soviet Union, but might end life on the planet as we knew it. That's been replaced by the danger of maybe a half a dozen nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist, or a terrorist state, or terrorist organization, or whatever."

NARRATOR: Fifty years ago, no one had a nuclear weapon. Forty-eight years ago, only the United States had the bomb. Today, eight nations acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons: The United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus. Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus inherited their weapons from the former Soviet Union.

Four other nations are believed to be capable of build-ing nuclear weapons: Israel, India, Pakistan, and South Africa.

There is considerable evidence that Israel has already produced nuclear weapons, according to David Albright. He is the highly respected director of the Institute for Science and Inter-national Security.

DAVID ALBRIGHT: Probably of all the threshold states, they have the most advanced arsenal. It's hard to know how many weapons they have, but usually -- when I've looked at estimates and done my own, you end up with around 50 weapons that they've probably deployed.

NARRATOR: India proved its nuclear weapons capabilities with a bang. In 1974 India sent shock waves throughout the world when it test-exploded a nuclear weapon underground.

General ASLAM BEG: With the explosion of 1974, it upset the whole balance and we had to correct it as a serious national security concern of ours.

NARRATOR: General Aslam Beg is the former chief of staff of the Pakistani army. According to General Beg, Pakistan started its own nuclear weapons program in response to India's test.

General BEG: In 1987, when I took over as the vice chief, when I was made privy to our program, we had by then the capabi-lity where I can say that, if Pakistan wanted, they could assemble a device.

NARRATOR: In 1993 South Africa admitted to having built six nuclear weapons.

Archbishop DESMOND TUTU (20 May '93, National Press Club):

"I come from South Africa. The South African government has recently confessed that it did, in fact, have nuclear bombs."

NARRATOR: South Africa also claims to have dismantled these weapons before signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: The South Africans really did abandon their nuclear weapons program. I think that they've been pretty forth-coming about their program.

NARRATOR: Five other nations are suspected of seeking nuclear weapons capabilities: Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and North Korea.

Evidence uncovered by UN inspectors following the US-led war against Iraq indicates that Iraq was closer to developing nuclear weapons than previously believed.

There are concerns that North Korea may be trying to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea has resisted requests by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, to conduct special inspections of suspected nuclear weapons facilities. Rather than accept the inspections, North Korea threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but later backed off. It has since agreed to resume talks with the IAEA and South Korea.

Frank Gaffney, a former high ranking official in the Reagan Pentagon, now heads the private Center for Security Policy in Washington.

Mr. GAFFNEY: There's also the problem of weapons being acquired by states that are generally democratic, pro-Western nations that I think is also going to be on the rise. Now whether we regard that as a equal problem or as a much less worrisome problem, since those are basically weapons in the hands of friendly people, I think you're nonetheless going to see a lot of nations getting into the business, partly because of the burgeon-ing of proliferation among the dangerous nations and partly, frankly, because I think people are losing confidence in the US nuclear umbrella and its reliability to provide for their security.

NARRATOR: Should North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, Japan, the only country to have been attacked with nuclear arms, may wish to build its own nuclear bomb. Japan announced that it would not sign an indefinite extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when it comes up for review in 1995. This treaty commits all nations without nuclear weapons to remain so.

Today's eight nations with nuclear weapons could grow to 17 or more in the future.

MAN-on-the-Street: You don't develop a weapon unless you intend to use it.

MAN-on-the-Street: I guess if every country had one, then more than likely it would not be used, but I don't necessarily want to see that happen.

MAN-on-the-Street: Somebody crazy is going to get through and do something stupid with a nuclear weapon.

MAN-on-the-Street: It's kind of scary now because Russia's breaking up, or the Soviet Union. But I think that things are actually pretty safe.

NARRATOR: The spread of nuclear weapons, while not an imme-diate and direct threat to the United States, increases the like-lihood that nuclear weapons will one day be used in ethnic or regional conflicts or by terrorists.

Secretary of Defense Les Aspin has requested funds to meet these "new nuclear dangers." First, $40 million to stop other nations from obtaining nuclear arms. Second, $400 million to help nations of the former Soviet Union get rid of their nuclear weapons, lest they fall into the wrong hands. And third, $3.8 billion for missile defenses to protect ourselves from a nuclear attack.

You thought that "Star Wars," the Strategic Defense Initiative, was dead? While the focus has been shifted and the name changed, Star Wars is alive and well-funded at $3.8 billion in President Clinton's 1994 budget.

The United States is limited in what it can do to counter the spread of nuclear weapons, argues Frank Gaffney. He believes that, in addition to maintaining a credible nuclear arsenal, the United States needs an anti-ballistic missile system to defend the United States.

Mr. GAFFNEY: I think one of the things that you have to do is complement your deterrent, to hedge your bets, with an active defense that will appreciably reduce the chances of at least a ballistic missile-delivered weapon from being a sure thing, in terms of being able to reach, and attack, and destroy parts of the United States.

NARRATOR: President Clinton recently added a fourth approach for countering the spread of nuclear weapons when he visited South Korea: Threats.

President BILL CLINTON (11 July '93, Demilitarized Zone in Korea):

"It is pointless for them to try to develop nuclear weapons because if they ever used them, it would be the end of their country."

NARRATOR: Others have urged the bombing of suspected nuclear weapons sites. This approach is not new. In 1981, Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor which it believed was being used to develop nuclear weapons.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: I wouldn't call what the Israelis did in 1981, when they bombed the Iraqi reactor, necessarily a successful action. What it did was drove the program deeper underground. It diversified the program.

NARRATOR: But there are no long term military solutions to the problem of nuclear proliferation, according to David Albright.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: In general, military means are too imprecise to solve this problem. And that finally, solving the problem is difficult and it involves finding regional solutions to long-standing conflicts. It involves delegitimizing nuclear weapons so that it's considered a terrible thing to do and not some poli-tically useful thing to do, and that's going to require a lot of hard work.

NARRATOR: Rather than air strikes or costly anti-missile shields, there are a number of constructive steps that could be taken.

One: Enforce strict export controls.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: In the past, the US and Western nations haven't done a very good job of limiting the spread of items that have turned out to be very important in threshold countries' weapons programs.

NARRATOR: Weak and unenforced export controls allowed Iraq's Saddam Hussein to build a formidable military and an extensive nuclear complex. Evidence uncovered by staff members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee indicates that 22 US corporations sold materials and equipment for the production of weapons of mass destruction to Iraq.

Two: Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

Export controls are difficult to enforce when the tech-nology involved can be used either for peaceful nuclear energy programs or to make nuclear weapons. To ensure that materials for nuclear energy are not used for military activities, nuclear commerce involving signatories of the Non-Proliferation Treaty are subject to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: The safeguards are pretty good at doing what they're designed to do, which is to ensure that declared facili-ties are not being misused.

NARRATOR: Frank Gaffney doesn't believe that the IAEA is prepared to deal with the availability of ready-made nuclear weapons.

Mr. GAFFNEY: It's now possible for one to go off-the-shelf, as they say, and acquire a full-up nuclear device from black marketeers in the former Soviet Union today, perhaps from the Chinese today, certainly from the North Koreans in the future.

NARRATOR: But there may be ways to improve the IAEA to better guard against the spread of nuclear weapons.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: I think the biggest thing is more money. Definitely, the agency needs more money for safeguards. And the governments have to be willing to cooperate among themselves on intelligence matters or, in a sense, monitoring nuclear programs and share relevant information with the IAEA, so they know what's out there.

NARRATOR: Three: Ease regional tensions.

The world community can also help curb proliferation by addressing the reasons governments seek nuclear weapons.

According to Frank Gaffney, it is regional conflicts that drive the quest for nuclear arms.

Mr. GAFFNEY: They recognize that in their own regional context, it's better to have the capability to threaten mass destruction of your enemies than not to have it. And that calcu-lation, I believe, is driving all of these programs around the world and will continue.

NARRATOR: Pakistan is a perfect example.

General BEG: We have a lifetime of confrontation with India. We have fought three wars. We have a permanent state of confrontation on the line of control where we exchange fire almost every day.

NARRATOR: The United States could help ease these tensions by sponsoring negotiations between India and Pakistan, urging both nations to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, open their facilities to international inspections, and eventually abandon their nuclear arms.

According to General Beg, Pakistan is willing to do these things if India will agree to do the same.

Elsewhere, the United States could ease tension on the Korean Peninsula by trying gradually to normalize relations with the isolated communist government in Pyongyang.

Invigorated US-sponsored Arab-Israeli peace talks could help reduce the confrontation in the Middle East and dampen the desire for the bomb by some Arab governments as a counterweight to Israel.

The world community can also help the situation in South Africa, according to David Albright.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: Another thing that needs to be done is help the transition to a black majority rule happen peacefully, that that's going to be very important. Clearly, an ANC government does not want nuclear weapons, but it's in everyone's interest to have that transition done in a stable way.

NARRATOR: But regional conflicts are not the only factor fueling the spread of nuclear weapons.

JOSEPH ROTBLAT: At the heart of proliferation is the per-ception that nuclear weapons give you stature, strength, and security.

NARRATOR: Professor Joseph Rotblat is a scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project that produced the first atomic bomb. He now serves as the president of Pugwash International, which has been bringing together scientists from East and West since the 1950s.

Prof. ROTBLAT: And as long as this motivation exists, the pressure to join the nuclear club will be irresistible. Very difficult to say no.

NARRATOR: Nuclear weapons put a nation in the big leagues. A tiny nation like North Korea could become the E.F. Hutton of the world if it had nuclear weapons. When it talks, people listen.

Nuclear weapons are also a bargaining chip for Western aid, as Ukraine has discovered. Ukraine has decided that it, not Russia, should be in control of the long range Soviet nuclear weapons left on its territory. The United States has earmarked $175 million in aid for Ukraine, most of which is for dismantling nuclear weapons.

Four: Achieve a total ban on nuclear tests.

While still a representative from Wisconsin, Les Aspin told graduates of MIT that a complete ban on nuclear tests would help in the fight against nuclear proliferation.

Then-Representative LES ASPIN (D-WI) (1 June '92, MIT):

"We have been preaching non-proliferation to other nations, but so far we haven't been willing to give much on our own nuclear program. International cooperation is at the core of non-proliferation efforts. And that cooperation is going to be difficult to achieve if the United States insists on continuing with nuclear testing."

NARRATOR: President Clinton took an important step when he extended the moratorium on US nuclear tests until September 1994. The next step, which President Clinton is taking, is for the United States to push for a worldwide end to nuclear explosive tests.

However, a global ban on testing will not stop nations from developing nuclear weapons, argues, Frank Gaffney.

Mr. GAFFNEY: Saddam Hussein did not conduct nuclear tests. The North Koreans have not conducted nuclear tests. We're not sure, but I think the official government line is that the South Africans did not conduct a nuclear test. The Israelis have not conducted nuclear tests.

NARRATOR: While nations can develop crude nuclear weapons without testing, a worldwide complete test ban would prevent nations from improving their nuclear weapons.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: What a test ban can do, in fact, is, first, eliminate the political usefulness of tests. It can also stop the development of advanced weapons. It's very hard to go toward hydrogen bombs and boosted fission bombs and highly miniaturized bombs without testing.

NARRATOR: David Albright claims that a complete test ban would also help ease the demand for nuclear weapons.

Mr. ALBRIGHT: It would delegitimize nuclear weapons a little bit more, that it takes away money, and glamour, and just makes it a little harder for nuclear weapons programs to survive.

NARRATOR: Five: Ban the production of weapons-grade nuclear materials.

Only highly refined weapons-grade fissile materials are capable of producing nuclear explosions. As a first step, the United States could permanently close its nuclear weapons produc-tion facilities. President Clinton could then engage the other nuclear powers in discussions to permanently ban the production of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium.

Prof. ROTBLAT: We have got to stop production of materials for nuclear weapons and begin to think of ways how to get rid of the existing plutonium and the highly enriched uranium. These are the steps we should begin to take almost immediately.

NARRATOR: Six: Stop the development of new nuclear weapons.

President Clinton's 1994 military spending request includes $1.3 billion to design and develop a new class of smaller nuclear weapons known as "mini-nukes." These threatening weapons are being designed with Third World targets in mind.

At the same time that the United States is dismantling many of its nuclear weapons, US scientists are busy designing new nuclear weapons. Continued development of new nuclear weapons only encourages other nations to seek nuclear weapons of their own.

Seven: Faster and deeper reductions in nuclear weapons by the nuclear nations.

Another way to make nuclear weapons seem less desirable is for nations that have these weapons to cut their huge stock- piles. Today, there are more than 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world, containing an explosive power equal to 300,000 Hiroshima bombs.

In recent years, the United States and former Soviet Union have made some progress in reducing their nuclear arsenals. Arms control treaties, when ratified and fully implemented, will cut the nuclear arsenals of the United States and former Soviet Union by two-thirds by the year 2003.

Former President GEORGE BUSH: (20 August '92, Acceptance

Speech at 1992 Republican National Convention.)

"School children once hid under their desks in drills to prepare for nuclear war. I saw the chance to rid our children's dreams of the nuclear nightmare and I did."

NARRATOR: While children and adults may not longer fear US and Russian nuclear weapons, the destructive power of these weapons is very real.

Secretary of State WARREN CHRISTOPHER (11 May '93, before

Senate Foreign Relations Committee):

"Yes, there's no question that even the remaining one-third of our strategic forces are extremely powerful and have a capacity to destroy civilization as we know it several times over."

NARRATOR: If all treaties and initiatives are implemented as scheduled, by the year 2003, the United States alone will still have 8,500 deliverable nuclear warheads; 3,500 long range and 5000 short range. This would be equal to the explosive power of 80,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Deeper cuts in the arsenals of the United States and other nuclear powers are both possible and desirable.

The United States could safely reduce its nuclear stockpile to 1000 submarine-based nuclear weapons without compromising its ability to retaliate against any nuclear attack. Such a move would send a positive signal to other nations that US nuclear intentions are purely defensive.

Professor Rotblat questions the need for any nuclear weapons.

Prof. ROTBLAT: Why do we need nuclear weapons? Because, we say, for our security. If so, how can we deny the same sort of security to other nations?

NARRATOR: Others have questioned the need for nuclear weapons when the United States has such powerful conventional weapons.

Then-Rep. LES ASPIN (1 June '92 speech at MIT):

"The cold war has ended and now the Soviet Union has collapsed. The United States is the biggest conventional power in the world. There is no longer any need for the United States to have nuclear weapons as an equalizer against other powers."

NARRATOR: Almost 50 years after the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons, the world continues to live under the threat of the mushroom cloud as more nations seek to acquire the bomb. But, as we've seen, there are constructive actions which the United States could initiate to lead the world to a safer nuclear future.

While these nuclear issues have largely faded from the front pages, there are still dangers which must be addressed. US leadership is needed now more than ever to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Admiral LaRocque: Well, it's obvious we have a serious problem on our hands and something has to be done to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide. I can tell you from my own experience as a nuclear war planner than I'm very concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. We must do something about it soon.

We in America have a special responsibility as we were the ones that let the genie out of the bottle in the first place. And perhaps the president of the United States could convene a meeting of all the nations, all eight nations which now possess nuclear weapons to take the first step towards controlling the spread of nuclear weapons worldwide. If we do not do something soon, it is likely in the next 10 or 15 years that many nations of the world will have nuclear weapons to use at their disposal.

I hope you found the program interesting. And until next time, for "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I'm Gene LaRocque.

[End of broadcast.]