{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02772373540856031, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.214501510574018, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reality Check: NATO's Ambitious Response to the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Abstract : Although we may rejoice at the end of the Cold War, a host of dangerous challenges remain. We must recognize the troubles to the United States that loom ahead: economic stagnation; overpopulation; environmental degradation; international crime; ethnic, religious, racial, and nationalistic conflict; and terrorism. Of all the perils facing us today, the newest and most serious is the global spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons -- commonly called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) -- and their means of delivery. This threat poses serious challenges to U.S. national security interests in this post-Cold War environment. To meet this challenge successfully, we must seek a common approach with like-minded allies. A key component in addressing the evolving proliferation risks will be a collective U.S./NATO political and military response. As detailed here, a number of would-be proliferators are actively involved in the acquisition of materials and the technology to develop these weapons. Recent events in the former Soviet Union make the illicit diversion or theft of weapons and materials ever more likely. Consequently, after much prodding, NATO has embarked on a program to develop and field capabilities to counter the growing proliferation threat. This article argues, however, that the recently approved program adopted by NATO is not affordable in full and that a number of NATO partners are not interested in actively participating. The reasons include philosophical differences over the defensive nature of the Alliance, counterproliferation efforts being subsumed in larger defense cooperation efforts, and strong resistance from the public sector to match NATO's political rhetoric with the necessary funding -- which must come from diminishing military budgets. The article further suggests that NATO, because of these realities, should scale back its current program and extend the timelines for implementation.