Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards Page: III
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
TECHNOLOGY A ASSESSMENT B OARD .Congrtg of tbe Uniteb tateo EMILIO 0 DADDARIO
EDWARd M. KENNEDY, MAsS., CHAIRMAN DIRECTOR
MARJORIE S. HOLT, MO., VICE CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DANIEL V. E SIMONE
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, S.C. OUN E. TEAGuE, TEX. DEPUy omcco
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, M INN. MORRIS K. UDALL, ARIZ. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
CLIFFORD P. CASE, N.J, GEORGE E. BROWN, J. CALIF.
RICHARD S. SCHwEIKER, PA. CLARENCE E. MILLER OHIO June 30, 1977
TED STEVENS, ALASKA LARRY wlNN. JR., KANS.
EMILIO Q. DADDARIo
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
Technology Assessment Board
Off ice of Technology Assessment
United States Congress
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The enclosed report, Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards, presents
OTA's analysis of the risk of further spread of nuclear weapons,
and the relation of that risk to the peaceful use of nuclear
This assessment, prepared under the direction of the OTA Energy
Program, was requested by Senators Abraham Ribicoff, John Glenn,
and Charles Percy of the Senate Committee on Government Operations.
The purpose was to provide a comprehensive analysis of technological
factors and potential options to assist Congress in evaluating
national and foreign policy relevent to nuclear proliferation.
In addition to extensive internal review, the report has been
reviewed by the Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards Advisory
Panel, the Energy Program Advisory Committee, the Technology
Assessment Advisory Council, and others. The report addresses the
motivations for nations and non-state groups to obtain nuclear
weapons and the routes they could follow in doing so. A balanced
analysis of the policy options available for combatting the problem
is presented. The options are arranged to correspond with the
responses that follow from three different perceptions of the risks
of proliferation relative to the need for nuclear energy: energy
priority, non-proliferation priority, and shared priority.
The study concludes that the complex and difficult problem of
proliferation is controllable only by hard and controversial choices
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment. Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards, report, June 1977; [Washington D.C.]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc39371/m1/3/: accessed December 10, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.