Advanced Sensor Technologies
Many technologies are already available that could improve verification. Others are on the horizon, in particular using advances in microsystems- and nanotechnology. Intensified and widened research would help, even though not all projects will lead to practicable verification means or methods.
Even though the availability of means and methods for adequate verification is a necessary prerequisite for agreements that limit military capabilities in the interest of peace and international security, ultimately, the decision to enter such agreements is a political one. A task of major importance is thus to improve the conditions for such decisions.
KeywordsSeismic Signal Ballistic Missile Seismic Sensor Seismic Amplitude Peace Operation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Altmann, J. (1992): On-Site Verification Technologies-An Overview. In: Altmann, J., H. van der Graaf, P. Lewis and P. Markl (eds.) (1992), Verification at Vienna-Monitoring Reductions of Conventional Armed Forces, Gordon & Breach, New York etc.Google Scholar
- 2.START 1 (1991): Protocol on Inspections and Continuous Monitoring Activities, Annexes 8, 9; Protocol on Telemetric Information. In: START-Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- 3.Zwilling, M. (2006): Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE). This volume.Google Scholar
- 4.Dunay, P. M. Krasznai, H. Spitzer, R. Wiemker and W. Wynne, (2004): Open Skies-A Cooperative Approach to Military Transparency and Confidence Building. UN Institute for Disarmament Research/UNO, Geneva/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Carlson, J. (2006): Experience and challenges in WMD treaty verification: a comparative view. This volume.Google Scholar
- 6.Kalinowski, M. B. (2006) Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty CTBT Verification. This volume.Google Scholar
- 7.Boese, W. and J.P. Scoblic (2002): The Jury Is Still Out. Arms Control Today, Vol. 32(5), pp. 4–6Google Scholar
- 8.Nixdorff, K. (2006): Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). This volume.Google Scholar
- 9.Altmann, J. (2001): Military Uses of Microsystem Technologies — Dangers and Preventive Arms Control. Agenda, MünsterGoogle Scholar
- 10.Altmann, J. (2006): Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 11.Blumrich, R. (1998): Technical Potential, Status and Costs of Ground Sensor Systems. In: Altmann, J., H. Fischer and H. van der Graaf (eds.) (1998): Sensors for Peace — Applications, Systems and Legal Requirements for Monitoring in Peace Operations. UN Institute for Disarmament Research/UNO, Geneva/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 14.Blumrich, R., (1998a): Sound Propagation and Seismic Signals of Aircraft Used for Airport Monitoring — Investigations for Peace-Keeping and Verification. Verification — Research Reports, no. 10. ISL, HagenGoogle Scholar
- 15.Blumrich, R. and J. Altmann (1999): Aircraft Sound Propagation Near to the Ground: Measurements and Calculations. ACUSTICA — acta acustica, Vol. 85(4), pp. 495–504Google Scholar
- 18.Nixdorff K., M. Hotz, D. Schilling and M. Dando (2003): Biotechnology and the Biological Weapon Convention. agenda, MünsterGoogle Scholar
- 19.MacFaul, L. (2006): Developing the climate change regime: the role of verification. This volume.Google Scholar