Упражнение 5. Сделайте письменный перевод следующих текстов. Проанализируйте переводческие трансформации в выделенных фрагментах текст №1

Nuclear Disarmament

For more than three decades, there have been five nuclear powers — without a war between them. But as nations gather in New York to start to re­view the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty the nuclear future is more uncertain and potentially more dangerous than when the treaty, known as the NPT, was indefinitely extended in 1995.

Since then India and Pakistan have become declared, and defiant, nuclear powers, joining Israel as a trio of states "illegally" possessing nuclear weap­ons. The United States Senate has rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would outlaw all nuclear explosive tests, thus greatly compli­cating the task of building a nuclear bomb without detection.

North Korea's intentions as a potential, if not actual, clandestine nuclear power remain worrisome. Iraq's nuclear activities are no longer under interna­tional inspection. There are several nuclear choices for the international community: the status quo, proliferation or abolition. A restoration of the 1995 status quo would require a rollback of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan and only them. But trying to denuclearize South Asia amid the current state of ten­sions between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and other issues is as unrealis­tic as demanding immediate abolition of all nuclear weapons everywhere.

The 1998 tests by the two countries confirmed the folly of believing that five legal nuclear powers — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — could indefinitely retain their monopoly over one class of weapons The treaty restricts nuclear arms to those countries on the understanding that they would negotiate in good faith on giving them up.

If the NPT status quo of 1995 cannot be restored and the risks of arms control reverses and proliferation are real, there are two alternatives^- having even more nuclear powers or a move to a world free of nuclear Weapons.

It is hard to convince some countries of the futility of weapons of mass destruction when all holders insist on keeping them. The preaching and the use of sanctions against India and Pakistan, need to be buttressed by example The ease for independent British and French nuclear deterrent forces is not compel­ling. Their phased disarmament would put pressure on all holders of nuclear weapons, including China, to cut their arsenals. The United States also needs to move faster in negotiating further reductions in their strategic arms.

There are other steps that would add impetus to global nuclear disar­mament. They include further constraints on the deployment of nuclear weapons outside the territory of the country that owns them, putting into force the treaty outlawing nuclear tests, banning missile test flights and the pro­duction of fissile materials for nuclear arms, taking such arms off alert status and physically separating nuclear forces, warheads and missiles.

Getting the nuclear powers to take even these less difficult steps will be hard. Getting them to commit to total nuclear disarmament will be even harder. The chasm over which the international community must leap is the belief that world security can rest on weapons of total insecurity.