Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Share

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Wed Oct 10, 2012 2:29 pm

    Russia Walks Out of Nunn-Lugar Agreement – Paper

    Moscow is to abandon participation in a decades-old program with the United States aimed at dismantling weapons of mass destruction, Russian daily Kommersant reported Wednesday.

    The paper reported sources in the US State Department as saying Russia is no longer interested in the Nunn-Lugar program – also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) – which dates back to the early 1990's and helped decommission scores of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    US officials told the paper that their Russian counterparts informed them during a recent meeting that Moscow no longer needs the financial assistance, emphasizing instead the importance of guarding state secrets.

    The move is the latest in Moscow’s review of its relationship with Washington, and comes after Russia stopped the United States Agency for International Development from working in the country earlier this month.

    It also follows comments last week by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that the “reset” policy between Russia and the United States “cannot last forever.”

    The CTR program began in 1991, and was extended twice – in 1999 and 2006. The current terms expires in 2013. The United States has reportedly spent an estimated $8 billion on CTR programs.

    The program included measures to increase safety at nuclear plants in the former Soviet Union and generating alternative work for former institutes and production facilities which had been involved in making weapons of mass destruction, the CTR website says.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20121010/176527879.html

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TR1 on Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:34 pm

    Good.

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:03 am

    What's funny about this announcement was that after this article came out a lot of statements from Bellona and NTI, which stated that the Russian move is unproductive and dangerous. They even stated that their are still sites that are still in need of protection. They even like to label the term "remnats of the nuclear arsenal" of Russia, what are they trying to say?

    In my view this agreement is both one sided and is a big disadvantage for the Russian Federation.

    They were even critical of Russia in resuming sub-critical testing in Novaya Zemlya.

    I think its time for Russia to get rid of other treaties like the INF.


    Last edited by TheRealist on Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:37 am; edited 1 time in total

    SOC
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 595
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2011-09-13
    Age : 38
    Location : Indianapolis

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  SOC on Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:19 am

    ..and cue a bunch of articles about how Russia is returning to the "Evil Empire" and building all sorts of secret weapons.

    Rolling Eyes

    Maybe, I don't know, Russia has figured out how to take care of it's own business effectively?

    The only real downside to this is that the US government will have more money to not spend responsibly.

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Thu Oct 11, 2012 2:35 am

    Russia is not an "Evil Empire", in fact Russia is a good contributor. Just last year Russia sent humanitarian aid to my country because we were hit by a very powerful storm. Thank you Russia!

    Back to topic:
    Russia must no longer entertain NATO or US request for nuclear inspection. Are they lucky to think in that notion?

    NATO continues to build up a missile defense shield and is continuing to threaten Russian interest, in my view Russia should be focus in modernizing its current stockpile and enhance its break-out capability.

    In my view NATO and the US are worried about Russia's nuclear break-out capability.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:57 am

    Sean was being sarcastic... that is what the roll eyes emoticon was for... ie Rolling Eyes

    He is of course right in that the west will claim this is a huge step backwards from peace and democracy and will reduce stability in the region blah blah blah BS BS BS.

    You are also right in the sense that it is just western BS propaganda that should be ignored.

    In my view NATO and the US are worried about Russia's nuclear break-out capability.

    I agree. I have seen a documentary on RT and it was talking about new technology nuclear reactors and one of the new types they are working on are sometimes called breeder reactors that can actually be used to create weapons grade nuclear material rapidly as part of their normal power generation capacity.

    I also disagree with the INF treaty as it is now fundamentally flawed.

    Previously it was about stepping back from the hair trigger that is ballistic missiles close to the border that can hit targets in minutes.

    Previously that was a serious danger because a detected missile launch only allowed seconds to decide if it was a mistake or an attack.

    Now that SAMs are able to deal with ballistic missile targets that constitute the weapons covered under the INF treaty the critical risk no longer exists.

    More to the point 500km or less range missiles can hit Moscow from NATO territory. The major capitals of Old Europe are generally more than 500km from any Russian territory, so in effect for the US and Russia the INF treaty bans a wide range of missiles, but Moscow is not safe from shorter range missiles and Washington is completely safe from any 500km or less range Russian missile.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:30 pm

    I've watched that RT documentary, it was about the Nuclear revolution in Russia and the plans to expand the nuclear generating power in Russia. I saw a number of new generation of nuclear reactors being developed.

    Further more in my view this agreement is not acceptable, imagine 7,600 warheads and their delivery systems being destroyed while the US/NATO builds up a missile defense and continue to expand NATO.

    I hope the Russian leadership realize that having IRBM's and GLCM's can actually be a massive political leverage in the European theater. I would base it in my nations experience, as you may know the US used to maintain several large military bases here in the Philippines however they were very unpopular amongst anti-war activist here. However the motive in removing them here is because our political elites found out that China had aimed DF-3 missiles towards us thus our nations political leadership realize that the bases are more of a liability rather than a useful asset. Even today a lot of people are against the US military to use to those bases again.

    I even remember a USAF Colonel who visited the Philippines during a joint-exercise with our nation which is called "Balikatan" (Shoulder to Shoulder), he stated that China can easily take out bases in South Korea and Japan in the event of war thus they would be reliant on their carriers.

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:10 am

    US says nuclear deal with Russia not dead yet

    ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE — The United States urged a reluctant Russia on Thursday to engage in talks to extend a program that has helped disarm thousands of ex-Soviet nuclear warheads and missiles.

    Russian officials said this week that they had notified Washington that the Nunn-Lugar program, due to expire in May 2013, would not be extended, in the latest challenge to a vaunted "reset" of US relations with the Kremlin.

    But the Obama administration said that it understood Moscow wanted revisions to the program and that it was ready to continue negotiations about it.

    "There's surely more work to be done in that program and we're going to engage in that effort," White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters aboard Air Force One.

    At the State Department in Washington, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that US diplomats started talking to Moscow about the 20-year US-financed program's renewal in July, and that discussions were still going on.

    "They have told us that they want revisions to the previous agreement. We are prepared to work with them on those revisions, and we want to have conversations about it," Nuland said.

    "This is a program that has paid dividends for the Russian people, for the American people. It's paid dividends globally, and we hope to be able to continue it."

    Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Wednesday that Moscow wanted to end the program, named after former senator Sam Nunn and retiring Indiana Senator Richard Lugar.

    "The American side knows that we do not want another extension," Ryabkov told Russia's Interfax news agency. "This is not news to the American side."

    The report said Ryabkov was responding to Russian newspaper speculation that the initiative had been shut down as a consequence of the Kremlin's decision to kick out the USAID development program organized by the US embassy in Moscow.

    USAID has been ordered out of the country over accusations it supported opposition leaders who helped organize a wave of demonstrations against President Vladimir Putin's rule.

    But Ryabkov said the Nunn-Lugar decision was in no way related to the USAID case.

    Lugar, who is leaving the Senate after losing a Republican primary challenge, traveled to Russia in August to talk about extending the deal.

    He said in a statement on Wednesday that he knew Russia wanted to make changes to the deal rather than to simply extend it.

    "At no time did officials indicate that, at this stage of negotiation, they were intent on ending it, only amending it," he said.

    The Nunn-Lugar plan was created in 1992 after the breakup of the Soviet Union amid worries over the fate of the Soviet Union's vast arsenal of nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons.

    It began with an effort to safeguard materials by improving security at nuclear complexes and graduated to decommissioning work.

    Ryabkov suggested that Moscow was starting to feel constrained by the deal because it gave Washington access to sensitive information that Moscow could not get about America's nuclear arsenal.

    Lugar says the scheme has deactivated 7,610 strategic nuclear warheads and destroyed 902 intercontinental ballistic missiles and 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles along with 684 submarine launched ballistic missiles, among other stockpiles that have been eliminated

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gvPgkPPXL-dPW63oOAaO3963Ie4A?docId=CNG.27dcf87ede78dfe8d704f9fe3d082916.661


    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:17 am

    Russia nuclear partnership not dead, State Department insists
    By Jill Dougherty, CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent

    The State Department maintained Thursday that a long-standing partnership with Russia to dismantle and safeguard weapons of mass destruction from the Soviet Union's once-massive arsenal is not dead, as Russian media has reported.

    Russian officials, however, indicated they had no intention of extending the agreement - at least in its present form - dealing a serious blow to cooperation between the two countries.

    The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which has spent approximately $7 billion in its two decades, financed primarily by the U.S. government, has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads, implemented security upgrades at Russian's nuclear storage sites, neutralized chemical weapons, safeguarded fissile materials, converted weapons facilities for peaceful use, and mitigated biological threats.

    "We are still in talks," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters in Washington Thursday. Russia officials "have told us that they want revisions to the previous agreement. We are prepared to work with them on those revisions, and we want to have conversations about it."

    But in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying, "Our American partners know that their proposal is at odds with our ideas about the forms and basis for building further cooperation in that area."

    While Moscow "has a positive view" on the program's cooperation, the ministry said, "a more modern legal framework" is needed."

    The current agreement on Nunn-Lugar cooperation expires in June of 2013 and U.S. officials have been talking with their Russian counterparts since July about updating the agreement, Nuland said.

    "We as a government greatly value the ongoing Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program," Nuland said. "We believe there is a lot of future work for the U.S. and Russia to do together in the CTR space, including cooperation that we do in this area with third countries ... other former Soviet states."

    Former Sen. Sam Nunn, one of the co-sponsors of the Nunn-Lugar program, told CNN, "I don't think the Russians have ruled out having a new umbrella agreement that would have a different framework. This framework was put together when the Russian treasury was empty."

    Nunn said that in his opinion, Moscow today is sensitive about key aspects of the program. Russia, he said, "does not want to look like they're taking aid on something that's a security issue in Russia."

    Another issue for Russia, he added, is the question of access.

    "Access follows money," he said, "and we've had unprecedented access to many facilities that the Russians would have never acceded to allow us to have access to if it had not been for their financial plight and the realization in Russia in the early 1990s that they had huge problems with their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as well as materials."

    The move comes at a politically sensitive time in the United States, when the Obama administration is under attack for what Republicans describe as a failed "reset" policy with Russia. In early October, the Russian government announced that it was ending U.S. Agency for International Development programs in the country.

    The State Department's spokeswoman denied there was any connection between that move and the current difficulty in reaching agreement on extending Nunn-Lugar.

    Russia expert Matthew Rojansky of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told CNN that the United States, eventually, is going to have to adjust its approach on Nunn-Lugar. "At some point, some version of this was going to happen, that's true, if for no other reason than ... we cannot fund global security forever," he said.

    "Whether it was going to happen in this dramatic form, in this absolute form, that is a function of the relationship not being as good as it could be. The relationship is not working right, right now, that's for sure ... on both sides."

    Nunn meanwhile, says Nunn-Lugar has paid dividends over its 20 years and he holds out hope that "something that could be much more of a partnership could emerge from this."

    "With the lessons learned and the best practices we've had of two decades of working together," he told CNN, "I think that partnership could be very valuable for the U.S., for Russia and for the globe. But it will be on much more of a reciprocal access basis.

    "The Russians swallowed their pride a lot in the 1990s and the last 20 years, and I think we have to recognize that reciprocity is going to be the order of the day. ... In other words, they will say trust is a two-way street."

    Whether the United States will be willing to do that, Nunn added, is a question, "but it seems to me it's fundamentally in our interest and their interest."

    "The fact that the United States and Russia have 90 to 95% of all the nuclear weapons and materials in the world indicates that there's got to be a partnership if this problem is going to be tackled."

    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/12/russia-nuclear-partnership-not-dead-state-department-insists/

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:25 am

    Russia's move is understandable because Russia is a sovereign state that is exercising its right to walk away on any obligation that it is a signatory to.

    For them to paint Russia as a country that is planning something "big" is simply unacceptable. In my view they should look at NATO and US action and other realities that they have made to force Russia to take action in this sensitive matter. Before they say that Russia is being unproductive please kindly tell NATO to look at Poland, Romania, Turkey and in Asia before jumping the gun.

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 79
    Points : 113
    Join date : 2012-08-20

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  TheRealist on Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:29 am

    Another point on this is why is the US in particular is so uneasy of this move?

    Another thing is that they like to use the term "once massive arsenal" and "remnants of"?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:35 am

    Further more in my view this agreement is not acceptable, imagine 7,600 warheads and their delivery systems being destroyed while the US/NATO builds up a missile defense and continue to expand NATO.

    Just as importantly funding the disposal and therefore demanding inspection rights means they can collate a lot of data on Russian warheads that the Russians don't have equivalent access to in terms of US warheads, which are not being destroyed, but stored.

    I hope the Russian leadership realize that having IRBM's and GLCM's can actually be a massive political leverage in the European theater. I would base it in my nations experience, as you may know the US used to maintain several large military bases here in the Philippines however they were very unpopular amongst anti-war activist here. However the motive in removing them here is because our political elites found out that China had aimed DF-3 missiles towards us thus our nations political leadership realize that the bases are more of a liability rather than a useful asset. Even today a lot of people are against the US military to use to those bases again.

    Exactly. Having weapons forward deployed in your country doesn't make you safer, just like having ABM systems in Poland doesn't make Poland safer. The ABM missiles in Poland are mid course interceptors and don't work inside the atmosphere. They are designed to intercept ICBMs mid trajectory on their way to a target a long way from Poland... they are to stop missiles on the way to the US. The presence of the ABM systems however while not making Poland safer actually make it a primary target in the event of a nuclear war so overall they are much less safe with those weapons on their territory. For Poland the purpose of the ABM missiles is to thumb their noses at the Russians and say you can't push us around any more, and what they will get is increased attention from the US that will likely lead to the US telling Poland what to do. Smile

    The Philippines needs to keep in mind that the US and China and Russia are essentially the same, they are big powerful countries with their own interests. The main difference between the three is that the US is militarily more aggressive and while it has very high moral values and standards and expects others to meet or exceed those standards they rarely apply those standards and values to their own actions.

    "They have told us that they want revisions to the previous agreement. We are prepared to work with them on those revisions, and we want to have conversations about it," Nuland said.

    The Russians were talking about revisions to the program for the last 10 years and the Americans have been ignoring them. I rather expect the suspension of USAID was a hint of things to come... they don't want US aid, and all the BS that comes with it. The US is now saying that it hears the Russians and they want changes to the program... well that is 5 years out of date... 5 years ago they wanted changes... now they want to let it expire and end.

    So much for the reset... US officials just seem to not to be able to understand Russia at all.

    "The American side knows that we do not want another extension," Ryabkov told Russia's Interfax news agency. "This is not news to the American side."

    How much clearer can the guy be?

    Russia's move is understandable because Russia is a sovereign state that is exercising its right to walk away on any obligation that it is a signatory to.

    Technically it is not walking away from anything. The agreement expires in 2013 and the Russians are simply not renewing it.

    They clearly see it as no longer necessary... they can deal with their own problems.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 29, 2015 12:33 am

    Russia hopes for early signing of protocol to Central Asian nuke-free zone treaty

    On Monday, President Barack Obama sent the protocol for ratification to the US Senate

    UNITED NATIONS, April 28. /TASS/. Russia has ratified a protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia and it hopes that the document will be signed soon, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department for nonproliferation and armaments control, Mikhail Ulyanov, said here on Monday.

    "Russia has completed ratification of the protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia and we hope that a protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Southeast Asia will be signed soon enough, too," he said at a review conference on observance of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

    The Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia, which took effect in 2009, envisions that all the signatories - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - renounce development, purchases or storage of nuclear weaponry.

    To turn the treaty into a full-fledged document, each of the five nations possessing nuclear weapons officially - Russia, Britain, China, France, and the US - should give guarantees to the member-states that the nukes will never be used against them. This is to be done by signing an appropriate protocol.

    The same practice has been applied to the treaties on all other nuclear-free zones in case of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Treaty on a Nuclear Free Zone in South East Asia, etc.

    On Monday, President Barack Obama sent the protocol for ratification to the US Senate. He said in the letter of explanations that this step would benefit the US by raising the country’s security. Also, it would support Washington’s efforts to avert a fast buildup of the masses of nuclear weapons across the world and consolidate relations between the US and Central Asian countries,

    Askar Beshimov, Kyrgyzstan’s foreign ministry told the review conference Kyrgyzstan hoped the US would round up the signing procedure soon.

    He also said that by setting up a nuclear free zone the regional countries were making a sizable contribution to the nuclear nonproliferation regime, as well as to regional and global security.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Thu May 14, 2015 2:19 pm

    New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty not on Russia’s agenda — diplomat

    The diplomat metioned the US missile shield, possible deployment of weapons in space as well as misbalances in the sphere of conventional weapons as reasons

    MOSCOW, May 13. /TASS/. An issue of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is not on Russia’s agenda at the moment due to unstable global situation concerning the strategic balance, Mikhail Ulyanov, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, said on Wednesday.

    In an interview with Kommersant daily, Ulyanov said that "no one will be able to answer the question at the moment whether a new treaty on the strategic arms reduction would be concluded."

    "At least this issue is currently not on our [Russia’s] agenda," the diplomat said adding it was because that "since the end of the Cold War era there had never been such an unfavorable situation for continuing talks on the nuclear disarmament."

    "The situation concerning the strategic stability is very uncertain today," Ulyanov said. "It goes for what we [Russia] have repeatedly stated about and it is the US missile shield, which is being upgraded and changes a lot in the modern world, the possible deployment of weapons in space as well as misbalances in the sphere of conventional weapons."

    Russia and US-led NATO have been in a long dispute over US missile shield plans in Europe, which the United States said was aimed to defend its allies from possible missile threats emerging from Iran and North Korea.

    Russia viewed the deployment of the missile shield near its borders as a threat to its national security and in 2011 then-President Dmitry Medvedev announced a set of measures to counter the US-proposed missile defense system in Europe. The measures particularly included the construction of new air-defense radar systems and deployment of Iskander missiles in Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, which borders on Europe.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:09 pm

    US Violates Non-Proliferation Treaty With Nuclear Bombs in Germany - NGO

    New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Alice Slater claims that the United States continues to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s prohibition of sharing nuclear weapons with non-nuclear weapons states by stationing nuclear bombs in five NATO member nations.

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — The United States continues to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) prohibition of sharing nuclear weapons with non-nuclear weapons states by stationing nuclear bombs in five NATO member nations, New York Director of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Alice Slater told Sputnik.

    The United States continues to deploy nuclear weapons in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Turkey and The Netherlands, Slater pointed out on Friday.

    "[The Obama administration is] now actually upgrading the weapons and deliveries systems at bases in those country hosting the illegal US instruments of death and destruction on their soil, even though those five non-nuclear weapons states signed the NPT and promised never to acquire nuclear weapons," Slater explained.

    "It is not surprising that Russia would be rattling its nuclear sabers in response," she added.

    Alexander Neu, a member of the Bundestag claims that US plans to modernize its nuclear arsenal in Germany infringe on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

    On Tuesday, the German television station ZDF revealed the US Department of Defense plans to deploy B61 nuclear gravity bombs in Germany at the Buchel air force base this fall — replacing the 20 weapons already at the site.

    "The recent news that the United States is planning to station 20 new nuclear bombs in Germany, each one 80 times more destructive power than the bomb used in Hiroshima, gives cause for despair for global peace activists who have been working for nuclear disarmament and an end to war," Slater said.

    She explained that in 2000 then US President Bill Clinton rejected a proposal from Russian President Vladimir Putin that to start nuclear disarmament.

    "Putin had made an offer to Clinton, in 2000, that the United States and Russia should cut their arsenals of 19,000 nuclear weapons to 1,000 warheads each… and negotiate a treaty to eliminate all nuclear weapons on the planet," Slater said.

    Putin’s condition, she recalled, was that the Unite States refrain from building missile bases in Eastern Europe.

    However, "Clinton refused and Putin withdrew the offer," she noted.

    Slater also said the US media remained dominated by the military-industrial complex. making it very difficult for Americans to learn the truth.

    "We need all the help we can get… to get the truth out. Perhaps the Pope can talk some sense into the world and help the great majority of the world’s people to find the courage and enthusiasm to empower democracy and give peace a chance," Slater concluded.

    At present, there are an estimated 16,300 nuclear bombs in the world.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150926/1027562273.html#ixzz3mrTF8Gwu


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:50 pm

    Under START-3 Russia to cut nuclear arms along with US — academician

    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/854704


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  George1 on Sun Apr 03, 2016 3:43 pm

    UNIDIR project on tactical nuclear weapons is looking for a researcher

    UNIDIR is looking for a researcher to run a project on tactical nuclear weapons. Here is the formal announcement at Insipra, the UN web site. I've had a few people contacting me already with questions, so I thought it would make sense to say a few words about the project.

    It's no secret that this is not a great time to discuss arms control in general and for measures to address tactical nuclear weapons in Europe in particular. So, the project will not try to suggest any specific steps that would help restart the dialogue between Russia and NATO. That would take much more than a research project, at UNIDIR or elsewhere.

    What we will try to do at UNIDIR is to look at some ideas on how to deal with tactical nuclear weapons when we eventually get to the point of discussing them. The general outline of the approach is, in fact, not very controversial - any agreement would probably consolidate all these weapons in some storage facilities. Where these facilities might be is a matter of dispute - Russia wants them on national territories, NATO wants them away from its borders - but it's a political, not substantive dispute. Then, there would have to be a way of verifying that these weapons are there.

    There is a question of numbers as well. One of the ideas that is quite popular in Washington is that there would have to be some common ceiling for all weapons - strategic and not - so each country is free to choose its own mix. Specific numbers that are mentioned are somewhere around 2500-3000 total warheads. I don't think it's a good idea (to put it mildly), especially if you notice that we already have this ceiling - 1550 operationally deployed warheads in New START. Yes, this treaty does not deal with non-strategic weapons, but if you take its definitions, we are pretty close to having zero deployed non-strategic warheads (it's a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea).

    So, one of the main ideas of the UNIDIR project is to see if you can use the New START provisions to deal with non-strategic weapons. That would range from New START definitions to its verification and inspection provisions. As my colleagues and I demonstrated before, New START is a very powerful instrument that can be used, for example, to extend transparency provisions to arsenals of all nuclear weapon states. I also tried to look at New START and non-strategic weapons in a paper, prepared for a APS-CSIS workshop in 2013. Read the paper to get a sense of my thoughts about where the project might go.

    In practical terms, the project will involve looking at where weapon storage facilities are, getting a general sense of how one can conduct verification activities there, and identifying areas where New START provisions can be applied. This part of the work would probably require looking at satellite imagery. Knowledge of New START verification arrangements would be a considerable asset as well. Given the recent developments around cruise missiles, we will probably have to look into various approaches to, say, SLCM verification, which are technically not part of the START process. We then plan to have an expert meeting to discuss the ideas developed during the first stage of the project. And finally, the project will produce a report with its findings.

    UNIDIR will definitely prefer someone working in Geneva full time, but we may have some flexibility for an exceptionally good candidate. The project will start as soon as practically possible. Feel free to write to me if you have any questions. However, if you want to apply, please use the UN site to do so.

    http://russianforces.org/blog/2016/04/unidir_project_on_tactical_nuc.shtml


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  max steel on Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:18 am

    Russian Foreign Ministry sees no preconditions for resuming disarmament dialogue with US

    According to the ministry, the Washington-pursued policy of "deterring" Russia is erecting barriers to normal relations and is destabilizing the world situation

    The Russian side does not see preconditions for resuming a dialogue with the United States on strategic nuclear arms, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a review on "Russia’s Foreign Policy Activities in 2015" posted on the ministry’s website on Tuesday.

    "There has been stagnation in our dialogue with the United States on arms control issues. Those contacts were incidental in view of the previous decision of Barack Obama’s administration to stop bilateral military interaction," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

    "We steadily tried to bring our point home to the Americans that we do not see any preconditions for resuming a concrete discussion on strategic nuclear arms issues except for the continuation of regular sessions of the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) to discuss issues related to the implementation of the START treaty," the Russian Foreign Ministry noted adding that the sides had continued working jointly in multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation formats.

    According to the ministry, the Washington-pursued policy of "deterring" Russia is erecting barriers to normal relations and is destabilizing the world situation.

    "Despite the well-established interaction on most vital issues on the international agenda, Washington has, on the whole, refused to give up its policy of pressure and ‘deterrence’ of Russia. It continues imposing its policy line on the European allies relying on countries with the most pro-Atlantic thinking," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

    "The fact that the United States has enshrined these goals in its strategic planning documents and military policy is erecting long-term barriers to normalizing the relations and is undermining the basic for security and stability globally, including the Euro-Atlantic region," the Russian Foreign Ministry stressed.

    It added that Russia had always been open to cooperation in the solution of global and regional problems on the basis of equality, mutual respect and concern for interests in compliance with international law.

    The ministry has drawn Washington’s attention to the fact that attempts to exert pressure on Russia have no prospects, the US should adhere to the principles of mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs.

    "During our bilateral contacts, we consistently pointed to the Americans that attempts to exert pressure on Russia are futile and demanded complying with the principles of equality, mutual respect and non-interference in internal affairs," the ministry said. "At the same time, we continued practical cooperation in the areas that meet Russia’s interests and the tasks of ensuring international security."

    "We continued to demand solving bilateral problems from Washington, many of which were created artificially by the US prior to the Ukrainian crisis," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We insisted that the US law enforcement agencies should stop hunting for Russian citizens travelling abroad bypassing the existing agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters."





    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1516
    Points : 1558
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon May 16, 2016 5:49 pm

    Death of INF?


    looks like Russians did not waste time when US was pushing for PGS and ABM. Rubezh seems to be modular, multiple MIRVs, two stages were also tested on 2000km range...

    Light version is between 36-20t depending on source. So +/- size of Pioneer IRBM...


    http://missilethreat.com/a-looming-crisis-of-the-intermediate-range-nuclear-force-treaty-sources-and-consequences/

    "
    Russian experts usually portray the “Rubezh” as a modernized version of the Yars ICBM. However, in March 2015 an anonymous source from the Russian Defense Ministry revealed that it has fewer stages and a shorter range than the Yars.[14] The Russian expert Pavel Podvig believes that “if true, this appears to confirm that [the] RS-26 is a two-stage missile based on [the] RS-24 (a three-stage missile – YF) very much in the way [that the] SS-20 was a two-stage version of [the] Temp-2S”.[15] Thus, since the maximum flight range of the “Rubezh” is 200–300 kilometers longer than 5500 kilometers it is not covered by the INF Treaty. However, as it is a two-stage version of the Yars ICBM and was tested mainly at distances of about 2000 kilometers, this missile is designed to be used mainly in the INF mode, including against targets in Europe. Or to put it differently, the development and deployment of the “Rubezh” missile is nothing but an effective circumventing of the INF Treaty.


    The crisis of the INF Treaty and security interests of the Central-Eastern European states

    Albeit at the moment of writing it would be too early to make any definite forecasts about Russia’s behavior there are grounds to believe that Moscow will deploy its new GLCMs and “Rubezh” missiles and aim them at targets in Europe. This will essentially strengthen Moscow’s ability to blackmail and threaten European states with a view to

    • undermine the unity of the Atlantic alliance;

    • deter NATO’s potential intervention in a possible war in the Southern Baltics that would be caused by Russian aggression against the three Baltic States, or in the war in Ukraine, if the Ukrainian crisis is nоt resolved in a reasonably short period of time;

    • defeat NATO troops by a limited use of nuclear weapons if an armed conflict between Russia and NATO in the Baltic region breaks out.

    In actual fact, Moscow wants to put NATO member-states in a grim position: they could either defend the three Baltic States, thus facing the risk of being the victims of a nuclear attack by Russia, or refrain from any involvement in such a conflict, thus undermining the very raison d’être of the North Atlantic alliance.

    russia russia russia

    hELL YEAH !!!

    welcome welcome welcome
    This, in many ways, replicates the strategic situation in Europe that emerged in the late 1970s, when the USSR deployed its highly effective SS-20 missiles with a view of decoupling the USA and the European NATO members in the security sphere. Then the NATO members were forced to make the “double-track decision” – to deploy American intermediate-range missiles in Europe to restore the nuclear balance on the continent and to offer negotiations aimed at banning the INF weapons from Europe. In the late 1980s, however, the Kremlin signed the INF Treaty, which banned the intermediate range nuclear missiles, since Soviet leaders and military commanders had realized the threat of a very short-warning attack on several critical strategic targets, including several national command and control centers that were started by the American INF forces.

    Thus if Russia deploys its intermediate-range missiles and aims them at Europe the prospect of American INF forces appearing in Europe becomes real. This may challenge the states of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a dilemma: they could either support the deployment of US nuclear missiles in Europe, possibly on their soil, or face the risks caused by Russia’s aggression against the Baltic States. Public opinion and political establishments in CEE may then be deeply split into two camps – those of supporters and opponents of the new American missiles – just as a similar situation had sprung up in the 1980s, when mass anti-missile movements had arisen in Western Europe; and the Kremlin will no doubt capitalize on it. Yet if the USA and the European states refuse to deter the threat caused by the new Russian nuclear missiles Russia’s potential aggression against the three Baltic States may become real. Russia’s invasion of Georgia, its annexation of Crimea, its “hybrid” war in Donbas, its explicit threats to use nuclear weapons in case of the West’s involvement in the war in Ukraine and its regular war games and military drills near the borders of the three Baltic States prove that the Kremlin, if not deterred, is prone to realize the worst case scenarios.

    Conclusions and recommendations

    Development and testing of the new Russian intermediate range missiles GLCM P-500 and GLBM “Rubezh” is an element of Moscow’s strategy aimed at threatening European states with a nuclear attack or actual use of nuclear weapons with a view to disable NATO and deter it from supporting the three Baltic States and/or the countries of the north-western segment of the Black Sea region against probable Russian aggression.

    If Russia starts to deploy the missiles just mentioned, a deployment of new American intermediate range nuclear forces may become necessary, just as such a deployment was necessary in the 1980s. At the same time we may expect that this will engender hot political debates in the CEE countries.

    In view of this the CEE countries are to:

    • Develop, preferably within the NATO framework, a coherent strategy that would presume to send a clear and strong signal to Moscow saying that if it deploys its new intermediate-range missiles the USA and the European states will deploy the American intermediate-range systems;

    Reproduce the “double-track” policy, which led to the banning of intermediate-range nuclear missiles in the 1980s, if Moscow ignores this signal.

    "

    go Russia go!!!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Nuclear Weapons Treaties & Agreements: Discussion

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:07 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:07 pm