Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    New START Treaty

    Share

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    New START Treaty

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:30 pm

    US, Russia to Sign Nuclear Arms Reduction Treaty April 8

    VOA News 26 March 2010

    President Barack Obama says the U.S. and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades.

    The landmark nuclear arms reduction treaty reduces by about one-third the number of long-range nuclear weapons that the world's two largest nuclear powers will deploy.

    President Obama said he telephoned his Russian counterpart, Dmitri Medvedev, Friday, and they agreed to meet in the Czech capital, Prague, to sign the new START treaty on April 8. He said the pact shows that the two nations intend to lead the world in reducing the nuclear threat.

    A spokeswoman for President Medvedev told Russia's Interfax news agency the agreement reflects the balance of both countries' interests.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the pact will give Russia and the United States more credibility in non-proliferation and in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea on nuclear issues.

    The U.S. Senate and the Russian Parliament must ratify the treaty.

    Mr. Obama said the treaty also significantly reduces missiles and launchers, and establishes a strong and effective verification system. He said it also maintains flexibility needed to protect national security and guarantee the U.S. commitment to its allies' security.

    The new treaty will replace the START I agreement - Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty - signed in 1991 by U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. That treaty came into force in 1994 but expired in December of 2009.

    U.S. and Russian negotiators have been working for nearly a year on the new pact.

    The agreement would reduce each nation's nuclear arsenal from 2,200 to 1,500 warheads each. They would have seven years from the treaty's ratification to carry out the reductions.

    Verification issues and Russian opposition to U.S. plans for a missile defense system in Europe had been holding up major progress in the talks.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/usa/2010/usa-100326-voa01.htm


    Last edited by Russian Patriot on Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:32 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:56 pm

    any details on which systems will be affected in Russia and the US?

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 7:20 pm

    Farhad Gulemov wrote:any details on which systems will be affected in Russia and the US?

    Its just the retirement of outdated systems. This treaty doesn't mean a damned thing. US still isn't withdrawing their European bombs.

    Farhad Gulemov
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 70
    Points : 82
    Join date : 2010-03-08
    Age : 53
    Location : Imperial Homeland

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Farhad Gulemov on Tue Mar 30, 2010 10:25 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Its just the retirement of outdated systems. This treaty doesn't mean a damned thing.

    that is excatly what I am suspecting too. I will try to find out more details.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:44 am

    Actually this treaty means a lot.

    The Moscow treaty was a joke.

    The Moscow Treaty was a treaty for parties that don't want to be bound by any treaties.

    The Moscow treaty basically said that on a specific date (something like December 12th 2012 or so) both sides were allowed between 2,200 and 1,700 warheads each deployed. The day before and the day after they could have as many as they wanted.
    Not a single weapon need be destroyed or withdrawn from service to comply with this treaty and there were no options to ensure the other guy was doing it anyway.

    The US could build 10,000 warheads and deploy them operationally on the day after the date specified and still comply with the treaty.

    The only other restriction on weapons was the START I which limits both sides to about 6,000 warheads each.

    This new treaty is a huge step forward.

    What bothers me however is that both sides are contradicting themselves.

    The Russians are saying the treaty links Strategic offensive systems and Strategic defensive systems, but the US is saying it will not effect their ABM plans in Europe or elsewhere.

    Another problem is of course it will not take effect till both sides both sign it and their respective government bodies ratify the treaty.

    prime13
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 3
    Points : 14
    Join date : 2010-11-08
    Location : Greece

    Mysterious Missile Launches over Southern California

    Post  prime13 on Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:00 am

    Mysterious Missile Launches over Southern California

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:47 am

    It is rather unlikely to be a missile launch as a show of strength when it was done out of the blue and with no warning.

    The lack of clear information makes it appear very strange... like it is a rogue launch or the US military is out of control... or at the least the fact that they don't know who launched it yet suggests they seem to have little control of the water near their own territory.


    Regarding the new START treaty I have seen news reports that suggest that the Americans in the senate or congress or whereever it is being ratified want about 50 amendments to change the wording to make it clear it doesn't limit ABM systems in Europe. The response from a Russian official is understandable as he said that if such changes are made before it is signed the Russians will withdraw from their ratification.
    Fair enough really... when you sign such things they become meaningless if one signs the document and then the other party makes changes to the agreement before signing... it is like they have signed different contracts.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:06 am

    Some also speculate that the "missile launch" was just a bad angle of a Jet liner taking off.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:07 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:Some also speculate that the "missile launch" was just a bad angle of a Jet liner taking off.

    This may be true especially if you compare the efflux of the unknown launch with the real one; the former has a very wispier contrails** rather it should be thick white efflux owing to the presence of Aluminum Oxide .... dunno

    **
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/national/main7036716.shtml


    Ogannisyan8887
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 62
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-01-07
    Age : 24

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Ogannisyan8887 on Fri Jan 07, 2011 6:35 am

    People in US are pissed off about about Start especially FOX, they think it will stop them from building their missile defence.



    Surprise: Russian Duma To Codify Missile Defense Language in New START

    Many opponents of the New START treaty with Russia argued that a significant disconnect between the two parties over defensive weapons systems should have scotched, or at least delayed, ratification. The Obama administration and Senate Democrats managed to convince 13 Republicans that any language in the treaty's preamble discussing missile defense was ancillary and not legally binding, clearing the path for a 71-26 ratification vote on the lame duck Congress' final day in session.

    The lower house of the Russian Duma has now taken up New START, and -- surprise! -- they're insisting that limits on US missile defense capabilities are a central element to the treaty:

    The State Duma plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.

    "During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US’ attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this," Kosachev says.

    We will deal with these interpretations. The first thing is that our American colleagues do not recognize the legal force of the treaty’s preamble. The preamble sets a link between strategic offensive arms and defensive arms. The second thing is an attempt to interpret certain provisions of the treaty unilaterally.

    The Russian lawmakers insist that all the chapters of the treaty including the preamble are legally binding, which is a common norm of international law. It is not lawful to take certain provisions and to give them unilateral interpretations like the American senators do, Alexei Arbatov, a member of the Carnegie Scientific Council, says.

    This is our reaction on the US steps, which are not justified because you cannot selectively validate or invalidate certain provisions of the treaty. We are quite consistent here. We said that the entire treaty, the preamble and the articles have the same judicial force. This is logical and this is right.


    This development vindicates START critics' concerns about the accord and represents an outright embarrassment for the Obama Administration. The Russians are (again) asserting as non-negotiable the precise treaty interpretation that the White House assured wavering Senators they had no reason to fear. This very question was the subject of hours of debate on the Senate floor, when START quarterback Sen. John Kerry repeatedly intoned that the preamble's missile defense language was meaningless. It's now abundantly clear that the pesky passage was far from the "throwaway" paragraph Kerry vowed it was, and that Moscow won't honor America's toothless opposition to the handful of troublesome sentences. From the Russian perspective, those few words are a central pillar of the agreement's overall attractiveness.

    The Obama Administration was either grossly incompetent and clueless in its negotiating process, or it was deliberately misconstruing the motives and assumptions of its negotiating partner in the name of securing a domestic political victory. In light of the White House's continued refusal to release negotiating records -- and reports like this -- the latter option is the safer assumption.

    If the Duma makes any alteration whatsoever to the treaty, it must bounce back to the Senate for another ratification vote -- where six new Republican votes could either kill it, or alter it further and force a renegotiation. As Ed Morrissey writes, either way, the president's credibility has taken a big hit:


    [The White House] will have been publicly caught arguing one thing to the Senate while apparently agreeing to its opposite with Russia. The next time Obama brings a treaty of any consequence and controversy to the Senate, don’t expect the Senate to just accept Obama’s word …. and don’t expect it to pass ratification, either.[b]

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 07, 2011 7:28 am

    Why would the Duma make any changes?

    In the Preamble it states a link between defensive and offensive strategic systems.

    A Preamble is part of a legal document and is just as binding as any other part of the document.

    Very simply this means that if the US decides to ignore Russian concerns and starts building ABM systems in Europe and Japan and other places without caring what Russia says or does then Russia has every right to start to produce nuclear warheads beyond those allowed in the treaty to counter the new threat.

    Equally if the S-500 turns out to be a 600km range 400km altitude mobile ABM addon to S-300 and S-400 batteries that can be put practically anywhere including on Russian surface vessels then the US might start thinking that 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads might not be enough too.

    Officials on both parties in the US said there was of course undeniable links between defensive and offensive systems.

    It is like two guys with pistols negotiating how many rounds each can have in their magazines at any one time and how much extra ammo they can carry and then all of a sudden one guy puts on some body armour.
    Of course the other guy is going to start planning body armour for himself and armour piercing ammo but the first thing they will try is to persuade the other guy that wearing body armour is destabilising and instead of fighting fair he might have to shoot him in the back of his head when he is doing something else.

    If both agree to no body armour or limited body armour (ie ABM treaty which was the = of say a helmet) then everything is OK, but at the moment there is no restriction on ABM systems... and mid course interceptors look a lot like IRBMs... build thousands and fit them with nuke warheads and you have found a loop hole in the START and INF treaties.

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:34 pm


    Russian missiles must penetrate any defenses — parliament

    RIA Novosti

    02:12 22/01/2011

    MOSCOW, January 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia must quickly modernize its nuclear deterrent focusing on the deployment of ballistic missiles capable of penetrating the most sophisticated missile defenses, a draft supplementary statement to the new START treaty ratification document says.

    The lower house of the Russian parliament, the State Duma, posted on its official website on Friday the texts of two draft statements that would accompany the resolution on ratification of the treaty.

    "The State Duma believes that maintaining Russia's nuclear deterrent in an adequate state of readiness is a key venue of the country's military doctrine, with the focus on the deployment of strategic offensive weapons that possess the most combat effectiveness and the highest potential to penetrate missile defenses," says the statement dedicated to the upkeep of Russia's nuclear deterrent and the development of new missile defenses.

    "The combat effectiveness of Russia's nuclear deterrent must be maintained at the level that guarantees the protection of the country from attacks carried out by any foreign state or a group of states in any military-strategic situation," the 3.5-page document says.

    The second supplementary statement outlines the State Duma's position on the reduction and limitations of strategic offensive armaments. It is addressed to the United States, but also calls on other nuclear powers "to join the process of the reduction and limitation of nuclear weapons through a ban on their further development."

    The new arms reduction treaty, replacing START 1, which expired in December 2009, was signed in Prague last April by President Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama. The document slashes the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.

    The U.S. Senate ratified the new arms deal with Russia on December 22, 2010, but added several amendments to the resolution on ratification, including a demand to build up U.S. global missile defenses.

    The new agreement will come into force after ratification by both houses of the Russian parliament, the State Duma and the Federation Council.

    The State Duma is expected to adopt the draft law in the third and final reading on January 25. The upper house could hold its ratification vote in its first session on January 26.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110122-rianovosti02.htm

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Russian Patriot on Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:38 pm


    Russian parliament committee recommends ratifying New Start
    RIA Novosti

    16:28 20/01/2011 MOSCOW, January 20 (RIA Novosti) - The foreign relations committee of the lower house of the Russian parliament on Thursday recommended that lawmakers give final approval to the New Start arms reduction treaty with the United States.

    The U.S. Senate ratified the new arms deal with Russia on December 22, but added several conditions to its resolution on ratification, including a demand to build up U.S. global missile defenses.

    The new agreement will come into force after ratification by both houses of the Russian parliament, the State Duma and the Federation Council. The lower house is due to hold its third and final reading of its ratification bill next Tuesday.

    The Federation Council could hold its ratification vote as soon as it returns to session on Wednesday.

    The new treaty, replacing the START 1 that expired in December 2009, was signed in Prague last April by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama. The document slashes the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110120-rianovosti01.htm

    Russian Patriot
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1168
    Points : 2062
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 25
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia says New Start inspections to begin in April

    Post  Russian Patriot on Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:33 pm


    Russia says New Start inspections to begin in April

    RIA Novosti

    13:35 17/03/2011 MOSCOW, March 17 (RIA Novosti) - On-site inspections of Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals under the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty will begin in April, Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Thursday.

    The treaty came into effect on February 5 after being approved by the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament.

    "According to the treaty, the first inspections should begin within 60 days [after entry into force]," Sergei Ryabkov told reporters in Moscow.

    The treaty, signed in April by the presidents of Russia and the United States, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, trims both nations' nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2011/russia-110317-rianovosti03.htm

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

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

    A Breakdown of Breakout: U.S. and Russian Warhead Production Capabilities

    Post  TheRealist on Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:02 pm

    Russian and American nuclear breakout capabilities

    http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1121

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:51 am

    The US has said that no matter what happens it will have an ABM system in Europe, and on that basis I very much doubt the Russians will accept any suggestion to lower nuclear warheads below 1,500 in terms of strategic weapons, and unless NATO promises to drop its conventional force levels to equal Russian force levels (ie 6,000 tanks etc ) I am pretty sure the Russians wont be interested in getting rid of any tactical nukes either.

    Something this article doesn't take into account is that the Russian nuclear industry is investing in fast neutron reactors... so called breeder reactors for power generation.

    Very basically these reactors can create their own fuel by placing spent fuel rods around the core during normal operation of the reactor these rods get enriched and can be used as fuel in that reactor or another one like it... or enriched further to create weapons grade material...


    _________________
    “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

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Viktor on Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:18 pm

    Nice thumbsup

    Russia may reconsider its attitude to the treaty on strategic offensive arms by the actions of the United States

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Fri Jan 16, 2015 2:01 am

    START Treaty Vital for US, Russia Despite Differences on Ukraine

    US Strategic Command, Adm. Cecil Haney stated that Complying with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and maintaining a transparent relationship with Russia is vital for Washington and Moscow despite current differences on Ukraine.

    WASHINGTON, January 15 (Sputnik) — Complying with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and maintaining a transparent relationship with Russia is vital for Washington and Moscow despite current differences on Ukraine, commander of US Strategic Command, Adm. Cecil Haney said on Thursday.

    "Being able to have this transparency through the START treaty is very important to both our nations [US and Russia]," Haney said at the event in Atlantic Council in Washington. "That's why it's important I think that we continue that kind of business, even through Ukraine and Crimea we have continued to inspect each other per plan associated with that [START] treaty," he added.

    Earlier in the week, the head of the Department for Non-Proliferation and Arms Control of the Russian Foreign Ministry Mikhail Ulyanov said that Moscow might revise its commitment to the START treaty in response to unfriendly US actions.

    Ulyanov warned that Russia's response could involve revising cooperation with Washington both within the framework of the New START treaty and in the area of non-proliferation.

    The new START treaty was signed between Russia and the United States in 2010 and came into force the following year. The new START limits the number of deployed ballistic missiles and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700, the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, and deployed and non-deployed launchers to 800. The treaty is valid until 2021.

    The relations between Russia and the United States deteriorated amid the current situation in Ukraine, as the US and its partners repeatedly accused Moscow of meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs – a claim that Russia denies. However, the two countries continued cooperation in a number of spheres, including the arms reduction.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 16, 2015 11:48 am

    Hahaha... clearly they have found one button to press to upset the Americans...

    Amusing that the US thinks it can impose sanctions on Russia and force its cronies to do the same because it claims Russia is interfering in the Ukraine... it would be easier to name the countries the US isn't directly interfering in than the ones it was...


    _________________
    “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 : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:03 pm

    Reviewing obligations under START treaty not on agenda now — Russian Foreign Ministry

    In future Russia will probably have to analyze observance of START treaty in connection with NATO’s plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe, a Foreign Ministry official says

    MOSCOW, March 11. /TASS/. Russia is not considering reviewing its obligations under START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), Deputy Director of Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department on Security Affairs and Disarmament Vladimir Leontyev said on Wednesday.

    "At a certain stage [in the future], Russia will probably have to analyze observance of START treaty in connection with [NATO’s] plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe," Leontyev said. "However, the issue is not on the agenda at the moment," he added.

    "There is a condition in the START treaty that there is certain connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms," the diplomat said. "It is clearly stated in the preamble to the agreement. It is also stated there that at the moment of signing the treaty, developing strategic defensive weapons — missile defense systems — does not threaten viability and observance of the treaty. But the situation does not stay unchanged. US and NATO’s missile defense plans are progressing," he added.

    "We are attentively following and analyzing the situation, and will continue doing so," Leontyev stressed.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:30 am

    March 2015 New START aggregate numbers released

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  max steel on Mon Apr 06, 2015 9:48 pm

    US having more deployed ICBMS SLBMS . Hmm unshaven


    Well I read a month back where Russia's deployed warheads ( 1643 ) overtook murica's deployed warheads ( 1642) for first time in a decade . But again russia's has reduced its warheads count . dunno

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:49 am

    As old ICBMs and SLBMs are retired the missiles that replace them often don't have the same number of warheads so the overall number reduces...


    _________________
    “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 : 9457
    Points : 9949
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 17, 2015 2:44 pm

    US Says Cooperation With Russia on New START Treaty "Silver Lining"

    According to the latest data exchange with Russia, the two sides have made a significant progress over the restrictions presumed by the treaty by February 2018, Assistant Secretary of State Frank Rose said.

    The US is satisfied with the cooperation of Russia on the implementation of the 2010 New START treaty, Assistant Secretary of State Frank Rose said.

    The two sides continue to honestly implement the terms of the treaty despite tensions over the Ukrainian crisis and some other international issues, Rose said Thursday at a press-conference on the nuclear disarmament and international security in Colorado Springs.

    The State Department official said the latest events in Ukraine "dramatically complicated" the work to minimize the global nuclear threat, but cooperation with Moscow on the New START treaty remains "a silver lining."

    "At such a hard time it is highly important to maintain transparency in the displacement and deployment of strategic nuclear weapons," he added.

    "According to the latest data exchange with Russia, the two sides have made a significant progress over the restrictions presumed by the treaty by February 2018," Rose said.

    He pointed out that by that time Russian and the US will each have 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, the smallest number since the beginning of the nuclear arms development.

    The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which lays out the further reduction of deployed strategic nuclear weapons was signed on April 8, 2010, in Prague. It came into force on February 5, 2011. It replaced the old treaty which expired in December 2009. The New START treaty limits the number of the deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550, and the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine ballistic missile and heavy bombers to 700. The document is expected to last at least for 10 years with the possibility to be prolonged for five years by mutual agreement of the two sides.

    Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150417/1021006521.html#ixzz3XZOGOFUU

    TheRealist
    Corporal
    Corporal

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

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  TheRealist on Sun Apr 19, 2015 7:01 am

    A very interesting provision on the START 1 treaty which restricted the movements of land-based mobile ICBM's are limited and apparently the Americans wanted to keep this on the New START Treaty.

    USNI

    Where mobile missiles are concerned, a rigorous, verifiable inspection regime is a must. It has been said that a long-term collection effort to create a sound intelligence base and target familiarity is essential for missile monitoring in peace or targeting during war1 – hard experience learned by the US following SCUD-hunting in Desert Storm. An example of that kind of rigor is found in the Mobile ICBM provision (Article VI) of START I:

    1. Deployed road-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles shall be based only in restricted areas. A restricted area shall not exceed five square kilometers in size and shall not overlap another restricted area. No more than ten deployed road-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles may be based or located in a restricted area. A restricted area shall not contain deployed ICBMs for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs of more than one type of ICBM.

    2. Each Party shall limit the number of fixed structures for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs within each restricted area so that these structures shall not be capable of containing more road-mobile launchers of ICBMs than the number of road-mobile launchers of ICBMs specified for that restricted area.

    3. Each restricted area shall be located within a deployment area. A deployment area shall not exceed 125,000 square kilometers in size and shall not overlap another deployment area. A deployment area shall contain no more than one ICBM base for road-mobile launchers of ICBMs.

    4. Deployed rail-mobile launchers of ICBMs and their associated missiles shall be based only in rail garrisons. Each Party shall have no more than seven rail garrisons. No point on a portion of track located inside a rail garrison shall be more than 20 kilometers from any entrance/exit for that rail garrison. This distance shall be measured along the tracks. A rail garrison shall not overlap another rail garrison. (more)

    Sponsored content

    Re: New START Treaty

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:33 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:33 pm