New US/Russia arms control deal

[Oscar Wilde]

From here

Washington (CNN) -- The United States and Russia have reached "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," President Obama said Friday.

The agreement cuts by about one-third "the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy," the president said.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will last 10 years, and builds on the previous agreement that expired in December.

"It significantly reduces missiles and launchers," Obama told reporters at the White House. "It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign the agreement April 8 in Prague, Czech Republic, Obama said, calling arms control "one of his administration's top national security priorities."

Information released by the White House says the new treaty limits both nations to "significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years" of its signing. One of the limits: 1,550 warheads. "Warheads on deployed ICBMs (Intercontinental ballistic missiles) and deployed SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit," the White House said. There are also limits on launchers.

The treaty lays out a "verification regime" that includes on-site inspections, data exchanges and notifications, the White House said.

"The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities," the White House said.

Obama said the agreement is part of the U.S. effort to "reset" the U.S. relationship with Russia.

"With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead," the president said. "By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities."

President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the changes will not hamper the U.S. ability to protect itself and its allies.

Negotiators have been working since April 2009 to wrap up the "follow-on" to the 1991 agreement. Talks were difficult, with disagreements over verification, including on-site inspection of missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the talks earlier told CNN that negotiators had found "innovative" ways to verify what each side has. Verification will be a top issue politically because the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament will each have to ratify any agreement.

Russian officials at one point objected to the Obama administration's plans to build a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe. Specifically, they were angered by news leaks from Romania that it had agreed to allow missile interceptors to be installed in that country.

The issue, according to arms control experts, was resolved by including non-binding language in the START treaty's preamble stating that there is a relationship between offensive and defensive weapons; however, the treaty itself deals only with limits on offensive weapons systems. This resolution could help placate U.S. critics who want no link in the treaty between offensive and defensive weapons, arguing that it might be used to try to limit a U.S. missile-defense plan.

The new START would be the first treaty related to arms control since the end of the Cold War, experts have said, setting the stage for further arms reductions that will tackle thorny issues like what to do with non-deployed warheads that are kept in storage, tactical nuclear weapons and further cuts in missiles and launch vehicles.

Seems like this has been a good week for Obama.

[cosmicalstorm]

Can someone explain to me what the consequences of a treaty like this (provided it is followed through) would be in the unlikely scenario that an actual nuclear war between the US and Russia took place?

[Koolaidkirby]

Instead of blowing up the planet 10 times over, said war would only blow up the planet 9 times over.

[Chris OFarrell]

More or less.

From what I hear, the Russians were trying hardcore to link ABM with the treaty, but Obama refused to have anything to do with it.

Ultimatly, this treaty is by far better for Russia then bad for them, they can scrap all the oldest and most questionable of their nuclear platforms and warheads that they are wasting significant chunks of cash on maintaining, and keep their newest systems / invest in new technologies for a smaller, more agile and more advanced Strategic deterant.

Nukes and their assorted C4I are fraken *expensive* things to maintain after all.

Kudos to Clinton and her negotiating teams for not caving on ABM.

[Vympel]

In the absence of reading the particulars, if this is in essence a continuation of the original START, its a good thing.

[SirNitram]

Right Wingers can still pursue ABM, the stockpiles are lowered, and increased trust between nations. In review of these three parts, I know the GOPs response when asked to get on board for the 67 votes to ratify:

Hell No!

Let's just face it, they're THAT petty these days.

[CmdrWilkens]

In the absence of reading the particulars, if this is in essence a continuation of the original START, its a good thing.

It is meant to replace START since the limitations from the last round actually had expired as of a few weeks ago. Dropping to 1,550 is still just the tip of the iceberg (there are allowances for weapons in reserve, in storage, awaiting dismantling, etc) so the actual number of warheads on both sides will continue to be very large but every bit helps.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't care one way or other. Except that so far all these "arms-limitation treaties" have been used to scrap huge parts of nuclear deterrent alltogether. Which is not acceptable for Russia when new missiles enter at a pathetically low rate.

[Kane Starkiller]

Whitehouse

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 26, 2010
Key Facts about the New START Treaty

Treaty Structure: The New START Treaty is organized in three tiers of increasing level of detail. The first tier is the Treaty text itself. The second tier consists of a Protocol to the Treaty, which contains additional rights and obligations associated with Treaty provisions. The basic rights and obligations are contained in these two documents. The third tier consists of Technical Annexes to the Protocol. All three tiers will be legally binding. The Protocol and Annexes will be integral parts of the Treaty and thus submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

Strategic Offensive Reductions: Under the Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will be limited to significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years from the date the Treaty enters into force. Each Party has the flexibility to determine for itself the structure of its strategic forces within the aggregate limits of the Treaty. These limits are based on a rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.

Aggregate limits:

* 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.
o This limit is 74% lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.
* A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
* A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
o This limit is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty.

Verification and Transparency: The Treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. Measures under the Treaty include on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty, and provisions to facilitate the use of national technical means for treaty monitoring. To increase confidence and transparency, the Treaty also provides for the exchange of telemetry.

Treaty Terms: The Treaty’s duration will be ten years, unless superseded by a subsequent agreement. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for a period of no more than five years. The Treaty includes a withdrawal clause that is standard in arms control agreements. The 2002 Moscow Treaty terminates upon entry into force of the New START Treaty. The U.S. Senate and the Russian legislature must approve the Treaty before it can enter into force.

No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities.

"1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit"
It only explicitly states that ICBM and SLBM warheads count towards the limit. Which would mean that warheads loaded on bombers don't count...and each heavy bomber itself counts as one warhead.
Which would mean that each country, while respecting the terms of the treaty, could build 700 heavy bombers each with the ability to carry who knows how many nuclear cruise missiles and bombs.
US ABM isn't affected by the treaty but then again, with the upper limit of 700 launchers, I don't think Russia even needs to make any actual cuts.

[Vympel]

I don't care one way or other. Except that so far all these "arms-limitation treaties" have been used to scrap huge parts of nuclear deterrent alltogether. Which is not acceptable for Russia when new missiles enter at a pathetically low rate.

I'm pretty sure the position for quite some time has been START not mandating the elimination of any warhead/ launchers that otherwise would've stayed in service. I can think of far better things Russia can be spending its money on than maintaining a large nuclear arsenal. It's hard to buy the idea that a reduction from the present number of warheads is somehow going to irrevocably harm Russia's national security.

The less nukes in service, the better.

As for new missile production, keep in mind that in contrast to the 6-7 Topol-M missiles deployed per year in the past (give or take), in 2009 Russia depoyed 14 new Topol-Ms, and in 2010 they're planning 20.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think Stas has other targets in mind other than the US when it comes to it.

[K. A. Pital]

Seems as the deterrents are massively reduced on either side. Can't say it's good in the light of ABM plans. Nuclear deterrents can soon become endangered and all that. Which paves the way for huge conventional wars between nuclear powers.

Not good. I always preferred super massive overkill deterrent.

[Sea Skimmer]

"1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit"
It only explicitly states that ICBM and SLBM warheads count towards the limit. Which would mean that warheads loaded on bombers don't count...and each heavy bomber itself counts as one warhead.
Which would mean that each country, while respecting the terms of the treaty, could build 700 heavy bombers each with the ability to carry who knows how many nuclear cruise missiles and bombs.
US ABM isn't affected by the treaty but then again, with the upper limit of 700 launchers, I don't think Russia even needs to make any actual cuts.

The issue is one of keeping the treaty and its verification simple. The earlier arms limitations treaties took years to negotiate and were impossible to verify because of how complex the limitations were. Because the SORT treaty and this treaty don’t require that old warhead be dismantled (the US and Russia already have a major decades long backlog of warheads we WANT dismantled), it’s pointless to try to limit the number of nuclear gravity bombs. Counting bombers is easier and more relevant.

Also limiting nuclear gravity bombs for bombers would mean limiting gravity bombs for tactical aircraft, since in many cases the designs are the exact same thing. Russia does not want tight limitations on its tactical nukes, since so many NATO airfields are now so close to Moscow. So limiting tactical bombs would cripple Russia, but not the US which faces no serious threat from tactical aircraft making strategic attacks on CONUS given the lack of forward Russian bases and very limited inflight refueling capability. So it’s not going to happen, and that’s fine by everyone. The only thing that really matters is long range missile warheads, which can reach targets in 30-40 minutes and cannot be recalled once fired. No one is going to deploy 700 new bombers, the shear costs involved make it unlikely that either the US or Russia will build more then ~100 new manned bombers in the next 30 years.

The main point of SORT and this treaty is just to provide a firm ground for both sides to plan future nuclear deployments on. Considering the vast reductions which have already taken place from Cold War levels, there is no real reason to demand lower warhead counts then we have now unless ones goal is abolishing nukes. That’s never going to fucking happen. In fact for all Obama's rhetoric about a nuclear free world, and his cancellation of the robust earth penetrator, he’s actually kept funding in the budget for an entirely new nuclear warhead component plant (this is the plant that makes everything BUT the nuclear material itself) to ensure that the US can refurbish its stockpile in future decades.

[Kane Starkiller]

In fact for all Obama's rhetoric about a nuclear free world, and his cancellation of the robust earth penetrator, he’s actually kept funding in the budget for an entirely new nuclear warhead component plant (this is the plant that makes everything BUT the nuclear material itself) to ensure that the US can refurbish its stockpile in future decades.

Oh I agree. I think the very fact that some kind of treaty was signed was a positive thing. My comment was mostly to debunk the "Indonesian infiltrator Zerobama unilaterally eliminating US nuclear arsenal" crowd and "Yankees tricking mother Russia into disarmament while planning a nuclear strike to steal water from Baikal lake" crowd.