HOME
        TheInfoList






New START / СНВ-III
Obama and Medvedev sign Prague Treaty 2010.jpeg
Presidents Obama and Medvedev after signing the Prague Treaty.
TypeStrategic nuclear disarmament
Drafted19 May – 9 November 2009
Signed8 April 2010
LocationPrague, Czech Republic
Effective5 February 2011[1][2]
ConditionRatification of both parties
Expiration5 February 2021
(Option to extend until 2026)
Signatories
LanguagesEnglish, Russian
nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation with the formal name of Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague,[3][4] and, after ratification,[5][6] entered into force on 5 February 2011.[1] It is expected to last at least until 2021.

New START replaced the Treaty of Moscow (SORT), which was to expire in December 2012. It follows the START I treaty, which expired in December 2009; the proposed START II treaty, which never entered into force; and the START III treaty, for which negotiations were never concluded.

The treaty calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism. It does not limit the number of operationally inactive nuclear warheads stockpiled by Russia and the United States, a number in the high thousands.[7]

Overview

The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[8] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[8] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[9] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[8]

Summary of New START limits[10]
Type Limit
Deployed missiles and bombers 700
Deployed warheads (RVs and bombers) 1,550
Deployed and non-deployed launchers (missile tubes and bombers) 800

These obligations must be met within seven years from the date the treaty enters into force. The treaty will last ten years, with an option to renew it for up to five years upon agreement of both parties.[11] The treaty entered into force on 5 February 2011, when the United States and Russia exchanged instruments of ratification, following approval by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Assembly of Russia.[12] However, the United States began implementing the reductions even before the treaty was ratified.[13]

Documents made available to the U.S. Senate described[clarification needed] removal from service of at least 30 missile silos, 34 bombers and 56 submarine launch tubes, though missiles removed would not be destroyed and bombers could be converted to conventional use. While four of 24 launchers on each of the 14 ballistic missile nuclear submarines would be removed, none would be retired.[14]

The treaty places no limits on tactical systems,[15] such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which will most likely be replacing the F-15E and F-16 in the tactical nuclear delivery role.[16]

The treaty does not cover rail-mobile ICBM launchers because neither party currently possesses such systems. ICBMs on such launchers would be covered under the generic launcher limits, but the inspection details for such systems would have to be worked out between the parties if such systems were reintroduced in the future.[17]

HistorySORT), which was to expire in December 2012. It follows the START I treaty, which expired in December 2009; the proposed START II treaty, which never entered into force; and the START III treaty, for which negotiations were never concluded.

The treaty calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism. It does not limit the number of operationally inactive nuclear warheads stockpiled by Russia and the United States, a number in the high thousands.[7]

The treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 10% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty.[8] The total number of deployed warheads, however, could exceed the 1,550 limit by a few hundred because per bomber only one warhead is counted regardless of how many it actually carries.[8] It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments is limited to 700.[9] The treaty allows for satellite and remote monitoring, as well as 18 on-site inspections per year to verify limits.[8]

Summary of New START limits[10]
Type Limit
Deployed missiles and bombers 700
Deployed warheads (RVs and bombers) 1,550
Deployed and non-deployed launchers (missile tubes and bombers) 800

These obligations must be met within seven years from the date the treaty enters into force. The treaty will last ten years, with an option to renew it for up to five years upon agreement of both parties.[11] The treaty entered into force on 5 February 2011, when the United States and Russia exchanged instruments of ratification, following approval by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Assembly of Russia.[12] However, the United States began implementing the reductions even before the treaty was ratified.[13]

Documents made available to the U.S. Senate described[clarification needed] removal from service of at least 30 missile silos, 34 bombers and 56 submarine launch tubes, though missiles removed would not be destroyed and bombers could be converted to conventional use. While four of 24 launchers on each of the 14 ballistic missile nuclear submarines would be removed, none would be retired.[14]

The treaty places no limits on tactical systems,[15] such as the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, which will most likely be replacing the F-15E and F-16 in the tactical nuclear delivery role.[16]

The treaty does not cover rail-mobile ICBM launchers because neither party currently possesses such systems. ICBMs on such launchers would be covered under the generic launcher limits, but the inspection details for such systems would have to be worked out between the parties if such systems were reintroduced in the future.[17]

History

United States

On 13 May, the agreement was submitted by U.S. President Barack Obama for ratification in the U.S. Senate. Ratification required 67 votes in favor (out of 100 Senators). On Tuesday, 16 September 2010 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 14–4 in favor of ratifying New START. The measure had support from three Senate Republicans: Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.[32] Senator John Kerry[33] and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed optimism that a deal on ratification was near.[34]

Republicans in the Senate generally deferred to Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a leading conservative on defense issues, who sought a strong commitment to modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and questioned whether there was time for ratification during the lame duck session, calling for an opening of the negotiation record before a vote is held.[35] Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined Kyl in expressing skepticism over the timing of ratification,[36] and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) expressed opposition.[37]

Obama made New START ratification a priority during the 2010 post-election Prague.[3]

On 13 May, the agreement was submitted by U.S. President Barack Obama for ratification in the U.S. Senate. Ratification required 67 votes in favor (out of 100 Senators). On Tuesday, 16 September 2010 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 14–4 in favor of ratifying New START. The measure had support from three Senate Republicans: Richard Lugar of Indiana, Bob Corker of Tennessee, and Johnny Isakson of Georgia.[32] Senator John Kerry[33] and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed optimism that a deal on ratification was near.[34]

Republicans in the Senate generally deferred to Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a leading conservative on defense issues, who sought a strong commitment to modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and questioned whether there was time for ratification during the lame duck session, calling for an opening of the negotiation record before a vote is held.[35] Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined Kyl in expressing skepticism over the timing of ratification,Republicans in the Senate generally deferred to Jon Kyl (R-AZ), a leading conservative on defense issues, who sought a strong commitment to modernize U.S. nuclear forces, and questioned whether there was time for ratification during the lame duck session, calling for an opening of the negotiation record before a vote is held.[35] Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) joined Kyl in expressing skepticism over the timing of ratification,[36] and Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) expressed opposition.[37]

Obama made New START ratification a priority during the 2010 post-election lame duck session of Congress, and Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), the Democratic Chairman and senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, were leading supporters of the treaty.[38][39][40]

On 22 December 2010, the U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to ratification of the treaty, by a vote of 71 to 26 on the resolution of ratification.[41] Thirteen Republican senators, all 56 Democratic senators, and both Independent senators voted for the treaty.[42] President Obama signed documents completing the U.S. ratification process on 2 February 2011.[43]

On 28 May 2010, the document was introduced by Medvedev for consideration in the State Duma. On 6 July, the State Duma held parliamentary hearings on the treaty, which was attended by representatives from the Foreign Ministry and General Staff. On 8 July, the Duma Defense Committee and the International Affairs Committee recommended that the State Duma ratify the treaty.

However, on 29 October, the chairman of the Duma International Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kosachev, called for the return of the document to committee hearings, noting that the agreement does not restrict the activities

However, on 29 October, the chairman of the Duma International Affairs Committee, Konstantin Kosachev, called for the return of the document to committee hearings, noting that the agreement does not restrict the activities of the United States on missile defense, as well as the fact that ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads are not covered under the agreement. At the same time, Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov proposed not to rush to the amendment, or vote on the treaty, and to monitor the discussions in the U.S. Senate.

Following ratification by the U.S. Senate, the formal first reading of the treaty was held on 24 December and the State Duma voted its approval. The State Duma approved a second reading of the treaty on 14 January 2011.[44] 349 deputies out of 450 voted in favor of ratification.

The third and final reading by the State Duma took place on 25 January 2011 and the ratification resolution was approved by a vote of 350 deputies in favor, 96 against, and one abstention.[45] It was then approved unanimously by the Federation Council on the next day.[5][46]

On 28 January 2011, Medvedev signed the ratification resolution passed by the Federal Assembly, completing the Russian ratification process.[6] The treaty went into force when Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged the instruments of ratification at the Security Conference in Munich, Germany, on 5 February 2011.[1][5][6]

The New START Treaty requires a number of specific actions within periods after Entry into Force (EIF) (5 February 2011)[47]

  • No later than (NLT) 5 days after EIF
Exchange Inspection Airplane Information:
Lists of the types of airplanes intended to transport inspectors to points of entry will be exchanged.
  • NLT 25 days after EIF
Exc

In the United States, a debate about whether to ratify the treaty took place during the lead-up to the 2010 midterm elections and in the lame-duck congressional session afterward. While one public opinion poll showed broad support for ratification,[48] another showed general skepticism over nuclear arms reductions.[49][50][unreliable source?]

The Arms Control Association led efforts to rally political support, arguing that the treaty is needed to restore on-site verification and lend predictability to the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship.[51] Other organizations supporting the treaty include the Federation of American Scientists,[52] and disarmament expert Peter Wilk of Physicians for Social Responsibility called the New START treaty "essential" to ensuring a safer world and stronger diplomatic ties with Russia.[53]

Republican supporters included former President George H. W. Bush[54] and all six former Republican Secretaries of State, who wrote supportive op-eds in the Washington Post[55] and the Wall Street Journal.[56] Conservative columnist Robert Kagan, who supported the treaty, says its goals are actually modest compared to previous START treaties and that the treaty should not fail because of partisan disagreements. Kagan said the Republican insistence on upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reasonable but would not be affected by the current language of the treaty.[57]

The Heritage Action for America advocacy group, an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, took the lead in opposing New START, lobbying the Senate along with running a petition drive and airing political advertisements before November's midterm elections. The effort drew the support of likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and has been credited by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as changing some Republican votes.[58] According to Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the language of the New START treaty would "definitely" reduce America's nuclear weapon capacity but "wouldn't necessarily" reduce Russia's, and Russia would maintain a 10–1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which are not counted in the treaty.[59]

Arms control experts critical of the treaty included Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, who have written that the treaty weakens U.S. defenses.[60] Former CIA Director James Woolsey also said that "concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty".[61]

Senators Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell complained about a lack of funding for the Next-Generation Bomber during the treaty debate even though this platform would not be constrained by this treaty.[62][63] During the Senatorial debate over the US ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that "Russia cheats in every arms control treaty we have with them", which caused an uproar in Russian media.[64] Additionally, there were concerns about the possibility of restrictions being imposed on the deployment of missile defense systems by the U.S.[65][66]

The Pentagon's "Report on the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the Russian Federation Pursuant to Section 1240 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" found that even if Russia did cheat and achieved a total surprise attack with a breakout force, it would have "little to no

The Arms Control Association led efforts to rally political support, arguing that the treaty is needed to restore on-site verification and lend predictability to the U.S.-Russian strategic relationship.[51] Other organizations supporting the treaty include the Federation of American Scientists,[52] and disarmament expert Peter Wilk of Physicians for Social Responsibility called the New START treaty "essential" to ensuring a safer world and stronger diplomatic ties with Russia.[53]

Republican supporters included former President George H. W. Bush[54] and all six former Republican Secretaries of State, who wrote supportive op-eds in the Washington Post[55] and the Wall Street Journal.[56] Conservative columnist Robert Kagan, who supported the treaty, says its goals are actually modest compared to previous START treaties and that the treaty should not fail because of partisan disagreements. Kagan said the Republican insistence on upgrading the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reasonable but would not be affected by the current language of the treaty.[57]

The Heritage Action for America advocacy group, an affiliate of the Heritage Foundation, took the lead in opposing New START, lobbying the Senate along with running a petition drive and airing political advertisements before November's midterm elections. The effort drew the support of likely presidential candidate Mitt Romney, and has been credited by former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as changing some Republican votes.[58] According to Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner, the language of the New START treaty would "definitely" reduce America's nuclear weapon capacity but "wouldn't necessarily" reduce Russia's, and Russia would maintain a 10–1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which are not counted in the treaty.[59]

Arms control experts critical of the treaty included Robert Joseph, former undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Eric Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy, who have written that the treaty weakens U.S. defenses.[60] Former CIA Director James Woolsey also said that "concessions to Russian demands make it difficult to support Senate approval of the new treaty".[61]

Senators Jon Kyl and Mitch McConnell complained about a lack of funding for the Next-Generation Bomber during the treaty debate even though this platform would not be constrained by this treaty.[62][63] During the Senatorial debate over the US ratification of the New START Treaty with Russia, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that "Russia cheats in every arms control treaty we have with them", which caused an uproar in Russian media.[64] Additionally, there were concerns about the possibility of restrictions being imposed on the deployment of missile defense systems by the U.S.[65][66]

The Pentagon's "Report on the Strategic Nuclear Forces of the Russian Federation Pursuant to Section 1240 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" found that even if Russia did cheat and achieved a total surprise attack with a breakout force, it would have "little to no effect" on U.S. nuclear retaliatory capabilities.[67]

During the negotiations for New START, verification was one of the core tenets deliberated over between the United States and the Russian Federation. When New START entered into force, both participating states could begin performing inspections on each other.[68] Each state is granted 18 on-site inspections per year, which can be designated into two categories: Type 1 and Type 2 inspections.[69] Type 1 inspections are specific to military bases that house only deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers. Type 2 inspections include facilities that have non-deployed systems as well. Only 10 Type 1 inspections and eight Type 2 inspections are allowed by the treaty each year. States can also announce the arrival of an inspection team with as little notice as 32 hours before.[70] Since 2011, both states have made gradual progress in their reductions over the course of the treaty's lifetime. By February 2018, both parties had reached their reduction goals, well within the treaty limits.[71]

Current information on the aggregate numbers and locations of nuclear weapons have been made public under the New START treaty,[70] and on 13 May 2011 three former U.S. officials and two non-proliferation experts signed an open letter to both sides asking that the information be released, in order to promote transparency, reduce mistrust, and support the nuclear arms control process in other states.[72] Below are the most recent values reported from inspection activities.

New START treaty strategic arms number

Current information on the aggregate numbers and locations of nuclear weapons have been made public under the New START treaty,[70] and on 13 May 2011 three former U.S. officials and two non-proliferation experts signed an open letter to both sides asking that the information be released, in order to promote transparency, reduce mistrust, and support the nuclear arms control process in other states.[72] Below are the most recent values reported from inspection activities.

The data that follows were made public under the prior START treaty.

Memorandum of Understanding data for the expired START 1 on 1 July 2009
State Deployed ICBMs and their associated launchers, deployed SLBMs and their associated launchers, and deployed heavy bombers Warheads attributed to deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers Warheads attributed to deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs Throw-weight of deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs (Mt)
Russian Federation[74] 809 3,897 3,289 2,297.0
United States of America[74] 1,188 5,916 4,864 1,857.3
Operative Russian strategic nuclear forces, 2009According to a Reuters report on 9 February 2017, in US President Donald Trump's first 60-minute telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Putin inquired about extending New START. President Trump attacked the treaty, claiming that it favored Russia and was "one of several bad deals negotiated by the Obama administration".[77]

2019

With the announcement of the US departure from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, there has been a lot of worry about whether a New START extension was possible.[78] On June 12, Andrea Thompson, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met for the first time since 2017.[79] These discussions included the importance of negotiating a multilateral treaty, which would include China, France and the UK. Multiple members of congress penned a letter urging the Trump administration to extend New START, citing its importance it has on nuclear security, and its robust verification regime.[80] Delegations from both the US and Russia met in Geneva in July 2019 to begin discussions on arms control, including discussions on how to include China in a future three-way nuclear arms control treaty.[81] On 1 November 2019, Vladimir Leontyev, a Russian foreign ministry official, was quoted as saying he didn't believe there was enough time left for Moscow and Washington to draft a replacement to the New START nuclear arms control treaty before it expires in 2021.[82] However, in December 2019, Putin has publicly offered the US an immediate extension to the treaty without any modifications of the treaty and have even given US inspectors the chance to inspect a new hypersonic glide vehicle, Avangard, that would fall under the New START limits.[83]

2020

In February 2020, the Trump administration announced plans to decided to pursue nuclear arms control negotiations with Russia, which had not taken place since Pompeo's testimony that conversations on renewing New START were beginning.[84] In July 2020, U.S. and Russian officials met in Vienna for arms control talks. The United States invited China to join, but China made clear it would not participate.[85] Discussions have continued between the US and Russia, with the US proposing a politically binding statement for Russia to sign. This politically binding statement would include an outline for a new treaty. This outline would cover all Russian nuclear weapons, expand the current monitoring and verification regime implemented by New START and mandatory participation by China for a future treaty.[86] Russia has rejected this notion, however. In early October, President Putin offered to extend New START for 1 year rather than 5, but this offer was rejected by the White House.[87]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c "U.S.-Russia nuclear arms treaty finalized". USA Today/The Associated Press. 5 February 2011. Retrieved 5 February 2011.Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, there has been a lot of worry about whether a New START extension was possible.[78] On June 12, Andrea Thompson, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov met for the first time since 2017.[79] These discussions included the importance of negotiating a multilateral treaty, which would include China, France and the UK. Multiple members of congress penned a letter urging the Trump administration to extend New START, citing its importance it has on nuclear security, and its robust verification regime.[80] Delegations from both the US and Russia met in Geneva in July 2019 to begin discussions on arms control, including discussions on how to include China in a future three-way nuclear arms control treaty.[81] On 1 November 2019, Vladimir Leontyev, a Russian foreign ministry official, was quoted as saying he didn't believe there was enough time left for Moscow and Washington to draft a replacement to the New START nuclear arms control treaty before it expires in 2021.[82] However, in December 2019, Putin has publicly offered the US an immediate extension to the treaty without any modifications of the treaty and have even given US inspectors the chance to inspect a new hypersonic glide vehicle, Avangard, that would fall under the New START limits.[83]

    2020

    In February 2020, the Trump administration announced plans to decided to pursue nuclear arms control negotiations with Russia, which had not taken place since Pompeo's testimony that conversations on renewing New START were beginning.[84] In July 2020, U.S. and Russian officials met in Vienna for arms control talks. The United States invited China to join, but China made clear it would not participate.[85] Discussions have continued between the US and Russia, with the US proposing a politically binding statement for Russia to sign. This politically binding statement would include an outline for a new treaty. This outline would cover all Russian nuclear weapons, expand the current monitoring and verification regime implemented by New START and mandatory participation by China for a future treaty.[86] Russia has rejected this notion, however. In early October, President Putin offered to extend New START for 1 year rather than 5, but this offer was rejected by the White House.[87]

    See also<

Normal Exit PeriodicService.php