-
President Obama seeks Russian deal to slash nuclear weapons
From The Times
February 4, 2009
President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multime...85_480339a.jpg
The radical new treaty would reduce the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each
Tim Reid in Washington
President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.
The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.
Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.
Any agreement would put pressure on Britain, which has 160 nuclear warheads, and other nuclear powers to reduce their stockpiles.
Mr Obama has pledged to put nuclear weapons reduction at the heart of his presidency and his first move will be to reopen talks with Moscow to replace the 1991 US-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start), which expires in December. Under that pact, the two countries have cut their respective stockpiles from roughly 10,000 to 5,000.
“We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process,” an official from the Administration said. “We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-Start treaty.”
Efforts to revive the Start talks were fitful under Mr Bush and complicated by his insistence on building a missile defence shield. “If Obama proceeds down this route, this will be a major departure,” one Republican said. “But there will be trouble in Congress.”
The plan is also complicated by the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which launched its first satellite into space yesterday, and North Korea, which is preparing to test a long-range ballistic missile capable of striking the US.
Mr Obama views the reduction of arms by the US and Russia as critical to efforts to persuade countries such as Iran not to develop the Bomb.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Blueprint set out for nuke-free world
Tue Feb 3, 2009 11:49pm GMT
By Adrian Croft
http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...6a.hmedium.jpg
LONDON (Reuters) - The government will set out a six point plan Wednesday for a nuclear free world, at a time when global powers fear Iran will produce a bomb and Barack Obama's inauguration has renewed interest in disarmament.
The document calls for watertight measures to stop terrorists or emerging states getting atomic weapons, deeper cuts in U.S.-Russian nuclear arsenals and the activation of a global nuclear test ban treaty.
"Although the challenges are considerable, progress on these six steps would mark a decisive break from the deadlock of the past decade," the Foreign Office said in a policy document.
Entitled "Lifting the nuclear shadow: Creating the conditions for abolishing nuclear weapons," the document is to be launched by Foreign Secretary David Miliband later on Wednesday.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said Britain will play a key role in efforts to speed up nuclear disarmament, though it was not immediately clear why Britain was proposing the new plan now, or what its timeframe would be.
Brown, unpopular at home because of the economy's woes but well-regarded abroad, is due to host a conference in March on cooperating with countries that want to develop a civilian nuclear energy industry.
Nevertheless, Brown's government plans to spend up to 20 billion pounds on a new fleet of nuclear weapons-armed submarines to replace the ageing current fleet. He has warned against unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The British initiative comes against the background of a meeting of world powers on Iran's nuclear program in Germany Wednesday. The West suspects Tehran is using a civilian program as a cover to make nuclear arms, which Iran denies.
Obama has backed direct diplomacy with Iran, which could involve talks, a departure from the policies of former President George W. Bush.
Obama has also said he would seek reductions in all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, signalling an interest in arms treaties not shown by his predecessor.
(Editing by Jon Boyle)
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
FACTBOX-Six-point British plan on nuclear disarmament
Tue Feb 3, 2009 11:40pm GMT
Feb 4 (Reuters) - British Foreign Secretary David Miliband will set out a six-point plan for a nuclear-free world on Wednesday. A policy paper calls for:
* An agreement among signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on tougher measures to prevent more states getting the weapons.
* Working with the U.N. nuclear watchdog to help states which want to develop a civil nuclear energy industry to do so in safe ways.
* Negotiations between the United States and Russia and agreement on substantial further reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Other states with nuclear weapons should reduce their forces to a minimum, it said.
* Bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force, banning all nuclear weapons test explosions. Nine states still need to ratify the treaty before it can take effect, the paper said.
* Talks on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, which would ban future production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material.
* Discussion of political, military and technical issues that would have to be resolved if nuclear weapons states were to reduce and ultimately eliminate their arsenals. Britain has proposed a conference of the five original nuclear weapon states in 2009 to discuss confidence-building.
© Thomson Reuters 2008. All rights reserved.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
From The Times
February 4, 2009
Re-engaging Russia
The US and Russia each have much to gain from a thaw in relations. President Obama is right to have made arms control a priority
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gr0oVAzFit...a_smile_gi.jpg
Before the fall of communism, arms control was the yardstick by which all East-West relations were measured. Soviet-US détente produced a series of agreements to cut back the huge nuclear arsenals of each superpower. But although the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the nuclear stand-off remains. And the recent worsening in Russia's relations with the West, together with the expiry in December of the crucial 1991 Start pact to reduce nuclear warheads, has again made arms control a vital component of global security. It is an issue that President Obama now seems ready to tackle with an urgency not seen for two decades.
Russia and America still have 5,000 nuclear warheads each. Under the Start agreement, nuclear stockpiles were halved from the previous total 10,000 warheads. But Mr Obama now wants to negotiate a new treaty that would limit each side to around 1,000. His commitment to a new round of mutual reductions is not in doubt. In his inaugural address, he made arms reduction his third foreign policy priority, after Iraq and Afghanistan. And yesterday Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State, and Sergei Lavrov, her Russian counterpart, began talks on fresh reductions and other key strategic issues.
Mr Obama has chosen his timing well. Vladimir Putin, Russia's powerful Prime Minister, has halted plans to deploy tactical missiles near the Polish border and recently spoke of “positive signals” from the Obama Administration. Mr Putin now wants to show a friendlier face - not because he is any less strident in his nationalism or from any softening in his determination to make Moscow's voice heard, but because Russia has suddenly found itself weak again.
Russia has been one of the great losers from the credit crunch. Its oligarchs have lost billions, the rouble has plunged precipitously, foreign reserves that were once the world's third largest have been much depleted, and the fall in the oil price has sharply cut Russian earnings. The swagger and arrogance that marked Russia's intervention in Georgia, its treatment of foreign investors and attitude to the outside world have gone. Moscow now needs better relations abroad while it deals with rising discontent at home.
Related Links
* Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Better relations between Moscow and Washington are also crucial to Mr Obama's other foreign policy priorities. US forces in Afghanistan are to be increased, but in recent months the supply chain through Pakistan has been disrupted by Taleban and Pakistani insurgents. Nato needs an alternative secure route. Bringing in supplies through Russia, however, is politically difficult as long as Nato's relations with Moscow remain fraught. There is scope, therefore, for each side to further its interests by compromise. Russia's main demand is for America to scrap its proposed missile shield to be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic. It also wants a Nato retreat from the prospect of membership for Georgia and Ukraine. Mr Obama has already voiced scepticism about the first of these Bush policies (although Iran's launch of a missile may reinforce the call to build this shield); and Nato has recently put further expansion on ice.
Russia, however, must now modify its stance elsewhere, especially in the UN Security Council. Its obstruction of tougher sanctions against Iran and Zimbabwe has had no policy basis except that of pique and the wish to repay the West for imagined slights. Moscow has as much interest as anyone in preventing Iran developing nuclear weapons, and should now make this amply clear to Tehran. It has no need to court the dictator in Zimbabwe. Nor does an alliance with Venezuela make sense. Changes here, and talks on nuclear weapons, would do much for both Russia and America as well as advancing global security.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
03.02.2009
Gates and Chu--Will They Sink Obama's Nuclear Policy?
As Mike Crowley points out, Barack Obama has been conspicuously sluggish in appointing a nonproliferation team--something that's giving nuclear policy experts jitters. In addition, two of Obama's other decisions are unsettling from a nonproliferation perspective.
One is the appointment of Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy. While telegenic, brilliant, and exciting for the environmental lobby, Chu is untutored in nuclear-weapons policy--a conspicuous lacuna given that 80 percent of the Energy Department's funding is used to manage the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex. (Indeed, that is the department's core mission.) During his confirmation hearings, Chu focused on renewable energy and subsidies for nuclear power-the Lawrence Berkeley lab, which he ran, does not deal with nuclear arms--and a search of his past statements reveals little engagement with nuclear-weapons issues, save passive support for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1999.
Chu's inexperience is particularly disturbing because he will be tasked with implementing the recommendations of the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review--a document scheduled for release in 2009 that will outline the role and structure of U.S. nuclear forces well into the twenty-first century. Chu's unfamiliarity with the debates around the Nuclear Posture Review is even more problematic because the man administering it will be Robert Gates. While Gates has generally toed the Obama administration's line on Iraq and Afghanistan, he has recently voiced strong opinions about the role of U.S. nuclear weapons that are at odds with the policies preferred by both Obama and the nonproliferation community. Since Chu is unschooled in the ways of nuclear policy and bureaucratic infighting, it stands to reason that the experienced Gates will steamroll him when it comes time to implement a nuclear agenda.
And Gates's agenda seems increasingly archaic. A remarkably bipartisan consensus among nuclear proliferation experts has, since 2007, emphasized the need to revitalize our commitment to the beleaguered Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty lest it collapse altogether. Serious nonproliferation gurus like Sam Nunn, conservatives like George Shultz, and realists like Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger have all agreed that the United States needs to de-emphasize the salience of nuclear weapons in its arsenal and convince other states that we remain committed to Article VI of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in which we promised to eventually eliminate our nuclear arms. (This will not, of course, directly prevent countries like Iran and North Korea from seeking nuclear arms, but it will give us additional leverage with which to isolate and pressure those states.)
Gates, however, has blasted this vision as naïve. In a speech at the Carnegie Endowment last fall, he dissed Andrew Carnegie's (conventional) arms-reduction efforts and said that nuclear disarmament is impossible "as long as the tragic arc of history continues its course." Instead, he emphasized the need to fund development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), a technologically questionable program that Congress axed because it entails, in effect, fielding new nuclear weapons-an action that takes us the wrong way on Article VI. And last year, Gates appointed nuke-hawk James Schlesinger to chair a panel on nuclear security-a panel which, among other things, reported that it is "crucial" for the United States to maintain nuclear weapons in Europe as a deterrent (to whom, it didn't say). Obama's "most difficult challenge," the report says, "will be in persuading this nation of the abiding requirement for nuclear forces."
True, Gates's Nuclear Posture Review may yet encourage significant moves toward nuclear disarmament--and many nuclear experts would probably support the RRW if it were approved in conjunction with major steps to renew the nuclear compact, such as ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty, further cuts to the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals, and a global cutoff of the production of fissile material.
Nevertheless, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Gates is not steering our nuclear posture in the game-changing direction that nonproliferation wonks would prefer--and that Obama promised during his campaign. If the 2009 Nuclear Posture Review focuses on "the abiding requirement for nuclear forces" instead of the abiding requirement to improve our nonproliferation efforts, then the United States will miss a major opportunity to prevent the spread of nuclear arms this century--many of which will undoubtedly be aimed at us.
--Barron YoungSmith
Posted: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 11:47 AM
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
From The Times
February 5, 2009
Russia unclenches fist over nuclear weapons
Tony Halpin in Moscow
Russia moved swiftly yesterday to extend a hand to President Obama over American plans for big cuts in nuclear weapons. Sergei Ivanov, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that Russia was ready to sign a new strategic missile treaty with the US.
“We welcome the statements from the new Obama Administration that they are ready to enter into talks and complete within a year, the signing of a new Russian-US treaty on the limitation of strategic attack weapons,” said Mr Ivanov, a hawkish former Defence Minister, who was once seen as a candidate to become the president of Russia.
Grigory Karasin, the deputy Foreign Minister, also hailed the initiative. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) signed by the US and the Soviet Union in 1991 expires in December. It reduced stockpiles held by the two states from 10,000 to 5,000 but there has been little progress in negotiating a successor.
Talks faltered in part over President Bush’s enthusiasm for siting a missile-defence shield in Eastern Europe, a move that infuriated Russia. A delay in the programme could ease Russian concerns and pave the way for talks.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia: An American Olive Branch
February 4, 2009 | 1858 GMT
http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/131559/two_column
Russian Topol mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles
Summary
U.S. President Barack Obama will propose a massive reduction in the American and Russian nuclear arsenals through a new bilateral treaty on disarmament. Such a move could have broader and more profound implications for U.S.-Russian relations.
Analysis
U.S. President Barack Obama will propose to Russia that both Washington and Moscow reduce their nuclear weapons stockpiles by 80 percent — with a treaty cutting the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 apiece, The Times of London reported Feb. 4. Though the White House has not yet made a formal announcement, such a move could have profound ramifications for the ongoing negotiations between the new U.S. administration and the Kremlin.
Related Links
Bilateral disarmament is immensely important to Russia. Faced with an aging nuclear arsenal, a dramatic quantitative decline in the Kremlin’s nuclear arsenal looms on the horizon, and replacement systems have either experienced difficulty in development or been slow to be fielded. Moscow knows that it cannot sustain its current arsenal much longer, but has struggled because the rules of the nuclear game in the 21st century have not been defined. With continued hope for a new treaty, Russia wants to keep its options open in order to retain its negotiating position and wait until the finer points of such a treaty become clear (for example, if certain classes of delivery systems might be prohibited).
A new treaty on disarmament offers Russia two things. First, it places limits on the parameters of the two states’ nuclear arsenals. Second, it essentially locks Washington into defined force structure and prevents another nuclear arms race that Moscow knows it cannot win. It accomplishes this by pushing for explicit prohibitions and specific limitations that constrain the United States from dramatically changing the composition of its arsenal, and thus the strategic threat Russia must counter. By urging limitations, Moscow can avoid the kind of massive spending on the nuclear arsenal that helped drive the Soviet Union into the ground.
http://www.stratfor.com/mmf/131560
Simultaneously, it serves the needs of the Russian resurgence by putting the White House and the Kremlin at a negotiating table on equal footing, reminiscent of the Cold War. Its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons is one of the few ways in which Russia is still uniquely distinctive in the global community. There is no clearer way of reminding the world of that than bringing the United States back to the negotiating table to discuss something the entire international community agrees on — the reduction of the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals.
The Pentagon has struggled with the underlying purpose of its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War. Unsure of what the future held (vis-a-vis China, for example), it has sought to keep its options open, and eschewed rigorous, highly-structured arms control treaties that not only place a cap on the size of the arsenal, but place restrictions on the structure and disposition of its nuclear weapons.
The 9/11 attacks and a constant fear of weapons of mass destruction did little to help assuage U.S. concerns about an uncertain strategic environment. What has changed is not control of the White House but the fact that Russia has found the critical pressure point of the United States: the logistical nightmare of Afghanistan. With the deterioration of the situation in Pakistan, the American need for a rapprochement with Russia has taken on a new urgency.
At the moment, Moscow has held all the cards; not simply its own territory, but its influence over the Central Asian states that would be critical to the establishment of alternative supply lines. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s consolidation of power has allowed Russia to move aggressively in its periphery while the United States lacked military resources to counter. Russia even used its control of natural gas to divide Europe and prevent a consolidation of European powers that would support American policies against Russia.
The disarmament treaty is therefore a great incentive to entice the Russians to come to the table, as they did in 2002 to sign the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty. And Moscow will be willing to make very real and very deep concessions if it can get the sort of rigorous treaty it desires — and it does so in a way that encourages the Russians to come to the table. The United States is simply not in a position to force the Russians to acquiesce.
For Russia, it is all one negotiation: not just a potential alternative supply route to Afghanistan, but American plans for placing ballistic missile defense installations in Europe, and the position of the United States — and the rest of NATO — on what remains of Russia’s periphery, particularly Georgia and Ukraine. By signaling a willingness to move forward with nuclear disarmament talks, the White House opens up the possibility for movement on all of these issues.
Although American uncertainty about the future strategic environment remains deep, everyone on the American side also believes that enormous reductions in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are in order. The immense stockpiles on both sides are exceedingly expensive to maintain and keep deployed; both the White House and the Kremlin would like to lower the costs to a more reasonable level through extensive reductions. Further reductions have always been a possibility, but while Obama would sacrifice some long-term freedom of action if he gives the Russians some of the rigor in the treaty that they desire, in exchange he could potentially cement a long-term working relationship with the Kremlin.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
UK nuclear policy 'insane'
Thursday, 05, Feb 2009 12:03
By politics.co.uk staff
The government has been accused of its left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing over its 'contradictory' attitudes towards nuclear disarmament.
The foreign secretary has unveiled the steps that need to be taken for the world to move towards a nuclear weapon-free future.
But campaigners have turned on the speech over continued plans to replace or upgrade the Trident missile system to a cost of up to £76 billion.
Greenpeace said the Trident plans "severely undermined" David Miliband's comments.
"Until the government puts plans to replace Trident on hold, anything they say about ridding the world of nuclear weapons is severely undermined," said the party's executive director John Sauven.
Kate Hudson, chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said Mr Miliband's speech, which accompanied a policy information paper from the Foreign Office was a "great disappointment", which treated Trident as the elephant in the room.
And the Liberal Democrats said the government's leadership on non-proliferation was threatened by the "premature and provocative" decision to renew Trident ahead of the global disarmament conference next year.
The policy document, which by its own admission "is not about launching new initiatives", comes after it emerged Barack Obama was prepared to delay the deployment of a US missile shield in eastern Europe to help persuade Russia to begin cutting its stockpile of nuclear warheads.
Mr Obama reportedly hopes to reduce both countries' arsenals by 80 per cent.
Deputy Russian prime minister Sergei Ivanov has already reacted warmly to the claims.
"Britain is in danger of playing catch-up to the Obama administration, which has already performed a massive policy U-turn on Bush's attitude to disarmament and missile defence," said Mr Davey.
"A renewed push for disarmament is crucial to a strategy to deal with non-proliferation, international terrorism and rogue states where the old policies of deterrence have been thrown into doubt.
"The British government will need to do far more, both with our own nuclear arsenal and with cooperation for international control of the nuclear fuel cycle, before these words can be moved beyond rhetoric."
"Over 100 military and defence experts, backed by the Obama administration, are calling for a new global programme to eliminate nuclear weapons," Mr Sauven added.
"But our government seems determined to scupper this major new initiative by replacing Trident and tying Britain into nuclear rearmament for the next 40 years."
Ms Hudson went on to say that Britain had been "overtaken" by President Obama's vision.
"His intentions are on a par with those of [Ronald Reagan] and [Mikhail]Gorbachev, who achieved the disarmament of thousands of nuclear weapons in the late 1980s," she said.
"Mr Miliband's 'vision' does not match up."
The Foreign Office told inthenews.co.uk it was "working hard to reinvigorate the global commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons".
Yesterday it published a booklet of three conditions and six steps that needed to be taken for widespread disarmament to take place.
* Watertight means to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading to more states or to terrorists at the same time as nuclear energy is expanding
* Minimal arsenals and an international legal framework which puts tight, verified constraints on nuclear weapons
* Finding solutions to the challenges of moving from small numbers of nuclear weapons to zero in ways which enhance security
Prime minister Gordon Brown has already said he wants to "accelerate disarmament amongst possessor states, to prevent proliferation to new states and to ultimately achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons".
Both Mr Obama and Britain's hopes of complete disarmament are stymied by the unclear nuclear objectives of Iran and the belligerence of North Korea.
Although it accepts the challenges are considerable, the Foreign Office insists it wants to end the deadlock of the last decade but admits it will require the active engagement of the entire international community.
"The UK is working to build a broad coalition of governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations and businesses which share the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and to forge agreement on how we will work together to make it happen," the department said.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
U.S. eyes process of nuke reduction to ease up tension with Moscow
www.chinaview.cn
2009-02-05 06:14:40
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (Xinhua) -- The Obama administration on Wednesday voiced its concern over the process of further reduction of nuclear weapons, looking forward to more cooperation with Moscow.
"The administration is very serious about further reductions in nuclear weapons," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters, when asked whether President Barack Obama is ready to seek an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. nuke stockpiles.
"The START treaty expires in 2009, so negotiations with Russia on a replacement treaty will be on a fast track," said the spokesman, adding "The administration is looking at how it wants to work this issue."
The START, signed by U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush and USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 and came into force in 1994, will expire in December 2009.
The treaty places a limit of 6,000 strategic -- or long-range --nuclear warheads on each side, and limits the number of strategic delivery vehicles -- such as bombers, land based and submarine based missiles -- to 1,600 each.
It was the first treaty requiring the elimination of U.S. and USSR -- now Russian -- nuclear weapons systems. According to the treaty, its extension should begin at least a year before the expiration.
According to Wood, the U.S.-Russia 2+2 meeting participated by foreign ministers and defense ministers from the two sides would remain. "We certainly have been wanting to discuss and have very good and thorough and serious discussions with Russia on missile defense, and we want to see that at some point happen."
Analysts here said the Obama administration expects to ease up tensions with Moscow, which was ignited over the U.S. missile defense system plan and the enlargement of the NATO, through more strategic cooperation and conversation with the Russian government.
Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush and his administration planned to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic as part of its European missile shield. Meanwhile, the Bush administration had voiced its strong support for Georgia and Ukraine to join the NATO.
Russia strongly opposes the measures, saying they pose threat to its security.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced plans to deploy the missiles in Kaliningrad shortly after Obama was elected U.S. president in November 2008, obviously to counter the U.S. missile defense system plan in Eastern Europe.
And in the Russia-Georgia conflict in August 2008, the Kremlin has showed its tough stand on defending its core interest against the United States and its NATO allies by recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both from Georgia, as independent countries.
Editor: Mu Xuequan
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
February 5, 2009, 3:52
Russian Press Review of the Situation
This Thursday Russian newspapers report on the U.S. plan to cut down nuclear weapons by 80%, note the start of the presidential race in Iran and interview Russian and American defence intellectuals on Russia-U.S. relations. KOMSOMOLSKAYA PRAVDA writes that while the issue of the elements of the U.S. missile defence system in Eastern Europe is still hanging in the air, pending the results of a feasibility study, Washington has been busy preparing a brand-new offer to Russia: to stand down and destroy 80% of each side’s nuclear weapons. That would leave both nations with approximately 1000 nuclear weapons each, says the paper.
The article also reminds the readers that a new Russia-U.S. strategic assault weapons limitation treaty is due this year, and that in spite of the fact that the American initiative goes beyond the expected conditions of the new treaty, Moscow has already signaled that it is ready to discuss with the U.S. any ideas concerning nuclear weapons reduction.
The paper says that Barack Obama’s initiative is going to draw a lot of flack in Congress, especially from the Republican congressmen who are likely to site Iran’s recent satellite launch and North Korea’s preparations for a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile as arguments against the proposed weapons reduction.
NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA writes on the same topic: the new U.S. administration seems to be rapidly dismantling the system of international relations created by George W. Bush. It says that the offer to Russia to reduce nuclear arms by 80%, quoted by the British media, includes, contrary to the usual form of weapons reductions in Russia-U.S. arms limitation treaties, means not only to cut down the strategic weapons but the tactical weapons as well.
The paper says that the White House believes that a significant nuclear arms reduction by the U.S. and Russia would facilitate a firmer stance of the existing nuclear power in the matters of proliferation, especially regarding the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programmes.
The paper also quotes a comment by Reuters saying that there is a possibility of a ‘new détente’ starting in Russia-U.S. relations and predicts a possible general deal between the two nations that could include cooperation in the fight against the global economic crisis, cooperation on the issues of Iran, Afghanistan, nuclear disarmament, missile defence, conventional weapons and the expansion of NATO. The quoted comment also mentions the differences existing between the U.S. and Russia on many issues that may prevent such a deal from happening.
The paper also quotes Dr. Sergey Rogov, the Director of the Moscow-based Institute of the U.S. and Canada, who says that significant reductions may indeed take place but it is too early to speak of 80% cuts, as arms reduction is a lengthy technological and political process in which every small detail is important. The academic also says that Barack Obama’s idea of a fast nuclear disarmament may reflect the opinion of certain circles in the U.S. who consider the nuclear weapons a liability in the circumstances when the U.S. has undisputed and overwhelming supremacy in non-nuclear strategic weapons.
The same paper follows the beginning of the presidential race in Iran. It says that if the former president Mohammad Khatami decides to contest, that may mean a direct clash between the supporters of totalitarianism and reform. Khatami, says the paper, came to power in 1997 with a programme that included a whole range of reforms, but the second-in-command position prescribed by the Iranian political system for the president didn’t allow him to implement any of these reforms. The paper says in Iran any political decision may be confirmed or condemned by the Ayatollahs who are a ‘government above government’ in Iran.
The paper says if the rural population supports Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as happened in the previous election, that would mean his victory. The paper says the rural folk are much more likely to vote for Ahmadinejad who dresses modestly and creates jobs in the rural areas then for Khatami who holds a score of honorary doctorates from Western universities. The paper adds that his election could be instrumental in the improvement of U.S. relations with Iran and may help the U.S. regain some of the influence it used to have on Iran before the Islamic revolution, and for that reason it is extremely unlikely.
KOMMERSANT says that support for Khatami comes from the reformist-minded Iranians who are getting more and more politically active. Khatami says he has to run in this election, so he can make good on his promises to the people made during his first presidential campaign in 1997. The paper says that his reforms were blocked by the conservative clergy, but Khatami promises to implement them this time, as it can improve the image of Iran in the world and discharge the tense international political atmosphere around the country.
The paper also notes the special support of the spiritual leaders of Iran enjoyed by the current president Ahmadinejad and says that it is very unlikely that he could be defeated by anyone in the coming presidential race.
VREMYA NOVOSTEI publishes two interviews reflecting Russia-U.S. relations seen from two very different angles.
Professor of national security Stephen Blank of the U.S. Army War College says that Russia and the U.S. are so different in their perception of the world and of the modern threats that they can never find enough common ground for fully-fledged cooperation, least of all – strategic partnership. He says that Russia’s system of national security is based on the idea of complete sovereignty, that Russia would simply refuse to delegate part of that sovereignty to anyone – but that is a necessary condition of participation in an alliance, such as, for instance, NATO.
The American academic adds as an example that ‘Russia still publicly says that Iran presents no immediate nuclear threat, and cites that as the reason for its position being totally different from that of the U.S. But simultaneously Russia is trying to use Iran against the U.S. in the Central Asia.’ Blank also calls the U.S. missile defence ‘an American National program’ 40 years in the making, which cannot be stopped by anyone, whatever opinion on the matter the Obama administration may have.
Aleksandr Sharavin, the Director of the Moscow-based Institute of Political and Military Analysis says that the U.S. is probably the only major nation with which Russia has never been at war, and also a nation together with which Russia has fought two world wars as an ally. He says Russia and the U.S. are bound to be allies if they do not want to lose their leadership role in the 21st century.
The Russian academic continues: both Russia and America are facing the same giant threat: the expansion of Communist China which in the future may subdue both our nations, one after another, the U.S. after Russia, to its will – if the two get carried away by their confrontation with each other. Sharavin says all known reasons for Russia-U.S. confrontation are secondary. NATO, he adds as an example, is now too amorphous, and ‘there is no problem about Ukraine and Georgia entering – provided that Russia enters first.’
Evgeny Belenkiy, RT
Related links:
Wednesday's press review
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia, U.S. pledge closer cooperation under Obama
updated 4:41 a.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 3, 2009
MOSCOW - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov agreed on Tuesday to work more closely on key strategic issues, Russia's Foreign Ministry said.
The two foreign ministers spoke by telephone at the request of Washington, the ministry said in a statement.
"In the course of the discussion, the accent was given to the mutual interest of building a positive agenda for our relations after the arrival of the new U.S. administration."
"Especially noted was the importance of strengthening bilateral cooperation, including questions of strategic dialogue and economic cooperation, as well as current international problems such as the resolution of (the situation in) Afghanistan," the statement said.
Moscow's ties with Washington sank to a post-Soviet low in August over the war in Georgia, but some diplomats hope relations could thaw under the new administration of U.S. President Barack Obama.
Russia's powerful Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has cautiously noted positive signals from the new administration and a Russian news agency reported last month that Russia had halted plans to deploy tactical missiles near the Polish border.
Though unconfirmed, the report has raised hopes the Kremlin could be indicating it wished to boost cooperation after rows over a U.S. missile defense system in Europe, the expansion of NATO and the war in Iraq.
Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are set to meet for the first time on the sidelines of a Group of 20 summit in London in April.
Both countries want to boost nuclear cooperation and discuss how to replace a key Cold War strategic arms control pact.
Russian and U.S. diplomats say they are confident Moscow could find a deal with the new U.S. administration on replacing the START-1 pact, which expires at the end of this year.
The START treaty, signed by Moscow and Washington in 1991, committed both to cutting their numbers of missiles and strategic bombers to 1,600 each. Both sides met limits set by the treaty by December 2001.
Copyright 2009 Reuters.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Obama seeking deep nuke cuts with Russia
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen...MILE-large.jpg
Published: Feb. 4, 2009 at 10:36 AM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to slash the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia by as much as 80 percent, sources say. Obama is intent on re-engaging with Russia on the kind of arms reduction talks that resulted in the 1991 START treaty, which expires at the end of this year, and envisions as few as 1,000 nuclear warheads for each country, The Times of London quoted unnamed administration sources saying Wednesday.
Negotiations on such a new arms treaty would include a review of the Bush administration's plans for an Eastern European missile defense shield, which the Bush administration said was meant to protect against "rogue states" -- but which Moscow sees as part of a NATO expansionist push, the newspaper said.
The talks will be overseen by U.S. Secretary State Hillary Clinton, the sources said.
"We are going to re-engage Russia in a more traditional, legally binding arms reduction process," The Times quoted a White House official saying. "We are prepared to engage in a broader dialogue with the Russians over issues of concern to them. Nobody would be surprised if the number reduced to the 1,000 mark for the post-START treaty."
© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Cold warrior Henry Kissinger woos Russia for Barack Obama
Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win backing from Vladimir Putin's government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.
http://www.russiablog.org/PutinKissinger.jpg
By Adrian Blomfield, Moscow Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:14AM GMT 06 Feb 2009
The Daily Telegraph has learned that the 85-year-old former US secretary of state met President Dmitry Medvedev for secret negotiations in December. According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials to win their support for Mr Obama's initiative, which could see Russia and the United States each slashing their nuclear warheads to 1,000 warheads.
The decision to send Mr Kissinger to Moscow, taken by Mr Obama when he was still president-elect, is part of a plan to overcome probable Republican objections in Congress.
Mr Kissinger is believed to have won a verbal rather than written undertaking for the deal. Tom Graham, a senior associate at Kissinger Associates and a former member of the national security council in the White House, on Thursday confirmed that Mr Kissinger had met Mr Medvedev but denied that any negotiations had taken place and said he had not met with Mr Putin.
However, a diplomatic source said that Mr Kissinger held two days of talks with Mr Putin at his country house near Moscow.
While the details of the ambitious initiative are yet to be revealed, the proposal to return to the negotiating table after eight years of reluctance in Washington has been welcomed in Britain and elsewhere.
Mr Obama apparently chose Mr Kissinger for his consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open acknowledgment of Russia's international resurgence.
Despite his pariah status with many Left-wingers in Mr Obama's Democratic Party, the president forged relations with Mr Kissinger during his campaign.
The compliment was returned when the 85-year-old veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations said last month that the young president was in a position to create a "new world order" by shifting US foreign policy away from the hostile stance of the Bush administration.
He publicly supported Mr Obama's notion of unconditional talks with Iran, though not at the presidential level.
Further demonstrating his willingness to work with his opponents on foreign policy issues, Mr Obama turned to two veteran Republicans steeped in Cold War experience to press home his plans.
Shortly after Mr Kissinger's trip, Richard Lugar, a Republican senator from Indiana who has worked on nuclear disarmament issues for 30 years, also visited Moscow. George Schultz, another former secretary of state, has also played a vital role.
Observers say signs of progress towards a new treaty could come as early as this weekend, when senior government officials meet at a security conference in Munich.
Joe Biden, the US vice president, is expected to address the conference and diplomats hinted he could announce the suspension of plans to erect a missile defence shield in central Europe, a project that has been frequently denounced in Moscow.
Despite widespread praise for the proposals, many European officials are privately urging the United States to be cautious, aware that Kremlin policy towards the West in recent years has been characterized by reversals.
Apart from worries over Russia's increasingly belligerent international policies, there is also little doubt a disarmament deal would benefit Moscow more than Washington -- even if the Kremlin has threatened to stall talks on a new treaty in the past.
Russia has long called for a new agreement to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on Dec 5. Under START, the two Cold War adversaries agreed to halve their stockpiles to 5,000 warheads apiece. An addendum negotiated in 2002 under the START framework saw both sides agree to cut the number of warheads in service to between 1,700 and 2,200 each.
Despite pressure from Moscow, the Bush Administration was reluctant to begin negotiations on a successor to START because it feared losing the flexibility needed to respond to potential challenges from rising nuclear powers such as China.
The Kremlin, on the other hand, has been desperate for a new treaty because Russia's dilapidated nuclear stockpile is no longer sustainable either financially or practically.
Despite developing a new class of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the bulk of Russia's arsenal has passed its sell-by date. Even though many warheads have been kept alive artificially, Russia has long been aware that most of its missiles will have to be decommissioned much faster than they can be replaced.
Nuclear parity, the crux of Moscow's defence policy, is therefore fiction in all but name. A new treaty, however, would allow Russia to compete and free up money for other armament programmes.
In return for a new disarmament deal, Mr Putin has demanded that the United States delay Nato membership for Ukraine and Georgia as well as shelving the missile shield, which Moscow believes is directed at Russia rather than Iran.
The United States is reportedly ready to accept those demands after Mr Kissinger, who is deeply respected for his recognition of Russia's resurgence, may have won concessions of his own, a diplomatic source said.
Frequent visits by Mr Kissinger to Russia since 2000 have largely gone unreported in the Western press. But in 2007, the Russian news agency Novosti reported that Mr Kissinger and Yevgeny Primakov, a former KGB master, were appointed by Mr Putin to co-chair a bilateral "working group" of Russian and American political insiders to tackle issues such as global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and nuclear threats.
Mr Putin is understood to have signalled his willingness to drop Russian objections over tougher sanctions against Iran and could also suspend the sale of sophisticated air defence missiles to Teheran which Washington fears could hamper a military strike against the country's nuclear installations.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Top-secret document reveals Trident was set up to kill half of Moscow’s citizens
By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor
The UK deployed Trident nuclear missiles because they could cause the total breakdown of Russian cities by killing half their inhabitants, according to a top-secret document passed to the Sunday Herald.
THE UK DEPLOYED TRIDENT NUCLEAR missiles because they could cause the total breakdown of Russian cities by killing half their inhabitants, according to a top-secret document passed to the Sunday Herald.
To ensure that the warheads inflicted "unacceptable damage" on Moscow and St Petersburg, the government was prepared to explode them at ground level to maximise lethal levels of radioactive contamination.
These revelations are considered so sensitive that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has tried to cover them up in case they hamper current plans to replace Trident. Senior officials are still carrying out the same kind of "Dr Strangelove arithmetic", critics say.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia: Nukes may come in handy
Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:28:21 GMT
A senior Russian military official has said that nuclear warfare could be the only appropriate response against likely 'new threats'.
"New threats may emerge that could only be averted with the threat of nuclear weapons," said the head of the Russian General Staff on Monday, Russian information agency RBC reported.
The official, Nikolai Makarov added that possible materialization of the threats necessitate that Russia keep open the option of upgrading its nuclear firepower.
He made the remarks commenting on the country's plans to renovate its armed forces which are expected to yield a 'more compact, more mobile and better equipped' military.
The reforms were ordered by the Russian Commander-in-Chief Dmitry Medvedev last year in view of the August confrontation with Georgia.
The enhancement was continuously brought forward as the United States would not to revise its missile plans in eastern Europe.
"We are planning to complete a reform of the military within the next three or four years. The established time frame has not been revised," Makarov concluded.
HN/MMA
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Avoiding Another Cold War
Posted on Feb 17, 2009
By Scott Ritter
“If it’s not just words, if they are transformed into practical policy, we will respond accordingly, and our American partners will immediately feel that.”
These are the words of Russia’s strongman prime minister, Vladimir Putin, spoken during a program nationally televised in Russia shortly after Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election. Putin was responding to a question about whether he thought U.S.-Russian tensions would ease under new American leadership. Putin, and his successor as Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev, had spent the past few years in an increasingly harsh verbal sparring match with the administration of George W. Bush.
Although President Bush had once famously stated that when he looked into Putin’s eyes he could “see his soul,” the warm personal relationship between the two men froze over as the United States undertook actions Russia perceived as strategic maneuvering. Russia itself appeared to deviate from the path of Western-style democracy and free trade, which hard-liners in the Bush administration had touted as the most compelling evidence that the United States had in fact won the Cold War. Putin’s incremental return to authoritarianism was reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, complete with an increasingly centralized economy.
Russia felt threatened by what it saw as moves designed to contain Moscow: the withdrawal of the United States from the anti-ballistic missile treaty; an increased focus on the need for a missile defense shield deployed in Europe (ostensibly to counter any missile threat emerging from Iran); the aggressive expansion of NATO right up to the borders of Russia (absorbing all of the former Warsaw Pact nations, as well as several former Soviet republics in the Baltic). These actions, coupled with the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the U.S.-NATO occupation of Afghanistan, which gave the U.S. military access to bases in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, created an image of an expanding NATO led by an increasingly hegemonic and militaristic America.
In an effort to stop the expansion of U.S. power and influence in regions close to Russia, Moscow got together with its old arch-rival, China, and entered into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). In cooperation with four former Soviet Central Asian republics (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Russia and China put in place the mechanism for Eurasian geopolitical coordination, with a strong military component, which would keep in check not only the forces of Islamic terrorism but also America and NATO. The Bush administration at first played scant attention to this new organization, but starting in 2006 had no choice but to stand up and take notice when the SCO held a meeting with India, Pakistan and Iran in attendance as observers. Since that time, the SCO has become a major regional force which has attracted the attention of nations such as Afghanistan (even under a U.S.-led occupation) and New Zealand, a longtime U.S.-NATO ally. Central Asian nations such as Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, which had previously agreed to allow the U.S. military access to its air bases, are no longer laying out the welcoming mat, and all U.S. forces are expected to leave these bases soon.
Rather than re-examining the cause-effect nature of U.S. actions and Russian counteractions, and formulating a new strategy to deal with a resurgent Russia in a manner that would reduce friction, the Bush administration instead announced its intention to deploy a ballistic missile shield, operating out of the territory of former Warsaw Pact members Poland and the Czech Republic. Ostensibly intended to deal with the emerging threat of long-range Iranian missiles targeting Europe, the missile defense shield was viewed by Russia as a dangerous escalation of the military threat posed by NATO. With a missile shield in place to defend against any surviving retaliatory capability, the United States and NATO could theoretically conduct a pre-emptive military strike against Russian targets. Russia’s protestations over this planned deployment fell on deaf ears.
In August 2008 the situation between the U.S., together with its NATO allies, and Russia worsened when Russia and the Republic of Georgia engaged in a sharp regional conflict in the Caucasus which rapidly assumed global consequences. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had promised his people that he would unify Georgia by reoccupying the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In early August, Saakashvili ordered Georgian troops into South Ossetia in response to what he believed was Russian provocation. Russia responded with a massive counterattack, which not only drove the Georgian troops from South Ossetia, but carried on into Georgia proper, with Russian forces occupying the Georgian port city of Poti and threatening the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. Prior to the Russia-Georgia conflict, NATO had held internal discussions concerning membership for both Georgia and Ukraine. The Russians, by striking Georgia, made it clear that such an action would be intolerable to Moscow. The U.S. responded by sending warships, as part of a NATO naval task force, into the Black Sea.
Russia in turn sent a small naval detachment, as well as a flight of heavy bombers, to Venezuela. Neither deployment represented much in the way of a serious military threat, but together they spoke volumes about the deterioration of U.S.-Russian relations under the Bush administration.
1 2 NEXT PAGE >>>
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
The Man Who Warned Congress
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 02.27.2009
On 25 February Andrei Illarionov testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The hearing was titled “From Competition to Collaboration:
Strengthening the U.S.-Russia Relationship.” Illarionov is a Russian citizen presently employed by the Cato Institute. He began his testimony with a brief explanation: “For a number of years I worked at different posts in the Russian government and Administration of the Russian President.” According to Illarionov the Russian regime is a KGB regime, and the United States policy toward this regime is worse than appeasement. It is best characterized as retreat.
Since the collapse of the USSR all American efforts to improve relations with Russia have come to nothing, says Illarionov, and new initiatives from President Obama are doomed; this is because the Americans fail to recognize the nature of the Russian regime. There is an unwillingness to grasp “the internal logic and intentions of the Russian leadership.” It seems that the free world is unable to deal with powerful authoritarian regimes.
In order to deal with Russia, certain facts must be admitted. First, Russia is not a democracy, the Russian people are not free, and the “central place in the Russian political system is occupied by the Corporation of the secret police.”
The secret police of Russia compose a brotherhood, and a system of order. This brotherhood, says Illarionov, is highly disciplined and enforces loyalty with “the ultimate penalty.” They readily use violence against others, and are ruthless in the pursuit of power. They dominate and bully ordinary Russians, who cannot oppose them. They dominate the state apparatus, holding 77 percent of the top 1,016 government positions. There is virtually no independent mass media in Russia, and the level of anti-U.S. propaganda is greater now than in Soviet times.
Even more frightening, the Russian government has killed tens of thousands people, jailing dissidents on trumped-up charges, arranging terrorist “events” to advance its agenda. Many journalists and independent-minded politicians have been assassinated. The Kremlin also threatens its neighbors using energy exports as weapons of coercion, actively engaging in cyber warfare. The Russian invasion of Georgia last August, says Illarionov, was prepared “at least since February 2003.”
The secret police are supreme in Russia. With regard to previous police states, the ruling party or dictator held absolute authority. But the Russian secret police are themselves in control – answering to no one. “The political regime in today’s Russia is therefore quite unique,” noted Illarionov, “since so far there was probably no country in world history … where a secret police organization [captured] all political, administrative, military, economic, financial, and media powers.” This also gives the regime staying power. Since elections are rigged, no opposition can ever take control of the government.
Unless the supremacy of the Russian secret police is acknowledged and understood, the United States will not be able to deal with the regime in Moscow. According to Illarionov, the American side has retreated “on almost all” bilateral issues. If the Americans are alarmed by any development in Russia, whether it is the violation of human rights or the muzzling of the mass media, the Kremlin simply suggests that the Americans shut up and mind their own business. The West has refused to penalize or confront Russia’s destructive behavior. “There were no sanctions whatsoever for any behavior of the Russian authorities,” noted Illarionov.
“The recent suggestion ‘to reset the button’ in U.S.-Russia relations and ‘to start over with a blank slate’ is met with poorly hidden joy and satisfaction on the part of the Russian Chekists.”
The KGB regime now believes the American side is acquiescing to Moscow’s assertion of hegemony over the former Soviet space. “It is a surrender of the hopes and efforts of the Russian democrats as well as peoples of the post-Soviet states who dreamed to get out of the system that controlled and tortured them for almost a century,” said Illarionov. “But it is even more. It is a clear manifestation to all democratic and liberal forces in Russia and in the other post-Soviet states that on all internal and external issues of their struggle … the United States now abandons them and takes the position of their deadly adversaries and enemies. And therefore it is an open invitation for new adventures by the Russian Chekists’ regime….”
As if to scold the U.S. Congress itself, Illarionov noted that the Committee hearings were dedicated to “collaboration” with the secret police of Russia.
According to Illarionov, “the term chosen for the agents of the U.S. administration’s policy … is ‘collaborationists.’ Collaboration between the two governments today could only be on the Russian regime’s terms and for fulfillment of the Russian government’s goals.” The United States, in effect, has chosen something worse than appeasement. It has chosen the path of outright surrender. “We know the consequences of the collaborationist policy,” warned Illarionov.
“Those who retreat and surrender will not get peace, but war – war with unpredictable and nasty results.” The situation is reaching critical mass. The United States is no longer a superpower in terms of its thinking. It no longer opposes totalitarianism. A time of troubles is approaching. “When the world gets there,” said Illarionov, “we need to remember that we had a warning.”
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Monday, March 9, 2009
U.S., Russia aim to cut nukes
Nicholas Kralev (Contact)
http://media.washingtontimes.com/med...c8653055db7939
ASSOCIATED PRESS Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
says now is the time “for making real progress in resuming the
global disarmament process.
GENEVA | It's official - the U.S. and Russia want to revive arms control talks to cut their nuclear stockpiles.
Disarmament goals pronounced by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the issue had not been heard from the one-time enemies in years.
“The right moment has come today, for the first time after the end of the Cold War, for making real progress in resuming the global disarmament process on a broad agenda,” Mr. Lavrov said at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament in Geneva over the weekend.
Mr. Lavrov's comments were preceded by another bold statement by Mrs. Clinton during their meeting in this city, long associated with Cold War-era arms control negotiations.
“We are going to believe in arms control and nonproliferation as a core function of our foreign policy,” Mrs. Clinton said Friday, adding that there was “a great deal of confusion and infighting and ideological position-taking regarding arms control and nonproliferation in the last administration.”
Just a year ago, Mr. Lavrov delivered an unusually pessimistic speech at the Conference on Disarmament, a 65-nation body that has failed to produce any substantive results for years.
Russia and other countries blamed the George W. Bush administration's decision to scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was necessary for the U.S. to begin developing a missile-defense system.
Mr. Clinton promised Mr. Lavrov that the Obama administration's priority will be completing a follow-on accord to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) before it expires in December.
The agreement's official name is START I, though negotiations on its two successors were never finalized.
“We agreed to a work plan,” Mrs. Clinton said after meeting with Mr. Lavrov. “We are going to create a very specific set of objectives and responsibilities. We hope to be in a position where we can present those to our two presidents before their meeting, so that they can then agree upon the instructions that should be provided to our negotiators.”
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are expected to meet on the sidelines of a global financial summit in London early next month.
“There's been some good preliminary work on START, and we intend to get fully immersed in that,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We discussed some of the elements of what a new treaty would look like.”
In spite of the secretary's enthusiasm, however, “no decisions on the particulars of the U.S. negotiating position have been made,” said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) in Washington.
Unlike the Russians, the Americans have not appointed negotiators, he added.
After a visit to Moscow to discuss arms control issues and specifically START, Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, urged Mr. Obama to name an ambassador-at-large for strategic negotiations with Russia.
One name that has been mentioned for a senior position in the field is Rose Gottemoeller, who is expected to become assistant secretary of state for arms control. A former deputy undersecretary of energy for defense nuclear nonproliferation, she was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center until recently.
Last summer, Ms. Gottemoeller made known her views on the future of START in an article in Arms Control Today, a magazine published by the ACA, and co-written by Alexei Arbatov, head of the Center for International Security at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of International Economy and International Relations.
The article suggested that START be replaced by “an enhanced SORT,” a reference to the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Moscow, which was negotiated by the Bush administration.
The new accord would include SORT's basic premises, but with specific verification measures that do not exist in the 6-year-old document. Such measures can be found in START, but analysts deem many of them outdated.
“For the Russian side, the major goal would be to maintain a semblance of parity with the United States, while addressing the basic problem with SORT - the lack of acceptable counting rules and corresponding verification procedures,” the article said.
“For the U.S. side, the major goal would be to maintain sufficient transparency with respect to Russian strategic nuclear forces, while making sure that force cuts would not be too expensive for the United States,” it said.
The authors also suggested that “the upper limit allowed for strategic nuclear forces would be 1,700 deployed warheads, to be achieved by the end of 2012.” SORT required that both countries reduce their arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 warheads, and today they are at the higher end, Mr. Kimball said.
Although the Obama administration's official positions on START are still unknown, Russia has announced two major requirements.
“A future agreement should be legally binding,” Mr. Medvedev wrote in a letter to the Conference on Disarmament, which Mr. Lavrov read to delegates on Saturday.
“It is of no less importance that the instrument should be forward-looking and should limit not only warheads but also strategic delivery vehicles, i.e. intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers,” the Russian president wrote.
Diplomats in Geneva reacted positively to both Mr. Lavrov's and Mrs. Clinton's remarks, though some said that other accords should be taken up even while a replacement of START is being negotiated.
“There's no reason to wait for START to re-energize the Conference on Disarmament on a fissile material cut-off treaty,” said John Duncan, Britain's ambassador to the conference.
• John Zarocostas contributed to this report.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
U.S., Russia announce nuke talks; Obama plans to visit China
- Story Highlights
- Nuclear talks announcement with Russia comes ahead of G-20 summit
- Joint statement: "New agreement will mutually enhance security of the parties"
- Presidential meeting also aimed to set up U.S.-Russian summit in Moscow
- White House: Obama will visit China and "resume the human rights dialogue"
(CNN) -- U.S. President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced Wednesday that their countries will soon begin negotiations on reducing their nuclear arsenals, according to a joint statement from the two leaders.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/PO...try.afp.gi.jpg
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President Obama
talk Wednesday in London ahead of the G-20.
The announcement came after Obama and Medvedev met in London ahead of Thursday's G-20 summit.
The statement said the two leaders agreed that the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms -- which expires in December -- "has completely fulfilled its intended purpose and that the maximum levels for strategic offensive arms recorded in the treaty were reached long ago."
"They have therefore decided to move further along the path of reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms in accordance with U.S. and Russian obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the joint statement said.
Negotiators from both countries will soon begin talks "to work out a new, comprehensive, legally binding agreement on reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms to replace the START Treaty," the statement said.
Earlier, two senior Obama administration officials said another goal of the president's meeting with Medvedev was to set a date for a U.S.-Russian summit in Moscow, Russia, this summer.
The joint statement said negotiators from both countries would report their progress on working out the new nuclear arsenal reduction agreement by July.
Don't Miss
"The new agreement will mutually enhance the security of the parties and predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces, and will include effective verification measures drawn from the experience of the parties in implementing the START Treaty," the statement said.
In a joint news conference Wednesday with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- ahead of his talks with Medvedev -- Obama emphasized that Russia and the United States also have a common interest in "reducing nuclear stockpiles and promoting nuclear non-proliferation" across the world. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.elemen...tabs/video.gif Watch Obama, Brown statement ahead of world stage »
"One of the things I have always believed strongly is that both the United States and Russia and other nuclear powers will be in a much stronger position to strengthen what has become a somewhat fragile thread-bare nonproliferation treaty if we are leading by example and if we can take serious steps to reduce the nuclear arsenal," Obama said.
"I think people on both sides of the Atlantic understand that as much as the constant cloud, the threat of nuclear warfare has receded since the Cold War, that the presence of these deadly weapons, their proliferation, the possibility of them finding their way into the hands of terrorists, continues to be the gravest threat to humanity. What better project to start off than seeing if we can make progress on that front. I think we can."
The U.S. president said there's been a rift in the past several years in the U.S.-Russian relationship.
"There are very real differences between the United States and Russia, and I have no interest in papering those over. But there are also a broad set of common interests that we can pursue" and "great potential for concerted action," Obama said.
Along with the nuclear issue, Obama said, the countries "have an interest in stabilizing the world economy. Both countries have an interest in finding a sustainable path for energy and dealing with some of the threats climate change that we discussed."
Also on Wednesday, the White House released a statement saying that Obama will visit China this year. Obama met Chinese President Hu Jintao as world leaders gathered in London for Thursday's G-20 summit. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.elemen...tabs/video.gif Watch an assessment of Obama's first G-20 summit »
The two agreed to set up a high-level strategic and economic dialogue chaired by Cabinet-level representatives -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner for the United States, and State Councilor Dai Bingguo and Vice Premier Wang Qishan for China.
Obama and Hu appear to have deferred the question of human rights, one of the greatest points of friction between the two sides. "The two sides agreed to resume the human rights dialogue as soon as possible," the White House statement said. China did not immediately confirm the details of the U.S. announcement.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Obama faces test in Europe this week
By Michael D. Shear
The Washington Post
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABP...2008941327.jpg
President Obama faces tough sales job.
Related
WASHINGTON — After 69 days in which international issues have taken a back seat to attempts to rescue the economy at home, President Obama takes the world stage this week as a wildly popular figure among the people of Europe but facing a difficult task in selling his plans to the continents' leaders.
The president plans to push for a new approach to the war in Afghanistan, aggressive action to stop the proliferation of weapons and a more united European effort to combat the global recession.
But if the new U.S. president thought his popularity would cause foreign governments to fall quickly into line behind a new American leadership, experts warn, he could be in for a rude awakening.
Still, White House officials describe the trip as a way of confronting the "inherited challenges" left over from the Bush administration, and said they expect the three summits of world leaders he will attend to produce broad agreement on new approaches to economic recovery, fighting terrorism and securing peace in unstable regions.
"We think (the trip) is obviously going to be a fundamental part of the president's agenda of restoring America's standing in the world, and particularly in Europe," said Denis McDonough, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
Longtime observers of cross-Atlantic presidential trips say the president retains much of the star power he exhibited during his campaign swing through Europe last summer, when he delivered a speech to more than 200,000 people in a German square.
"It's still a case that European leaders want to be seen next to Obama, preferably with Obama, his arms around their shoulders and a big smile, because he's so popular in Europe," said Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
But replacing Bush with Obama has not wiped clean the substantial disagreements that remain between the U.S. and Europe.
"That's an invitation to disillusionment," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "These are complicated times. There's an anger in the world ... about how people think our country has helped create these problems. The president has to lift heavily to get us over the Bush hurdle."
Throughout the presidential campaign, Obama's rivals repeatedly questioned whether his youth and relative inexperience would make him a pushover when he came face to face with world leaders.
Obama's mission now is to lay those doubts to rest, in part by making good on his campaign promise to improve the sometimes strained relations with U.S. allies abroad.
Aides point out that Obama has been engaged in that effort since he took office, calling world leaders almost daily. Last week, he discussed his trip and the global economic crisis with French, German and British leaders, among others.
And between dealing with economic crises, Obama has made a series of moves that have been generally well-received across the Atlantic, ordering the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay closed, announcing a draw down of U.S. forces in Iraq and crafting a new policy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan, which he announced on Friday.
"This is his first major multilateral summit," said one senior foreign-policy adviser. "But he's been working the issues all the way back to the transition."
Michael Froman, Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs, said the president plans to "lead by example," offering his actions domestically — including a stimulus package, regulatory reform, housing proposals and financial-stability plans — as motivation for global action.
Obama's counterparts are struggling domestically with economic crises at least as severe as the one in the U.S. That has led to political instability throughout much of the continent that complicates Obama's upcoming meetings.
Governments have collapsed in Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland and, most recently, in the Czech Republic, where Mirek Topolanek, the prime minister, lost a vote of no confidence. Topolanek currently serves as the president of the European Union but is expected to remain as the host for the organization's summit in Prague on Sunday despite his political problems.
"(Obama's) problem is that everyone is weak. His main allies are very weak.
Even his rivals are weak," said Moises Naim, the editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine. "In the weakness of rivals loom large risk."
The danger, Naim said, is that European leaders are in no position to deliver what the United States wants on the economy or security issues despite their desire to please America's new president.
In addition, he said, many of the foreign leaders have their own domestic reasons to pick a fight with the new American leader, if only to show that they are not bowed by his star power.
That could be particularly evident when Obama meets in a one-on-one meeting with Russian president Dmitrij Medvedev in London.
"Medvedev also has to show that he is as tough as (Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin," Naim said. "The 500-pound gorilla that's not in the room in Putin. Everyone knows, and Putin makes sure that everyone knows, that he calls the shots."
Still, Obama and Medvedev are expected to reach an agreement that could lead to a new arms-reduction treaty between the two nations. The START treaty reached in 1991 expires at the end of this year.
In Prague, the new president will make what aides describe as a "major address" on the proliferation of dangerous weapons. At a summit of NATO leaders, Obama will urge a modernization of the alliance to better fight the security threats from terrorists and rogue nations.
And at the G-20 economic summit, he will call for a new approach to reviving the global economy through government spending, tougher regulation of financial institutions and an embrace of free trade.
In between, the White House promises a series of one-on-one conversations with the leaders of Turkey, Russia, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Korea, China, India and Britain. On Wednesday, Obama will meet privately with the Queen of England. In Istanbul, he will hold a global, video-based town-hall meeting that will allow students from across Europe and Asia to ask the American president questions.
"This is a real test of his leadership," Dale said of the eight-day, five-country trip. "Particularly, I think in the economic section, where the whole world is suffering and there's a real opportunity for the president to show global leadership."
Copyright © 2009 The Seattle Times Company
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
President Barack Obama calls for a nuclear free world in Prague speech
The country that dropped two atom bombs on Japan in 1945 has a "moral responsibility" to work towards securing "a world without nuclear weapons", President Barack Obama has said in a speech in the Czech Republic.
By Toby Harnden in Prague
Last Updated: 5:21PM BST 05 Apr 2009
Mr Obama told a crowd of about 20,000 gathered in Hradcany Square, next to Prague Castle that nuclear weapons were the "most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" and the risk of a nuclear attack had never been greater because "terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one".
Speaking in a city chosen for the symbolism of its peaceful toppling of communism through the Velvet Revolution of 1989, he denounced "fatalism" over nuclear proliferation and vowed to lead a global effort to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.
"As the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act," he said. "We cannot succeed in this endeavour alone, but we can lead it.
"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment and desire to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons."
Maintaining that he was "not naïve", Mr Obama buttressed his startlingly optimistic and ambitious aim - even employing his campaign of "Yes, we can" - with a strong condemnation of the North Korean rocket launch, hours before his speech, and tough words on Iran.
The United States would continue to develop a missile defence system until Iran abandoned its nuclear ambitions, he said. "As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven," he said.
"Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbours and our allies." He hailed the "courageous" Czech Republic and Poland for "agreeing to host a defense against these missiles."
But he also spoke of the potential for a rapprochement with Iran that would remove the need for a missile defence system.
"If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed."
Tehran, he said, had two choices. "We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That is a path that the Islamic Republic can take."
Mr Obama called for a reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in American national security strategy, negotiating a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia - to which Moscow agreed to in principle last week - and seeking a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials used in nuclear weapons.
He also announced that the US would hold host a global summit on nuclear security in next year and that he would work to ratify the nuclear Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999 but rejected by the US Senate.
Mr Obama who was woken at 4.30am in his hotel room in Prage by his press secretary Robert Gibbs to be told of the North Korean rocket launch over Japan, said that, said Pyongyang had to be called to account and urged a strong international response at an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting.
"This provocation underscores the need for action, not just this afternoon at the UN Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons," he said. "Rules must be binding, violations must be punished, words must mean something.
"The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."
Mr Obama's reference to the devastating atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing as many as 220,000, in August 1945 was part of his concerted effort to rebuild bridges with the world by promising, as he said in Strasbourg, "to listen to learn and to learn" and to acknowledge American failings.
Gary Samore, the White House's Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction and Terrorism, indicated that Mr Obama's call for ridding the world of nuclear weapons need not be taken too literally.
"In terms of a nuclear-free world, I think we all recognize this is not a near-term possibility." Rather, the call was an attempt to "seize the moral high ground" in order to increase pressure on countries like North Korea and Iran.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
AHHH, go tell it to Iran and North Korea.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
MOSCOW, April 10 (RIA Novosti) - The RS-20V Voyevoda-M (SS-18 Satan) intercontinental ballistic missile, introduced almost 21 years ago, will remain in service until 2019, the commander of Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) said on Friday.
"The extension in the service life of the [Voyevoda-M] missile will allow us to keep these missiles, the most powerful in the world, in the SMF for another eight-10 years," Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said.
"We have no technical difficulties in accomplishing this task," he added.
The general also said Russia was developing a new ICBM comparable to the SS-18, and would gradually decommission older versions of the missile "in order to ensure nuclear safety."
According to publicly available sources, Russia currently has 88 SS-18 missile silo launchers, most of them deployed at the Dombarovsky missile base in the Orenburg Region, southern Urals.
The missile is armed with a warhead fitting 10 multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) with a yield of 550 to 750 kilotons each.
It has a maximum range of 11,000 km (6,800 miles) with a launch mass of over 210 tons and a payload of 8.8 tons.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Hmmm... I seem to remember that Russia was stating they were going to decommission those SS-18s because of their age and to comply with treaty obligations. Guess not.
Just like I had said would happen when they said they said they would get rid of them.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Disarmament 101
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 04.10.2009
When we read eye witness accounts of the bombing of Hiroshima, which occurred in August 1945, we are shocked at the horror and inhumanity of the world’s most terrible weapon – the atom bomb, which subsequently evolved into the hydrogen bomb. If today’s nuclear arsenals were unleashed against urban centers, hundreds of millions would die. Entire national economies would collapse.
Some people imagine that nuclear weapons are, in themselves, a great evil. They argue that all nuclear weapons should be scrapped. After all, in the fullness of time, by design or by accident, nuclear war is inevitable. Doesn’t it make sense to do something to prevent such a disaster? Shouldn’t we embark on a universal program of nuclear disarmament?
Two points should be made regarding this subject. First, nuclear weapons are not evil. They are merely inanimate objects. If there is danger in the world, it comes from evil politicians. Second, lethal biological weapons have greater death-dealing potential than nuclear weapons. The United States does not possess an arsenal of lethal biological weapons. If we eliminate our nuclear weapons and do not account for the biological arsenals of Russia, China, North Korea, etc., we will leave ourselves open to attack without any means of retaliation.
Few have considered what genuine nuclear disarmament would entail. Unless the whole human race takes a drug that makes everyone stupid, nuclear technology is not going to disappear. As long as modern civilization remains technologically advanced, we will have weapons of mass destruction. There is no way around this, because the ultimate weapon is not a nuclear bomb. The ultimate weapon is the human mind.
Our new administration in Washington thinks that eliminating all nuclear weapons (in every country) would be a good thing. President Obama says that eliminating all nuclear weapons “is not pie in the sky.” But if this is not pie in the sky, then nothing is. For even if every nuclear arsenal were dismantled, some countries might build new arsenals in secret. Therefore, real nuclear disarmament requires the elimination of all whose skill and knowledge would facilitate the construction of future arsenals. One would have to arrange abortions, as well, for all fetuses that might be born and later become nuclear scientists. It must be admitted that weapons of mass destruction do not exist of and by themselves. They stem from our technological sophistication, from our intellectual accomplishments, from modern scientific concepts. Only if we eliminate these precursors, can we eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.
Nevertheless, the new administration is determined in its Utopian venture. The White House Web Site states: “Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But they will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.
They will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.”
Obama and Biden are determined to remove the chief guarantor of peace – America’s nuclear arsenal. They no longer believe in the “balance of terror.” What they want is a treaty for the elimination of nuclear arsenals worldwide. Totalitarian countries have a long record of treaty violations.
The ruling KGB gang in Russia is currently developing a super-plague weapon in violation of existing treaties. These people are not going to keep a nuclear arms control agreement if they can achieve global dominance by cheating. If all nuclear weapons were eliminated, you would merely achieve the disarmament of the United States.
Obama and Biden are dreamers. If you are going to play the utopian game, why stop at the elimination of nuclear weapons? Why not eliminate evil? Get every world leader on the phone and propose the elimination of evil worldwide. After all, the problem was never in the weapons. It was in the people who built them. Even if you remove all the nuclear weapons from the planet, evil people will try and build new weapons. And they will do so secretly. How does Obama propose to stop them?
In discussing the elimination of nuclear weapons, or the elimination of evil, we are not talking about a fourth grade math problem; in fact, many so-called problems are not problems at all because they do not admit of any solution whatever. We cannot prevent a nuclear war by eliminating nuclear weapons any more than we can eliminate evil. The truth of the matter was eloquently summed up by Ursula LeGuin, who wrote: “[Evil is not] something that can be solved...” Instead, she observed, it is “all the pain and suffering and waste and loss and injustice we will meet all our lives long, and must face and cope with over and over, and admit, and live with, in order to live human lives at all.”
As mature adults, as realists and not fantasists, we should embrace LeGuin’s words. Evil is among us, it is within us, and it is here to stay. And the same is true of nuclear weapons, with the following addendum. There is a path to nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free world. It is the path of nuclear war, in which civilization and mankind are taken back to an earlier, less technologically advanced era.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Japan calls summit on nuclear disarmament
By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
Posted 1 hour 13 minutes ago
Japan says it will back US President Barack Obama's drive for a nuclear-free world by holding a global disarmament summit.
Japan is the joint sponsor with Australia of a new global initiative to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
The only country to have suffered the devastation of the atomic bomb, Japan says it will host an international nuclear disarmament conference next year.
Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone has called on the major nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, to lead the disarmament drive.
He also singled out China, India, Pakistan and Israel as weapons states which should follow suit.
But the minister says North Korea remains the region's most serious nuclear threat.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia, U.S. to hold first formal START talks in mid May Moscow MOSCOW, April 27 (Xinhua) -- Russia and the United States will hold first round of full-fledged talks on nuclear weapons reduction between May 18 and 20 in Moscow, news agencies reported late Monday citing Russian Foreign Ministry.
"We have agreed to hold the first round of talks between the two delegations in the full format in Moscow between May 18 and 20," the Interfax news agency quoted a statement from the ministry assaying.
Officials from Russia and the United States have met in Rome last week for initial talks.
After the initial talks both sides said they were satisfied with the outcomes and were optimistic about future steps in the process, which was aimed at creating a new treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) before it expires in December this year.
The START 1, launched in 1991 and came into force in 1994, banned the production, testing and deployment of air-launched ballistic missiles, underwater launch systems for ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as orbital missiles.
The two sides are expecting a bilateral agreement at the end of 2009.
According to Russian and U.S. arms control experts, the new upgraded treaty will seek to reduce arsenals to 1,500 on each side.
It is estimated that the United States currently has at least 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads deployed and Russia has between 2000 and 3000.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton will hold further talks on the issue in Washington on May 7, the RIA Novosti news agency reported last Thursday.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
MOSCOW, April 28 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. President Barack Obama has, in his first 100 days in office, demonstrated flexibility in foreign policy and a willingness to use dialogue rather than confrontation, a senior Russian senator said on Tuesday.
Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Russian Federation Council's foreign affairs committee, said the new U.S. administration is not rushing to integrate the ex-Soviet states of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO or to deploy its controversial missile defense shield in Central Europe.
"President Obama is striving to solve these issues in [U.S.-Russian] relations through dialogue," Margelov said.
Moscow has been at loggerheads with Washington over plans to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe. The U.S. earlier signed agreements with the Czech Republic on hosting a radar station and with Poland on the deployment of 10 interceptor missiles by 2013.
Russia says the missile shield would be a threat to its national security while the United States has argued it is necessary to guard against the threat of missile attacks from states such as Iran.
Top Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their hope that the new U.S. administration will not follow through with the plans, and President Dmitry Medvedev said following talks with U.S. President Barack Obama in April that both countries would make every effort "to find a way out of this difficult situation."
Margelov also said that a working group between the Russian Federation Council and the U.S. Senate will take place at the end of May to discuss joint U.S.-Russian projects, which according to him is required after both countries have new leaders.
"We will try to deliver the results of our inter-parliamentary meeting to the leaders of our countries before [Obama's visit] to Moscow," he said.
Obama plans to visit Russia in July.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
From The Times
April 27, 2009
Cutting the nuclear arsenals
The fewer warheads Russia and America have, the harder it is to maintain global balance
Russian and American negotiators began work at the weekend on their ambitious plans to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The talks are intended to produce a new agreement to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (Start) that expires in December. This time, however, both sides are committed to cutting their arsenals well below the current combined total of 5,000 warheads, after the declaration by presidents Obama and Medvedev in London on April 1 that they would work towards the scrapping of all nuclear arms. It is a fraught endeavour, but a very worthwhile one.
It is a visionary aim, and revives one of the main vehicles for reducing East-West tensions during the Cold War. President Obama has returned to arms control, one of the goals outlined in his inaugural address, as a way of improving America's strained relations with Russia. But it will be difficult to achieve. For as warhead numbers are reduced, related issues become more complicated. If, for example, both sides cut their totals to 1,500 each, verification becomes more important, especially for the Russians, who know that the Americans could rebuild their arsenals more quickly. And this would mean Russia's defence ministry and arms factories accepting more transparency than they have before.
The second issue is delivery systems. Russia fears it will lose out in cuts, as its long-range missiles are ageing and probably far less reliable than US missiles. Last week Mr Medvedev insisted that any new treaty should limit all systems, including the strategic triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-based missiles and heavy bombers. But the Americans have an advantage that strategists might be reluctant to abandon, especially as they are deeply worried about the threat of missiles fired by states still building up offensive capabilities. But with warhead numbers reduced to about the 1,000 mark proposed by Mr Obama, the US would have to consider abandoning one leg of its strategic triad.
The third risk in a drastic reduction of warheads is that the two former superpowers have less of an advantage over other nuclear powers, especially China. The deterrents still hosted by Britain and France are unlikely to upset the balance, but China appears determined still to maintain its arsenals at current levels, as do India, Pakistan and Israel. The importance, therefore, of each warhead being up to date and fully operational increases. That will make it harder for Mr Obama to persuade Congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which it refused to do in 1999. It may also raise pressure to resume some form of testing.
The talks will also raise questions about other arms treaties. The Russians are unwilling to make concessions as long as the US is committed to the Bush Administration programme of installing an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Mr Obama has signalled that this may not now go ahead, but much depends on Iran and North Korea, which have reacted aggressively to his conciliatory overtures.
The key issue in all talks will be mutual trust. That broke down during the Bush Administration. The relationship may now be on the mend. But it will take months of tough bargaining before either Russia or America is ready to lead the way to a world without nuclear weapons.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Mccain Backs Obama's Call To End Nuclear Weapons
Quote:
US Senator John McCain Friday backed a call by President Barack Obama, his former rival for the White House, for a planet free of nuclear weapons and this should start with North Korea and Iran.
The Republican senator from Arizona was speaking in Japan on the last leg of an Asia tour, after Tokyo was angered by Pyongyang firing a rocket over its territory Sunday.
"Concerning President Obama's commitment to the removal of nuclear weapons from the Earth, I certainly support that ambitious goal," McCain told a Tokyo press conference.
"We have two countries in the world that could destabilise both parts of the world -- the Iranians and the North Koreans. They both are on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
McCain reiterated a view held by Washington, Seoul and Tokyo, saying the North Korean launch was "a direct violation of the UN Security Council resolutions and against the norms of decent behaviour as a citizen of the world."
He added that "Iranians risk a destabilisation of the entire Middle East as they continue on their path to acquire nuclear weapons."
While speaking out against regimes holding nuclear weapons, McCain voiced support for peaceful countries using nuclear power to shift away from carbon-based energy sources and to slow down climate change.
He was due to visit a nuclear power plant near Tokyo.
"As the United States increases and accelerates our efforts for energy independence as well as reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, I believe that nuclear power must play a major role," the senator said.
McCain, who serves on the Senate committees on armed services and energy, was travelling with fellow senators Lindsey Graham and Amy Klobuchar on an Asian tour that earlier took him to Hong Kong, Hanoi and Beijing.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
U.S. Ready To Cut Missiles in Russia Deal
05 May 2009 Reuters
The United States is ready to cut the number of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles as part of an agreement with Russia to replace a Cold War arms treaty, Washington's chief negotiator was quoted as saying on Monday.
President Dmitry Medvedev and U.S. President Barack Obama agreed last month in London to pursue a new deal to replace the 1991 START I nuclear disarmament treaty that expires in December.
Russia has said any agreement must limit both warheads and all types of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles — the actual rockets and other means that deliver nuclear weapons — but Washington's position had been unclear.
Rose Gottemoeller, U.S. assistant secretary of state for verification and compliance, told Interfax that Washington was willing to cut both warheads and delivery vehicles.
"In the presidential instructions received after the meetings in London, there is a clear order that negotiations should be focused on strategic offensive weapons, and this covers delivery vehicles and warheads," Gottemoeller said.
Interfax also quoted Gottemoeller as saying the United States was not ready to cut the warheads that have been dismounted from rockets and that are stored in U.S. arsenals.
Russia has insisted on counting all warheads as part of a new deal, but the United States believes that only those deployed on existing missiles should be counted.
Some analysts say the issue of how to count numbers of nuclear warheads could complicate negotiations.
Finding a replacement to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the largest such treaty in history, is seen by both Moscow and Washington as an opportunity to improve ties that have been badly strained in recent years.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
U.S. wants Israel, India in anti-nuclear arms treaty
Tue May 5, 2009 8:50pm BST
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the global pact meant to limit the spread of atomic weapons, a senior U.S. official said on Tuesday.
Speaking on the second day of a two-week meeting of the 189 signatories of the pact, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller also defended a U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, which developing nations have complained rewards New Delhi for staying outside the NPT.
"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Gottemoeller told the meeting, which hopes to agree on an agenda and plan to overhaul the treaty at a review conference next year.
Speaking to reporters later, she declined to say whether Washington would take any new steps to press Israel to join the treaty and give up any nuclear weapons it has. Israel neither confirms nor denies whether it has what arms control experts assume to be a sizable atomic arsenal.
The administration of President Barack Obama was encouraging all holdouts to join the treaty, she said.
Nuclear-armed India and Pakistan have never signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from it in 2003 and tested a nuclear device in 2006.
At the NPT meeting, developing countries have criticized the endorsement of the U.S.-India nuclear agreement by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, an informal club of the world's top producers of nuclear-related technology.
The group agreed in September to lift a ban on nuclear trade with India, imposed after New Delhi's first nuclear test in 1974.
Delegates from poor nations complain that the endorsement was tantamount to rewarding India for remaining outside the treaty and secretly developing nuclear weapons. In contrast, they say, developing states are denied access to sensitive technology because they are often deemed proliferation risks.
NO MENTION OF IRAN
Gottemoeller defended the agreement. "India is coming closer to the non-proliferation regime," she said.
She cited India's willingness to work with Washington in pushing for a binding international treaty that would prohibit the further production of bomb-grade nuclear material and by improving its nuclear export controls.
Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Ali Hosseini on Monday railed against the United States and what he said was its continued nuclear support for the "Zionist regime" (Israel). Western diplomats called this an attempt to divert attention away from its own nuclear program.
In failing to mention Iran even once in her speech, Gottemoeller broke from a tradition established by the administration of former President George W. Bush, which had used NPT meetings to criticise Iran and North Korea.
Gottemoeller said that Iran came up indirectly in her statement when she spoke of the need for "consequences for those breaking the rules or withdrawing from the treaty."
Obama has offered Iran's leaders direct talks on a wide range of issues, including its nuclear program. Tehran has reacted coolly to the U.S. overtures nearly three decades after Washington severed ties with Tehran during a hostage crisis.
The West suspects Iran is developing weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program, a charge Tehran denies.
Gottemoeller also reiterated commitments to disarmament that Obama made in a speech in Prague last month. She said the United States would continue its two-decade long moratorium on testing nuclear explosives and urged others to follow suit.
(Editing by David Storey)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
A deterrence we need
Why nuclear disarmament is an unwise promise
By Gene Myers
Claiming freedom from the ideologically driven policies of the recent past, the Obama administration has promised a “new pragmatic approach” to everything from the economy to national defense, including U.S. deterrence strategy. This implies a strategic view that embraces the old notion of politics being the art of the possible — a return to negotiation and compromise in solving the nation’s problems.
New political dawns often bring heightened expectations from supporters of the new governmental incumbents. In the case of defense policy, in particular nuclear defense policy, a return to old internal Cold War-era ideological clashes is likely in the offing, clashes that will strain national leaders’ ability to negotiate the “possible.”
The arrival of what could be called a moderately liberal executive branch reinforced by Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress along with a heightened awareness of the new dangers posed by rogue nations and global terrorist factions will likely resurrect Cold War desires to once and for all rid the world of nuclear weapons — and to strike while conditions appear optimal. As it has always been, nuclear disarmament is indeed a worthy goal but one not lacking in either difficulty or real national dangers.
The task for the new president is to convince the world that the U.S. is indeed serious about at least more closely approaching disarmament by further reducing nuclear stockpiles while at the same time doing what is necessary to assure the nation’s safety. Of course, the issue then becomes, does what is necessary include maintaining nuclear deterrence — possibly against the will of some “no nukes” advocates? Such ideological nuclear nirvana may eventually be in the cards, but the continued need to ensure national safety in a still-dangerous world has seemingly stacked the deck against it. For the present, let’s look at ways to make the current world less dangerous.
Any approach to nuclear arms reduction, ideological or not, has to deal rationally with one unrelenting reality. Nuclear weapons are possessed or strongly desired by an expanding number of nations: Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and quite possibly North Korea, with Iran reported to be on the verge. Some of these nations are viscerally hostile to the U.S. As if that were not enough, nuclear weapons are actively sought by a set of lethal new nonstate enemies (al-Qaida comes swiftly to mind) who have every intention of using what they get. Thus, ensuring the nation’s safety — the president’s most sacred responsibility — entails guaranteeing that potential adversaries see no benefit from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against the U.S. In other words, they must be deterred — all of them.
A recent report on Defense Department nuclear weapons management, the Schlesinger Report, alluded to the shifting sand of national security in reference to an old U.S. nemesis, one we believed we had made some progress with: “Russia is reshaping its doctrine and improving its nuclear arsenal toward greater reliance on nuclear weapons. There is a substantial set of experiments being conducted at its nuclear test site and President, now Prime Minister, Putin has publicly declared his intention to deploy new weapon types based on ‘new physical principles.’”
The administration’s same nonideological approach must also deal with one of the most ideologically spurred goals of the post-World War II era: the elimination of nuclear weapons. No rational observer can argue that such a political triumph would not be a boon to humanity, but as always, it is far easier said than done since that lofty task requires nothing less than convincing the aforementioned nuclear powers, near-nuclear powers and nuclear wannabes that they should throw down their arms and ambitions and join an enlightened world order.
The president’s wicked problem
So, President Barack Obama faces what some theorists would call a wicked problem with his nuclear deterrence policy — which is to say a problem, similar to others he faces from an economy on life support to a failing education system, with no optimal solution and no real way to make the left and right happy. The so-called political “negotiating space” in this instance is bounded by two perspectives.
Despite arguments for a less rigid position, sticking by their disarmament guns in the face of real dangers from new adversaries would not suggest a non-ideological approach to the administration’s wicked problem. To this observer at least, if single mindedly pursued, it seems to adopt an uncompromising extreme one from our Cold War past.
But fortunately, as with most things political, there are obvious, real-world driven compromises. During his April 6 speech in Prague, Obama clearly and firmly stated his desire to proceed down the nuclear disarmament path, but with some well placed caveats that, to this observer at least, do allow some room for maneuver and a strong desire to ensure national safety:
“This goal will not be reached quickly — perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence…. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the U.S. will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies.”
Many nuclear weapons advocates cling to the notion of “sufficiency” — having an arsenal sufficient to deterring, by threat of use, any potential adversary with substantial reserves to intimidate any others that may seek to profit from the first striker’s mistake. Sufficiency in this case has traditionally implied a bludgeon-based deterrence strategy of inflicting catastrophic damage for major transgressions.
On the other hand, nuclear abolitionists insist that these weapons can indeed be eliminated with some — not all, certainly — suggesting that the U.S. should lead the way in unilateral disarmament. A fairly recent disarmament argument gaining some traction in government as well as in activist circles maintains that nuclear disarmament is necessary to prevent greater proliferation.
Neither extreme — abolition or legitimized assured destruction — is likely to happen, at least not anytime soon.
Of course, these arguments and positions are not new. The wicked problem has been with us since at least the 1960s. However, it has become even more wicked with the advent of deadly new players in the form of ideologically motivated non-state terrorist organizations that are far more difficult to deter than your run-of-the-mill nuclear-armed country — at least with the nuclear arsenals we now possess. Unfortunately, the odds are better than just fair that they will eventually obtain at least some sort of minimal nuclear capability (with a relatively unsophisticated, but still deadly, “dirty bomb” being a good candidate). The Hobson’s choice left to U.S. leaders of obliterating huge swaths of territory with a barrage of high-yield Cold War-vintage nuclear weapons or committing to a conventional land army invasion of some terrorist harboring nation (like the multiyear Afghanistan operation) in response to a deadly but very limited attack does not bolster either our credibility or deterrence of our enemies.
One argument for nuclear disarmament is gaining some acceptance within both government and activist constituencies. In a 2007 essay in The Wall Street Journal, “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons,” four respected U.S. statesmen — the former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former Defense Secretary William Perry, and Sen. Sam Nunn — unexpectedly argued for total nuclear disarmament. They maintained that even given advancements in traditional nuclear arms control agreements between major powers, proliferation would continue with many more nations being armed with the tools of Armageddon. They went on to suggest that as more irresponsible states possess nuclear weapons, especially states like North Korea and Iran, the greater are the dangers we face and, even more importantly, the greater are the chances that terrorists will eventually get their hands on them. They then proposed that such risks may ultimately be greater than the traditionally viewed risks posed by their abolition.
In discussing the dangers the international community faces from clandestine proliferators in a post-disarmament environment (where at least nuclear-armed nations have foregone their arsenals) in her recent Current History article “The New Disarmament Discussion,” Sharon Squassoni, a nuclear weapons expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, maintains that, “In its simplest form, the idea gaining momentum is that more weapons — regardless of whether they are amassed in existing nuclear weapon states or new nuclear weapon states — provide more potential access points for terrorists.”
But as compelling as these arguments may be, the issue is far from settled. The need to possess a credible nuclear deterrent for many years to come is still the prevailing credo of much of the political and military communities. Even given the president’s stated policy supporting the complete near-term cessation of fissile-material development and an expressed desire for complete disarmament, we can be assured that there is substantial disagreement within the government about ways to solve the nuclear problem. One indication is Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ insistence on developing new, less destructive, safer nuclear warheads to replace ones that are now two to four decades old, and doing so in the face of his new boss’s stated policy that the U.S. will not develop any more nuclear weapons. The rationale of course, is that to deter anyone — from Russia to al-Qaida — our arsenal must not engender doubt as to its effectiveness. It must work as advertised by our defense policy. But the Pentagon maintains it cannot guarantee that 30- to 40-year-old warheads will even work, especially since tests are prohibited. Gates summed up his position during a recent speech: “Even though the days of hair-trigger superpower confrontation are over, as long as other nations possess the bomb and the means to deliver it, the United States must maintain a credible strategic deterrent.”
I would also posit that perhaps instead of lessening the risks of proliferation, attempts at complete disarmament might just increase them as unknown and perhaps even some known players calculate the risks of developing or stashing away nuclear weapons as worthwhile when the rewards of being the only nuclear “power” on the block are so high. We must remember that the elimination of means to produce weapons and fissile materials by current members of the “nuclear club” only makes development of a rogue nuke more difficult, not impossible. With money and patience, weapons will be built. The knowledge and basic technology will still exist. Some participants in the nuclear gamble see such mutual international political structures as nonproliferation or test ban treaties as useful only to the extent that their questionable strategic goals are met. Violating treaties and agreements then becomes standard procedure (North Korea comes to mind).
I must emphasize, however, this does not suggest that the international community should cease making efforts to, if not eliminate nuclear weapons, at least mitigate the severity of the wicked problems it faces. The self-perpetuating disarmament debate tends to overshadow the true international requirement — security and safety. After all, safety from nuclear attack or blackmail is the objective; complete disarmament is but one means to achieve it. But if we choose to try total disarmament, any agreement must be truly and totally verifiable — no nation or group can achieve nuclear superiority with just one clandestinely built weapon. That is indeed a wickedly tall order.
SO, WHAT TO DO?
Perhaps we should try to mitigate the premise of nuclear proliferation by reducing the incentive to possess nuclear weapons in the first place.
It should be possible to reduce global nuclear stockpiles to a few hundred safer, less-destructive weapons if:
å The remaining weapons are truly and verifiably secure from both attack and theft. This serves to reduce temptations to attack them in times of crisis as incentives and rewards for doing so become greater. Storage site hardening, weapons dispersal (not as big a problem as now if you only have a few) and maybe even mobility offer some remedies. Regardless of the means, future treaties should focus more on ensuring that those weapons that do exist are protected than absolute knowledge of how many there are and should enforce common security standards for all participants. Numbers become most important to assuring that some have not fallen into other hands.
å These weapons are useful — they can accomplish the real war-fighting tasks assigned to them. In the present world this means that even if used in sparing numbers they can be seen as providing some active remedy against clandestine proliferators intent on applying their ill-gotten stockpile. If they are properly designed and protected, this does not require either the great numbers or the high yields so prevalent during the Cold War when power was a substitute for accuracy. Low-yield precision is the key now. It should be remembered that deterrence is only effective to the degree that the opponent believes you will and can achieve your objectives. Large-yield weapons are not operationally credible in the post-Cold War world, and high numbers are politically and economically untenable. At this point it is necessary to acknowledge that over the past decade-and-a-half important steps have been taken to significantly reduce the numbers and destructiveness of the nuclear stockpiles of Russia and the U.S. and some of our allies. These steps have lessened the potential for disastrous miscalculation and continued proliferation to some degree (though as previously pointed out, Russia may have begun backsliding). But as important as these actions are, they are not sufficient; other dangers and other proliferators remain and the technology exists to make individual weapons even less destructive.
å A new defense policy is developed and promulgated by national leaders, both U.S. and our international partners, that stresses the capabilities of an arsenal of weapons designed for a new type of deterrence, one that repudiates vestiges of Cold War mutual assured destruction and the many thousands of high-yield weapons it required and relies on the characteristics described above. This policy would make clear that rogue states and fanatical nonstate organizations are not off the hook and indeed will be targeted by an arsenal with accuracy, low yields and secure base best suited to meeting the challenges they present. This new nuclear structure would provide the capability part of deterrence. Stated national, and hopefully international, policy must now convince those we wish to deter of our will to do what is necessary.
Of course, this would require the president to abandon his promise of no new weapons or fissile materials. Such a course reversal is always a hard pill for any politician to swallow. In this case it is necessary. The new weapons proposed by this concept would be less destructive than what they replace and could be fielded on a less than one-for-one basis for old weapons — even unilaterally if necessary. If the intent is for nuclear weapons to never be used by nuclear-armed states, further reducing incentives for use-or-lose options is indeed a step in the right direction. If the intent is to also reduce the ability for rogue players to attain and use such weapons, then the big reductions of global weapons and components this strategy would represent would reduce availability of illicit materials as well as provide a more capable but less destructive means to respond to nuclear use by anyone, including non-state actors.
The intended effect here is to reduce incentive to possess high numbers of nuclear weapons, or in the case of nuclear aspirants, any at all. If nations see a markedly diminished threat to national survival as posed by the arsenals and strategies suggested here they may forgo the financial and political capital expenditures necessary to keeping up with the Joneses. But to our most ardent opponents, such a structure would at least begin to offer a credible threat to what they value most — their arsenals, the ability to control them and claims to legitimacy in acquiring them. The enhanced moral position of subscribing nuclear nations would also go far in bolstering their argument for strict nonproliferation. Trading in the last of their Cold War arsenals for far fewer less destructive but more secure weapons does portray a more responsible mind-set.
A LESS-WICKED SOLUTION
But in absolute terms the wicked problem would still exist. Nuclear weapons would not be abolished as the abolitionists desire, but their numbers and destructiveness would be significantly reduced — more than envisioned by many arms control advocates today. And it is likely that nuclear sufficiency advocates would argue that we will have gone too far and put our national security in jeopardy (“overkill” still being an operative concept to some.) So the wicked problem will still be with us — but maybe a little less wicked — and the world will be a good bit safer.
If they play their cards right, the new administration could claim a political victory — even while moving away from disarmament promises — by adopting an approach similar to the one advocated here. It would be no stretch of the truth to lay claim to ridding the world of thousands of nuclear weapons, making the international community safer than at any time in the nuclear era, reclaiming the international moral high ground in the non-proliferation debates and, perhaps most important, remolding our much-reduced nuclear arsenal into one that still deters — perhaps even those, like the Osama bin Ladens and Kim Jong Ils, who many believe could not be deterred. Not a bad day’s work. This will no doubt be a hard sell and difficult political task, but certainly would not be the only one the president did not shy away from. AFJ
■
GROVER E. “GENE” MYERS is a senior consultant with ABS Consulting in Arlington, Va. He is a retired Air Force officer with extensive experience in nuclear policy and aerospace and joint doctrine and concept development.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia seeks U.S. input on stored nukes
Published: May 12, 2009 at 12:23 PM
http://photos.upi.com/story/t/adbe2b...ored-nukes.jpg
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
MOSCOW, May 12 (UPI) -- Russia says it is waiting for the United States to make a proposal to reduce both countries' stored nuclear warheads.
So far, the Obama administration has not indicated it wants to include those devices on its agenda for upcoming strategic arms reductions talks. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday in Moscow he's awaiting a proposal from Washington on the topic, RIA Novosti reported.
"As to stored nuclear warheads, it is important to understand how they will be counted (toward new arms limits)," he said. "We are waiting for U.S. proposals in order to analyze them in line with the principle of equally assured security."
Lavrov told reporters Russia isn't saying "no" on whether to count stored warheads, but added, "We are convinced that the new treaty must cover all (nuclear) warheads and all delivery vehicles."
Officials have set the first round of talks to replace the expiring START 1 treaty for next Monday in Moscow, with hopes of having a treaty ready for the signatures of Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev by July.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Will Obama Give Up America’s Nuke First Strike?
From The Danger Room:
President Obama wants the world to get rid of its nukes, eventually. But, for now, it’s still official U.S. policy that America reserves the right to drop the first Bomb in an atomic war.
During the early 1980’s — the peak of the late Cold War — the Soviet Union declared that it would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. Many of America’s strategic lions — most famously Robert McNamara, George Kennan, Gerard Smith, and McGeorge Bundy — said we should do the same. But we never did. Why not? Primarily because we thought we might actually use the weapons first. In my view, one of the three most likely ways that World War III would have started would have been with Red Army troops surging west across Europe. American conventional weapons probably couldn’t have helped the French or West Germans stop them. But nuclear weapons could have.
Read more ....
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vector7
:rolleyes: Yeah, I bet the do... Probably just going to take them and stick them in Yamantau Mountain and put a bunch of old tractor parts in their place to fool inspectors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vector7
Why wouldn't he? Clinton did after all.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Nuclear Disarmament and Russia’s Heart of Darkness
by J. R. Nyquist
Weekly Column Published: 05.08.2009
Print In Steve LeVine’s book, Putin’s Labyrinth, we read about the atrocities of Russian troops in Chechnya and the torturing of innocent people. We read how Russian soldiers kill for sport. In one example, Russian troops seized a large group of civilians hiding in a bomb shelter. The soldiers handcuff them and stacked them face down, five deep on top of one another and transported them to the main headquarters of the North Caucasus Military District. Some victims suffocated to death, others were shot.
LeVine has lived and worked in the former Soviet Union. He has witnessed the callousness of Russian policy, and the criminal methods of the Russian state. He knows that the Kremlin hires assassins to kill its critics at home and abroad (e.g., Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko). “I had been under no illusion about Putin,” LeVine wrote. “His bare-knuckle approach to governing Russia had been apparent for some time. But now it was hard to avoid the conclusion that something more ominous was happening. What I was seeing in Russia went beyond the question of leadership style. Putin had set about restoring the legacy of brute Russia.”
LeVine is careful to explain that “other countries” don’t occupy “a higher moral ground than Russia.” The United States cannot claim noble status after the war in Iraq (which LeVine calls “a war of opportunity … employing torture as a policy – with the support of a majority of Americans”). Even so, the Russian atrocities testify to a more fundamental evil; a more thorough depravity that threatens the civilized world. What LeVine calls “the legacy of brute Russia” can best be understood by three facts: (1) The Russians haven’t buried Lenin; (2) They haven’t abolished the secret police; (3) They continue to wage the Cold War and quietly support Communists in Africa and Latin America.
To understand where Russia is headed, we have to ask why there is a Russian military buildup across the border from tiny Georgia, on the Black Sea. We have to ask why the Kremlin is playing games in Ukraine, Moldova and Central Asia. The following two charts, based on data from the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells the story. I picked the UCS data because it cannot be dismissed as coming from a “right wing” source. Chart 1, below, gives us a visual perspective on the world’s nuclear weapons, deployed and reserve. A deployed nuclear weapon is one that is set to be launched by a missile or bomber. A reserve nuclear weapon is not immediately deliverable, but may be deployed to a military base in the future.
http://www.financialsense.com/stormw...es/0508.h1.jpg
Readers may be shocked by the fact that Russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the United States. They may also be surprised to see that all other countries combined do not match the sum of either Russia or America.
This is the approximately same balance of nuclear power that existed during the Cold War. In light of these numbers, Chart 2 (below) gives us a visual perspective on the nuclear balance if the United States negotiates a nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, putting the number of deployed warheads below 500 on each side.
http://www.financialsense.com/stormw...es/0508.h2.jpg
Before negotiating something that looks like Chart 2, I would urge the president to read LeVine’s book. In fact, the president should read about the crimes of Lenin, Stalin, Andropov and Putin. The murders and mass killings of Communist and post-Communist regimes in Russia cannot be disputed. While the United States continues to insist that the greatest danger is from nuclear weapons, maybe it matters as well who has the nuclear weapons – and how many are “reserved” for us?
Copyright © 2009 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
Russia, U.S. seek to reshape ties at nuclear talks
Mon May 18, 2009 12:06pm EDT
By Conor Sweeney
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons amassed during the Cold War could become the catalyst for a thaw in relations this week between the United States and Russia.
U.S. President Barack Obama and Kremlin chief Dmitry Medvedev last month agreed to pursue a deal on cutting nuclear weapons that would replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), which expires in December.
The three days of Moscow talks, starting on Tuesday, will have to deal with disputed technical details about nuclear weapons and coincide with NATO war games in Georgia which have angered Russia.
But diplomats said the discussions should help to narrow differences between the world's two biggest nuclear powers, allowing Obama and Medvedev to declare progress when they meet in Moscow on July 6-8.
"I think there is a will on both sides to agree a deal," said Dmitry Danilov of Moscow's European Security Studies.
The talks will also be a litmus test showing whether the former foes can work together now there is a new president in the White House and after relations sank to a post-Cold War low during last year's war in Georgia.
"Unlike the Bush administration, Obama's negotiating team will be more constructive, there have been signals that they're ready to discuss difficult issues," said Danilov.
Washington and Moscow hope that if they can agree to a successor to START by December, this will strengthen their hand in pushing for an updated Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Obama's administration was credited this month with helping 189 countries agree on the agenda for an overhaul of the treaty.
CUT STOCKPILES
The U.S. team in Moscow is led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller and will include officials from the Pentagon and Department of Energy.
Gottemoeller, an expert on Russia who is respected in Moscow, held preliminary talks in Rome last month with Russia's chief negotiator Anatoly Antonov, who heads the Foreign Ministry's department of security and disarmament.
Medvedev and Obama have said the new arms deal should cut stockpiles below those in the 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), under which both sides are to cut their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012.
Russia has said it wants to link the nuclear talks to U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Europe and has pushed for the United States to put a limit on the number of delivery systems -- the rockets or other means that deliver weapons.
The U.S. has said it will take such vehicles into account but has resisted Moscow's demands that warheads taken off missiles and put into storage should be counted.
Diplomats say that while technical issues remain central to a new agreement, the tone of talks is likely to be constructive.
No formal text is expected to be agreed in Moscow this week, said officials familiar with the agenda.
(Editing by Robert Woodward)
© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved.
Related News
FACTBOX: Who are the world's nuclear powers?
9:44am EDT
FACTBOX: What is the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
9:44am EDT
FACTBOX: Key facts about U.S.-Russia START I arms deal
9:44am EDT
Q+A: Issues in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms talks
9:44am EDT
Russia pulls out of Georgia talks -agency report
12:06pm EDT
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
From Times Online
May 20, 2009
US and Russia start hard bargaining over slashing nuclear weapons
Tony Halpin in Moscow
The United States and Russia began the hard bargaining today over a deal to slash their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
An American negotiating team opened the first round of talks in Moscow with Russian officials about a replacement for the landmark 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START 1), which expires on December 5.
Both sides are under orders to produce results in time for President Obama's first official visit to Moscow in July. He and President Medvedev agreed to replace START with a new treaty when they met in London in April, and to work towards a long-term goal of "a nuclear free world".
The US experts are led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller and the Russia team by Anatoly Antonov, the Foreign Ministry's head of security and arms control. The Foreign Ministry said that Russia was seeking "constructive dialogue and . . . practical results" from the two days of talks at a 19th Century mansion outside Moscow.
Related Links
* Missile shield 'won't protect Europe from Iran'
* US-Russian talks raise hope of nuclear cuts
* Obama attempts to ward off military air strike
Relations between the US and Russia remain difficult, however, despite the Obama administration's efforts to "press the reset button" and the pressure on negotiators to reach a speedy deal.
The Kremlin wants the US to abandon plans for a missile-defence shield in Eastern Europe, which it says threatens Russia's security. It is likely to link agreement on arms reductions to a pledge to scrap the project, which the US insists is aimed at rogue states such as Iran.
President Obama has refused to ditch the shield so far. Instead, he has urged Russia to help make it unnecessary by working with the US to tackle Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons programme.
Tensions also continue over Russia's war with Georgia last August. The US accused Russia of breaching the peace agreement that ended the war after the Kremlin sent troops to take control of border security in Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia last month.
Russia announced that it would expand military exercises planned for next month across the North Caucasus region in response to Nato war games currently taking place in Georgia. It said that the large-scale exercises would be "comparable to those held during the Soviet Union".
The START treaty was signed by US President George H W Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They agreed to reduce nuclear stockpiles to no more than 6,000 warheads each, compared to a Cold War peak of 30,000.
That was followed by the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which limited both sides to a maximum of 2,200 warheads by 2012. Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev have set their negotiators the task of reducing strategic weaponry below this level.
The US currently has 2,200 strategic nuclear warheads deployed and Russia 2,800. Experts believe that they are willing to go down to 1,500 each, although The Times disclosed in February that Mr Obama was ready to seek even more radical cuts to 1,000 warheads each.
Mr Medvedev said during a recent visit to Finland that he wanted the new treaty to "limit the delivery systems of the nuclear warheads and not only the quantity of warheads themselves". He also demanded safeguards against a build up of conventional forces to compensate for a loss of nuclear weapons.
Mr Obama set out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, in April. He said that arms reductions should be accompanied by tougher rules to deal with countries that break the existing nuclear non-proliferation framework, such as Iran and North Korea.
-
Re: President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons
From Times Online
May 20, 2009
US missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic 'won't stop Iran'
Tom Baldwin in Washington
Proposals to build a US missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic will be ineffective in protecting Europe from a possible Iranian attack, a study by American and Russian scientists has concluded.
The report, from the EastWest Institute think tank, may further dampen President Obama's enthusiasm for Bush-era plans for a shield that has caused alarm and annoyance in Moscow.
Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said that the administration was still reviewing policy on missile defence which Mr Obama has said must be cost-effective and proven to work.
The report suggested Iran was at least five years away from acquiring long range nuclear missiles but added that, in any case, US interceptors could be easily fooled by decoys and other simple counter-measures.
Related Links
* US and Russia start nuclear weapons bargaining
* US wants Czech missile base
* Missile shield 'won't protect Europe from Iran'
The EastWest Institute's findings were reviewed by former US defence secretary William Perry before being presented to both US and Russian governments.
Mr Perry joined former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, and ex-Senator Sam Nunn at the White house for discussions with Mr Obama on nuclear non-proliferation.