President Obama seeks Russian deal to slash nuclear weapons

[American Patriot]

I am wondering pretty much the same thing. The man behaves like an idiot in public, says the wrong thing at the wrong time. Uses the wrong words in front of the wrong people.

He's been giving hints he's not happy with the status quo perhaps?

I dunno. I still think he's an idiot though....

[vector7]

President Medvedev welcomes START treaty ratification by U.S. Senate

Topic: START: Russia-U.S. nuclear talks


Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

03:22 23/12/2010
© POOL

Related News

• Russian lawmaker says "no rush" to ratify new START treaty
• Senate ratifies new U.S.-Russian nuclear arms reduction pact (Update 1)
• Russia's State Duma may approve new START by yearend
• Russia's strategic nuclear plans: Mission uncertain

Multimedia

• Russia and U.S. must ratify the new START treaty simultaneously - Medvedev
• START replacement treaty – why did it take so long?

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev welcomes the ratification of a new U.S.-Russian arms reduction deal by the U.S. Senate but believes it could take some time for the Russian lawmakers to study the amendments to the treaty.

The United States Senate ratified on Wednesday the new START treaty with Russia, with a vote of 71 for and 26 against. The agreement will come into force after ratification by both houses of the Russian parliament.

"President Dmitry Medvedev was satisfied with the news that the U.S. Senate had ratified the new START treaty and expressed hope that Russia's State Duma and the Federation Council would be ready to review and ratify this document," the Kremlin spokeswoman Natalya Timakova said on Thursday.

However, the president believes that "the Russian parliament could need some time to study the legal aspects of the ratification by the Senate prior to making its own decision," Timakova said.

MOSCOW, December 23 (RIA Novosti)

[Ryan Ruck]

U.S. May Disable Some Submarine-Based Nuclear Arms Capacity

September 30, 2010

To implement the U.S.-Russian "New START" arms control agreement, Washington is likely to "inactivate" one-sixth of its capacity to launch nuclear weapons from submarines, according to defense officials (see GSN, Sept. 27).

The alteration, if performed, would involve rendering unusable four ballistic missile launch tubes on each of 14 Trident submarines. Today the vessels feature 24 active launch tubes, each containing a single D-5 ballistic missile. The change would bring that number down to 20 missiles per boat.

"Nothing has been decided because the final force structure [under the treaty] has not been chosen," said one Defense Department official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the issue and requested anonymity in this article. "But it is about a 98 percent certainty that that's what we'll do."

Though technical details remain uncertain regarding how the modifications would be made, U.S. officials anticipate the changes would be verifiable by Russian arms control inspectors.

The partial inactivation of launch tubes would also almost certainly be reversible, allowing Washington to meet treaty caps but retain some flexibility in how its smaller nuclear arsenal is arrayed in the future, defense sources said.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New START agreement in April. Now pending before U.S. and Russian lawmakers for ratification, it limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads aboard 700 strategic delivery vehicles, such as aircraft, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and ground-based ICBMs. Another 100 delivery platforms could be kept in reserve.

Once the treaty enters into force, the Obama administration plans to "deploy no more than 240 Trident 2 SLBMs at any one time," James Miller, the principal deputy defense undersecretary for policy, told a Senate committee in July.

Just 12 of today's 14 Trident submarines are operational, with two boats in overhaul at any given time. Warheads or missiles in vessels undergoing the periodic maintenance are not counted under New START limits.

The Defense Department currently fields 288 Trident D-5 missiles, filling each of the 24 launch tubes aboard 12 deployed submarines. As New START is implemented and the launch-tube modifications are made, the Navy would be able to reduce to the Pentagon objective of 240 missiles using this math: 20 missiles multiplied by 12 operational vessels.

The Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review -- a major assessment of strategy and forces released in April -- stated that the Navy will continue to field 14 total ballistic-missile submarines for the time being, but might reduce to 12 such boats before the end of the decade. With two of those typically in overhaul, just 10 would be regarded as operational day to day.

If the Defense Department goes forward with trimming its Trident submarine fleet in the coming years, it would have the option of reversing the launch-tube inactivation and renewing its capacity for the remaining 10 operational vessels to carry 24 missiles apiece, maintaining the level of 240 missiles fielded across the fleet, officials said.

The launch-tube measure could thus be seen as a "bridge" to the probable reduction in the quantity of ballistic-missile submarines by the end of the decade, said Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists. "Otherwise, they'd have to wait till the end of the decade to reduce missiles out there," he said in an interview this week.

However, some observers believe it might be politically difficult for the Navy to return to loading 24 nuclear missiles per vessel later in the decade. After having maintained nuclear deterrence for several years by sailing with just 20 weapons on each submarine, it could appear that an additional four would be unnecessary, the argument goes.

"If they go to sea with only 20, that would cause people to re-evaluate the requirements for the D-5 life-extension program, which assumes 24 missiles," said one industry analyst, referring to the Navy's current effort to field 108 updated versions of the submarine-based weapon. "So if you drop four missiles per boat, then you could reduce the buy by 48 missiles."

The Navy plans to introduce the life-extension version of the D-5 missile into the fleet in three years. The modified arms will include newly produced rocket motors, remanufactured flight hardware and modern guidance instruments.

A decision to reduce the number of missiles on Trident vessels "would also say that the option of 24 tubes per boat on the new submarine design doesn't look like it would be valid any more," said the analyst, who asked not to be named in discussing sensitive fielding options.

The Navy's next-generation ballistic missile submarine, called the SSBN(X), could have as few as 16 launch tubes or as many as 24, with design details expected to go before a top-level Pentagon review board for decision in November, defense sources said.

The Nuclear Posture Review asserted that a reduction to 10 operational submarines "will not affect the number of deployed nuclear warheads" on the vessels. The Ohio-class submarines currently carry a total 1,152 warheads and, once the New START reductions are taken, they would likely carry just under 1,100, Kristensen estimated.

If the Pentagon declines to reactivate the four launch tubes once the submarine fleet shrinks to 10 deployed boats, the Navy could retain the same number of warheads across its remaining 200 missiles by arming them with five to six warheads apiece, instead of today's average of four, Kristensen said.

Taking policy considerations into account, a reversible inactivation of the launch tubes also offers Obama administration leaders a "hedge" against any resurgence in Russian strategic forces or some other strategic surprise, officials said. The New START agreement includes a clause that allows either side to withdraw if it determines that "extraordinary events" have jeopardized its national security.

The nation has seven years to take reductions in its force structure, following the accord's entry into force.

Defense Department engineers are just now beginning to assess how they might suspend the usability of four launch tubes on each boat, according to Pentagon sources.

Under one engineering approach, the Navy might simply remove the gas pressure system that allows a ballistic missile to be ejected by "cold launch," before its rocket motors kick in. Another method could involve inserting a narrow sleeve into each tube that would make it impossible for a D-5 missile to fit inside.

A third option might be to replace each of the four D-5s with a "ballast can," a 15-foot weight that a submarine could carry for stability when a missile is not in its tube, according to sources.

"That's what the Navy has to figure out," the Pentagon official said.

Beyond the submarine leg of the U.S. nuclear triad, Washington under New START expects to "retain up to 420 of the current 450 Minuteman 3 ICBMs, each with a single warhead," Miller told the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 20. "And we plan to retain up to 60 nuclear-capable B-2A and B-52H heavy bombers, while converting remaining nuclear-capable B-1B bombers and some B-52 bombers as well to a conventional-only capability."

[vector7]

Nuclear treaty 'goes easy on Russia'

Dec 26 07:20 AM US/Eastern



The new Russia-US nuclear arms pact may have been hailed as historic but analysts said that all Moscow really has to do is phase out Soviet-era missiles and warheads that are already out of date.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was ratified by the US Senate on Wednesday after a passionate months-long debate and given initial approval by Russia's State Duma lower house of parliament two days later.


It will face two more hearings in Russia and almost certainly come into force within the next few months.

The first nuclear pact in two decades has been feted as vital to global security because it reduces old warhead ceilings by an impressive 30 percent and sets a streamlined new inspection procedure designed to eliminate cheating.

The new START limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 deployed long-range missiles -- including those fired from submarines -- and heavy bombers.

The two sides may also have up to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers.

But analysts said that Russia's real problem was that even these lower missile and launcher ceilings were too high for the country to keep pace with the United States.

Soviet-era missiles such as the Saber SS-22 are rapidly approaching their expiry date and technical specifications mean the weapon has no purpose if its nuclear warheads are taken out of commission.

"START is not the problem here," said the respected military commentator Alexander Golts. "The problem is that Russia has to retire more delivery vehicles because of 'old age' than it has the funds to produce."

The United States had 2,019 more warheads deployed on its launchers and bombers than Russia under START data reported by the US State Department in July 2009.

Independent estimates from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that in late 2009 the United States in fact had 2,200 "operational" nuclear warheads and 2,500 more warheads in reserve that could be activated if necessary.

Russia on the other hand was believed to have had a total of 2,600 operational long-range warheads covered by START.

But the required phase-out of old missiles is not the only thing working in Russia's favour. New counting rules will also allow it to attribute just one warhead per bomber even if it carries more -- a point insisted on by Moscow during the treaty negotiations.

National Defence magazine editor Igor Korotchenko told the RIA Novosti news agency that Russia was now likely to keep just 390 missiles and bombers as it looks to save money ahead of a new round of strategic reductions in 2020.

And Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saw nothing but the treaty's advantages as he defended it parliament Friday.

"We will not have to make any cuts to our strategic offensive weapons," Serdyukov told sceptical lawmakers from the Communist opposition. "But the Americans -- they will indeed have to make some cuts."

"Serdyukov is right," said Moscow's Centre for Disarmament Director Anatoly Dyakov. "Russia has already met its launcher obligations. It only has 560 of those.

"We have more warheads. But if you take the old SS-20s out of commission -- they each have 10 warheads and have been in service 10 years past their expiry -- then you really do not need to take any additional measures," said Dyakov.

The feared SS-20 was eliminated under a landmark 1987 disarmament agreement but the Centre for Defence Information said that Russia now had 120 modified SS-N-20 missiles deployed on its submarines.

The maths also works in Russia's favour because START focuses exclusively on "strategic" nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy large populations or damage the enemy's ability to wage war.

These missiles are for the most part fired over great distances and have been the US weapon of choice during the Cold War.

The United States thus has a strategic superiority over Russia -- which in turn enjoys an advantage in "tactical" weapons used in smaller campaigns around its periphery.

A White House spokesman told Sunday's New York Times that Washington was now "seeking to initiate negotiations" with Moscow on tactical weapons and Russian lawmakers agreed that those talks would probably happen next.

"I am afraid that this is something Russia will not be able to avoid," the upper house of parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman Mikhail Margelov told Moscow Echo radio.

But he added: "We should definitely support START."

[Ryan Ruck]

Russia Fields More Topol-M ICBMs

December 21, 2010

Russia has fielded two more nuclear-capable Topol-M ICBM systems in silos, RIA Novosti reported on Friday (see GSN, Dec. 6).

"The new systems, which are part of the new sixth regiment of silo-based Topol-Ms in service with the Tatishchevo Missile Division near Saratov in southwestern Russia, were deployed on December 14," Russian strategic missile forces head Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said. In addition to 52 Topol-M systems placed in silos, Russia maintains 18 mobile launchers for the weapon, RIA Novosti reported.

Russia intends to furnish eight more of the systems to the Tatishchevo Missile Division by the end of 2012, Karakayev said (RIA Novosti I, Dec. 17).

After 2012, Russia would deploy only the newer RS-24 Yars ICBM, said missile designer Yuri Solomonov.

The RS-24 missile, designed to carry four nuclear warheads, would supplant older Russian missiles, Interfax reported (Interfax I, Dec. 20).

Still, SS-18 Satan ICBMs would remain in service until 2026 or later, RIA Novosti quoted Karakayev as saying.

"At this point, there are no serious technical restrictions to continue extending the missile's service life" he said (RIA Novosti II, Dec. 17).

"By the end of 2016, missile systems with extended service life will make up about 20 percent and new missile systems no less than 80 percent. Simultaneously there will be qualitative improvement of systems of combat control of troops and weapons," Interfax quoted him as saying (Interfax II, Dec. 17).

"New missile systems will be equipped with more advanced complexes able to defeat missile defense shields," Karakayev added. "There is no need for us to keep it a secret. What is noteworthy is that measures to parry negative factors such as the deployment of missile defense systems are comprehensive."

The capabilities of Russia's strategic arsenal "will help neutralize" new European missile defense systems "to a considerable extent," he said (Interfax III, Dec. 17).

Russia and the United States have continued to inform one another of their ballistic missile tests, even though neither country has ratified a new bilateral nuclear arms control treaty, Karakayev noted (see related GSN story, today; Interfax IV, Dec. 20).

Meanwhile, Solomonov yesterday called for Russia to begin preparation of a new "heavy" ICBM capable of carrying a large number of independently targeted warheads, RIA Novosti reported.

Specialists outside the Defense Ministry should play a role in deciding whether to develop such a weapon, he said, adding Moscow would determine a course of action in 2012-2013.

"This matter is beyond the Defense Ministry's competence. It is a matter of state importance," he said (RIA Novosti III, Dec. 20).

Russia should produce additional strategic missiles and launch platforms within the limits of current arms control treaties, Solomonov added (Interfax V, Dec. 20).

[vector7]

Will Russia Keep the Treaty?

Submitted by JR Nyquist on Thu, 30 Dec 2010



Now that the U.S. Senate has ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), it is worthwhile to consider the kind of people they have decided to trust. During a recent conversation, former KGB Lt. Col. Victor Kalashnikov made the following remark: "It seems to be there is a general misinterpretation of basic issues regarding Russia. Listen, there is no corruption in Russia. Western analysts completely misunderstand political decision-making in Moscow. Corruption is when there is a normally functioning government machine, and some groups of people break the law and sell out their official position to make money for themselves. In Russia it is completely different."

But if Russian officials aren't corrupt, then who is?

"In the Soviet Union," Kalashnikov explained, "there was strict discipline in the nomenklatura [ruling elite], keeping it effective in its own way. In Russia today there is something different at work. We call it 'solidarity within a criminal organization.' To join the ruling elite means to become part of criminal businesses. This kind of relationship is stronger, and the discipline more severe, than during Soviet times. For example, I had an advisory position in the Moscow city government. I was offered the directorship of a company. They were interested in having me in their organization. They said, if you accept it is final. You will be involved in embezzlement and the stealing of resources, and you will become one of ours, and there is no way out. This was quite clear to me. It is a one-way ticket. So it is not corruption, but a criminal organization based on joint activity, joint interest, and absolute incompatibility with what you in the West may understand as normal business, and normal politics. That is the tragedy of Russia today, that it is run by real gangsters, becoming another sort of threat for the rest of the world. It is not corruption, but a criminal organization that has taken a huge country with all of its weapons. Now the question may arise, how did it happen?"

In Kalashnikov's thinking we must distinguish between garden variety corruption, in which self-seeking individuals collude against the system to misappropriate funds, and officially organized criminal schemes in which everyone at an administrative level participates. In fact, they are obligated to participate as a condition of their office; and, one might say, as a guarantee of their future obedience, since the official criminal can be punished for his actions the instant he breaks rank with the system. This is what we should have come to expect from Soviet reforms and Soviet reformers. Given the criminal nature of the old system, the new post-Soviet system could not function otherwise. If Communism was a system that deprived ordinary people of opportunity and freedom, the new system does the same thing through a more efficient mechanism.

Kalashnikov went on to explain: "The initiator of all this was Gorbachev. He offered autonomy for factories and government enterprises. They started to manage these resources ... to squeeze money out of them for themselves. On the other hand, consider the desperate situation of the majority of Russians, where we find that 20-25 percent live below sustenance. The gap between rich Russians and the poor is much bigger than in America or any other country I can think of. And there is no labor market, no labor unions as in the West. So there is no way to sell your work at the proper price."

The opportunity to exploit an employee, to drive a hard bargain, is virtually unlimited, as long as the exploiting class observes its principle of "solidarity within a criminal organization." This is not really corruption, but a system of national control (which is, incidentally, non-democratic). "The experts miss all of this entirely," noted Kalashnikov. "There were these Westerners who tried to share their expertise with the Russians on helping labor, and they opened an office. But this office was closed down by the Russian authorities, because the authorities understand that any attempt to establish normal labor unions would undermine the position of the Russian elites. So it is impossible to have something like Solidarity as in Poland, because it would be a challenge to the political order. It would be considered a sort of political opposition. So there have been numerous attempts to launch labor unions, but all such attempts fail. Being an independent labor organizer in Russia today is extremely dangerous. What we have is the nomenklatura cemented by criminal businesses of all kinds, along with nuclear arms."

According to Kalashnikov, talk about various bodies in Russia doing this or that is nonsense. It is all a deception. There is one class, working as one vast criminal enterprise, holding down the entire society. "And being so rich," added Kalashnikov, "and having no serious challenges within the country, they are still well aware that the only way to place the stolen wealth properly would be to deposit this wealth in Western banks, in Europe, in Cyprus, in Switzerland, and elsewhere; because they know the source of this wealth is questionable. They understand that this money could be taken away from them at any time. So they are eager to launder this money in the West. For this purpose, they need close cooperation with Western banks and institutions to legalize their money. That's what they need, therefore, they naturally cultivate closer links with Western governments and businesses. They also realize that the Western banking authorities will be tempted to look deeper into the origin of all this money.

So, in order to make the West more cooperative, the Russian nomenklatura needs to be properly armed, and be aggressive at the proper level. They always put the West on the horns of a dilemma. Will it be confrontation or cooperation? If cooperation, then you abolish visa requirements for elite Russians, you abolish certain legal obstacles when it comes to investing Russian money in the West. Let us cooperate, they propose. If not, you may have some trouble in military terms. So, Russia may become unpredictable and aggressive. It is a soft blackmailing of you."

There is another side of this blackmail which Kalashnikov didn't mention. When Western politicians and businessmen get tangled up with Russia's mafia elite, they enter into a partnership from which they cannot easily extricate themselves. Western bankers who have laundered Russian money are now part of the Russian mafia's scheme. They have purchased the infamous one-way ticket. They cannot go back. They cannot get out. It is too late. Now they must follow along, and the Russian criminal machine colonizes the unsuspecting Western capitalist. The ultimate exploitation of this process may not be far to find. As the criminal system advances, the leaders of the West must keep silent; for they were the first to advocate "engagement" with the Russians. How can they publicly admit that they have been drawn in, swindled, and tainted?

Kalashnikov mentioned the diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, where NATO documents outlined strong measures for protecting the Baltic States from Russia. He acknowledged that Russia's overall position was weakened by these leaks, and NATO's position was strengthened. "The leaks," he said, "make absolutely clear that NATO is NATO, with no second-rate membership [for the threatened Baltic countries]. The Estonian people, when I was there, expressed concern regarding the American position. Of course, officially, everything was okay. But what about the ultimate will-power of the Americans? Now the Estonian concerns will be mitigated. They reacted very positively to the WikiLeaks, thanks to Julian Assange."

I asked Kalashnikov what he thought of Assange, the Australian-born publisher of WikiLeaks. "My feeling," he answered, "is that Assange is not fully aware of what he is doing. He is not aware of the substance and meaning of the information he is spreading. They represent him as a proponent of certain information, but if you are trying to make some revelations, you should yourself be aware of what you are doing, and what sort of facts you are bringing out. My impression is that Julian Assange and the people around him don't really know what it is about."

According to Kalashnikov, many experts on Russia also don't "really know what it is about." Certainly, the subject is a labyrinth in which an explorer can easily become lost. However we characterize Russia, none of the familiar categories apply. This is because a confusion of terms and names took hold in Russia immediately following the Bolshevik Revolution. The Communist system initiated a corruption of language on a scale hitherto unknown, so that common meanings became confused. Basic words, used to describe commonly observed objects, were corrupted to the point that such words acquired a nonsensical association in the popular mind. It should be remembered that what used to be called the Communist system was always a criminal system, devoted to the overthrow of private property. The nomenklatura were the administrators of this process after 1917, and they continue administering this theft, as an ongoing project, up to the present day.

Will such people keep an arms reduction agreement with America?

Not a chance.

[RememberCuba94]

So they signed it in. *facepalm*

[vector7]

Senior Russian MP says New Start better for Russia than U.S.

Topic: START: Russia-U.S. nuclear talks


Senior Russian MP says New Start better for Russia than U.S.

19:14 07/01/2011
© RIA Novosti. Mikhail Fomichev
Related News

• Putin hails Medvedev over New START treaty
• Russian lawmakers split over New START ratification
• Russia's State Duma approves first reading of new joint U.S. START ratification
• New START treaty receives enough votes for ratification in U.S. Senate

Multimedia

• START I treaty: Basic facts
• New Russia-U.S. arms reduction treaty

The New Start agreement with the United States on strategic nuclear arms cuts favors Russia more than the now-expired START 1 deal did, a top Russian lawmaker said on Friday.

Konstantin Kosachyov, the chairman of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee, called the fact of the agreement a breakthrough, and said the U.S. Senate's ratification of the treaty had not changed anything within the document.

"Russia is once again perceived as an equal partner with whom you can and should negotiate," he said on Ekho Moskvy radio. "This is, to emphasize once again, a breakthrough, not a compromise."

"Everything else laid out in the agreement in fact represents very substantial progress, I would say in ours and not in the Americans' favor compared with the 1991 START 1 treaty that just recently passed into history," he added.

He said that the Duma, parliament's lower house, would likely consider the ratification bill on second reading on January 14. The third and final reading, he added, would probably wait until after the upper house Federation Council returned to full session on January 26.

Kosachyov said the Duma bill would state where its interpretation of New Start differed from the U.S. Senate's, but he stressed that U.S. senators had done nothing to change the text of the treaty and neither would Russian lawmakers.

"In December, a number of amendments were voted on there [in the Senate] that went to the text of the treaty itself. Fortunately, they were voted down by the Senate, common sense prevailed, and the agreement we have is in the form in which it was signed by the presidents in April last year," he said.

Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama signed the treaty in Prague on April 8, 2010. The Senate ratified the treaty on December 22.

The Duma approved the agreement in its first reading on December 24.

The major areas where the Russian and U.S. views of the document differ include missile defense and the use of non-nuclear warheads on delivery systems covered by the agreement.

The treaty, which replaces the START 1 agreement that expired in December 2009, cuts the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to a maximum of 1,550 nuclear warheads, down from the current ceiling of 2,200.

It also limits the number of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700.

It will come into force after ratification by both houses of the Russian parliament.

MOSCOW, January 7 (RIA Novosti)

[vector7]

"Treaties are like pie crusts - meant to be broken." Vladimir Lenin

Russia nears arms pact approval but warns they have the right to withdraw if there interests feel threatened by the West

By Steve Gutterman Steve Gutterman – Fri Jan 14, 8:56 am ET

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia's parliament moved closer to approving a landmark arms reduction treaty with Washington Friday by amending domestic legislation to stress that Moscow could withdraw from the pact if it felt threatened by the West.

The amendments required for Russia to ratify the New START treaty do not change the pact itself and were introduced before the second of three ratification votes in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament.

The U.S. Senate included its own interpretations of the treaty -- the centrepiece of a "reset" that has improved long-strained relations between Moscow and Washington -- when it voted to ratify it last month.

New START will commit each side to ceilings of 1,550 warheads on deployed strategic missiles and bombers within seven years and establish verification rules to replace those that expired in 2009 with the 1991 START I treaty.

Analysts say rejection of the treaty by Russia's parliament, dominated by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's ruling United Russia party, is out of the question. The amendments enabled Russia to underscore how it views the pact.

Duma international affairs committee chairman Konstantin Kosachyov said the amendments would "restore balance" after the U.S. Senate irked Russia with its interpretations of the treaty.

The amendments stipulate that Russia could withdraw if military deployments or even plans by the United States or NATO jeopardize its security.

They highlight lingering rifts over U.S. plans for a European anti-missile shield and Russian concerns over other weapons it fears the United States or NATO could deploy.

A missile system that weakens Russia's nuclear arsenal would "force us to use the article of the treaty that provides for the withdrawal of a state that feels violated in terms of security," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Duma, Interfax reported.

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
The Duma's warnings of a possible withdrawal are largely a matter of emphasis, because the treaty itself includes broad language allowing either side to pull out if it decides its "supreme interests" are threatened.

Russia stressed its right to withdraw because of concerns over the U.S. anti-missile shield in a statement it adopted when Presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama signed the treaty last April.

"The Russians are using their law on ratification to reflect their concerns, and it really is an answer to some of the language in the U.S. Senate ratification resolution," said Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The U.S. Senate stressed that a clause in the pact's preamble acknowledging an "interrelationship" between strategic offensive and defensive arms placed no legal constraint on U.S. missile defense plans.

The Duma ratification law says the points in the preamble are "indisputable" and must not be ignored.

"The most important thing is, the treaty is being ratified without a requirement for amendment," Pifer said.

But disputes over interpretation suggest the United States will have to work hard to keep a wary Russia satisfied, particularly if it is to secure further cuts.

In approving the treaty, the U.S. Senate ordered Obama to seek talks with Moscow within a year on cutting the former Cold War foes' arsenals of shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, whose numbers are lopsided in Russia's favor.

Lavrov cast a shadow over those hopes by signaling for the second straight day that cuts beyond those to be made under New START cannot be expected in the near term.

Further negotiations should include a range of different weapons and "can be held after the START treaty is executed," Lavrov told lawmakers, according to Interfax.

The Duma is expected to give the treaty its final backing on January 25.

Approval by the upper parliament house -- the last step before Russia and the United States exchange documents putting the pact into force -- could come this month.

[vector7]

American Nuclear Disarmament

By The Wandering White
From Investor’s Business Daily on 4th May, 2010:

The administration proudly reveals a state secret to our enemies before a U.N. conference on nuclear nonproliferation. It wants to lead by example on disarmament, but Iran and North Korea aren’t following.

Not since the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact that sought to outlaw war as an instrument of national policy has there been such a stunning display of dangerous naivete.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton disclosed U.S. nuclear secrets to the U.N. conference while proudly proclaiming it showed America is sending “a clear, unmistakable signal” that this nation is committed to nuclear disarmament.

Kellogg-Briand laid the groundwork for Munich in 1938, Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the cataclysm of World War II. Among the initial signatories were Germany and Japan. Being committed to peace and disarmament brings neither.

[...]

President Obama sent a letter to the conference in which he said, “We will see whether nations without nuclear weapons will fulfill their obligation to forsake them.” That we will, Mr. President. That we will.

Our nuclear arsenal is getting not only smaller, but also older and less reliable. The administration refuses to do the testing necessary to verify that what the U.S. has still works or to develop a replacement warhead to keep America’s nuclear deterrent current and credible.

The White House recently announced a Nuclear Posture Review that restricts the scenarios in which the U.S. would use nuclear weapons in its defense. It also tells the enemy what the scenarios are. In Prague, the U.S. signed an arms-limitation treaty that assumes nuclear weapons are the problem, not who might have them.

[...]

Threatened with extinction by those we would persuade, does anyone think Israel would diminish its arsenal in quality or quantity, then brag about it to Tehran hoping to lead it by example?

In a speech in Prague last year, Obama spoke of “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Time was when our nuclear secrets were just that — secret — and our enemies were certain of one thing — they dare not tick us off. Now they’re certain they can play a waiting game until our ability and will to defend freedom ends not with a bang, but a whimper.

[Ryan Ruck]

The Ulsterman Report: Confirmed – Russians Play Obama for a Fool

As predicted, the Russians were playing an inept and incompetent Obama administration over the implications inherent within the latest START treaty, intending to leave America less capable of defending itself against nuclear attack.

January 3, 2011

As predicted, the Russians were playing an inept and incompetent Obama administration over the implications inherent within the latest START treaty, intending to leave America less capable of defending itself against nuclear attack.

President Barack Obama, desperate to appear presidential, seemingly at any cost, has pushed and prodded for quick Congressional approval of the latest START treaty between the United States and Russia. Surely a much publicized signing ceremony was sure to follow, attempting to glamorize a sure n steady President Obama as he continues to embark on saving the world from itself.

Ah, but what Obama seemingly forgot – yet again, is that it is now well known he is neither sure nor steady as a statesman. Rather, Obama is a man bereft of experience, confidence, or character, and thus, an easy mark for world leaders with far more cunning and grit than the current and hapless American president.

Enter Russia.

After the Obama administration gave itself a collective atta boy for pushing through the START treaty during the Lame Duck session, the Russian Duma revealed its true dismissiveness of the U.S. Boy King, adding language into the treaty that would further consolidate its intent to hamper America’s ability to further develop a missile defense system. In effect, the Obama START treaty has far less to do with reducing the numbers of nuclear missiles, as it does with greatly reducing the United States’ ability to defend itself against those very missiles. The Obama administration, and the then-Democrat dominated Congress, are either being fooled by the Russians into making such a grievous error, or willingly complicit in lessening their own country’s defenses.

The Obama administration had assured opponents against START that the treaty did not involve America’s missile defense capabilities. These same opponents pointed to the preamble portions of the treaty that appeared to do just that. Democrats (and some Republicans) rolled their eyes and shook their heads ,and continued to assure us that the preamble language said no such thing. That START was in fact, simply and effort to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons – the same as previous presidents had negotiated. The name of Reagan was invoked numerous times by Obama himself as justification for passage of START. And besides, said these same supporters of START, even if the treaty preamble did mention missile defense, that portion of the treaty is not even enforceable, right? (Such a mindset is about as far removed from Reagan’s “Trust but verify” approach as can be imagined. The Obama mindset has been simply “please give me something important to sign so I look like I know what I’m doing.”)

Now the Russian Duma is making clear that START has EVERYTHING to do with limiting a missile defense system, and that the specific language in the preamble better damn well be complied with by the United States. They are going so far as to threaten to alter the language within the agreement to further clarify this point. So says Alexei Arbatov:

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

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

With the Russian’s most recent interpretations of what the START treaty actually imposes against the United States, lawmakers in DC – even some Democrats, are pointing fingers once again at an inefectual Obama White House. The Obama administration had assured these lawmakers the Russians would not attempt to impose limitations on America’s missile defense capabilities – that those Republicans warning of just such a thing were, “playing politics with national defense.” Now it appears the Obama White House and the Democratic Party leadership either lied, or have been utterly played for fools by their Russian counterparts.

Where Reagan stood up from the negotiations table and declared nyet to the Soviets – that he would not allow another nation to compromise America’s ability to develop a defense system against nuclear attack, Barack Obama has bent over…backwards, to accomplish just that. It has been said before, but deserves to be repeated again:

Barack Obama, America knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was America’s friend. Barack Obama, you’re no Ronald Reagan…

[vector7]

Russia puts brakes on further nuclear cutbacks


By Dmitry Zaks (AFP) – Jan 18, 2011

MOSCOW — The cheer over Russia's approval of a new nuclear disarmament treaty is short-lived as it masks Moscow's reluctance to ensure further cuts, threatening US President Barack Obama's vision of a nuclear-free world.

Russia is going through the final motions of ratifying a new START treaty that reduces old nuclear warhead ceilings by 30 percent and limits each side to 700 deployed long-range missiles and heavy bombers.

The pact will be submitted for a last vote to Russia's lower house of parliament on January 25 and almost certainly be ratified by the upper chamber the following day.

It was backed by the US Senate last month.

But analysts said that Moscow and Washington have little time to rejoice having put in motion the first round of mandated nuclear weapons reductions since the Cold War.

Obama, who pledged to "reset" Russia-US relations, sees START as only a stepping stone to further cutbacks, but a top Russian official made clear last week that the president's insistence for another round of negotiations later this year was not being received well in Moscow.

"I am convinced that before talking about any further steps in the sphere of nuclear disarmament ... it is necessary to fulfill the new START agreement," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters.

Only "then will be it be clear what additional steps should be taken to strengthen global security," he added.

In Russia's view, the round of disarmament which covers short-range tactical missiles dear to Moscow, balances out the West's current dominance in modern conventional forces.

The US Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates that Russia has 2,050 deployed tactical warheads that could be deployed in small nuclear campaigns in its periphery. The United States has just 500.

Lavrov said Russia's commitment under the new START treaty will not be "fulfilled" for another seven years, and some analysts interpreted the comments as a flat-out rejection of Obama's latest overture.

"It seems Lavrov meant that these talks will not start for another seven years," said independent military commentator Alexander Golts.

"It is also important to note that Lavrov said these talks should be tied to space and conventional weapons," said Golts.

"This is basically a polite way of saying that we are not ready to talk about it."

The Russian foreign minister Lavrov spelled out a series of amendments that appear inherently unacceptable to the United States.

They include the prohibition of military space programmes that the Pentagon is currently studying and a requirement for all talks to include conventional warheads that the West is developing much faster than Russia.

Lavrov even suggested that the next round of talks should for the first time involve other countries -- presumably China and other emerging nuclear powers that may press their own demands on Washington.

"Most Russian experts see nuclear weapons as an equalizer," said Moscow's Centre for Disarmament Director Anatoly Dyakov.

"They believe that the removal of nuclear weapons must be accompanied by a full transformation of international relations that ensures that no country can suddenly decide to use force."

Military analysts estimate that it will take Russia another decade to develop a conventional weapons programme capable of re-establishing some semblance of parity with the West.

But they warned that it is highly unlikely that Russia will be able to delay the next round of nuclear negotiations for as long as suggested by Lavrov.

"We are going to have to start these whether we like it or not," said Institute for Strategic Assessment head Alexander Konovalov.

"The Americans will not stand for this kind of disparity."

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »

[vector7]

Obama signs documents for new nuclear arms treaty with Russia

By the CNN Wire Staff
February 3, 2011 -- Updated 0246 GMT (1046 HKT)


The new nuclear arms reduction treaty was one of President Barack Obama's top foreign policy priorities.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Obama signs the new START treaty
• The treaty will go into effect following an official exchange of documents
• The accord limits both America and Russia to 1,550 warheads and 700 launchers
• The treaty will allow for a resumption of inspections of each country's nuclear arsenal

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama signed ratification documents for America's new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia on Wednesday, clearing the way for the two powers to put the landmark accord into effect.

The agreement, known as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) replaces START 1, which expired in December 2009. The U.S. Senate approved the new START pact last December, while the Russian parliament ratified it in January.

The treaty is designed to slash the stockpile of strategic nuclear weapons in both countries to 1,550 warheads -- down from a current cap of 2,200 -- and 700 launchers.

It also calls for a resumption of inspections of nuclear arsenals that ended when START 1 expired and helps move forward with White House efforts to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations.

Obama has called the treaty "the most significant arms control agreement in nearly two decades." The Senate's approval in December gave the president a key victory on what has been considered one of his top foreign policy priorities.

[vector7]

New Start won't keep Russia from developing Bulava missiles - deputy PM

Topic: START: Russia-U.S. nuclear talks


Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

© AFP/ ODD ANDERSEN

20:50 05/02/2011

The New START arms reduction treaty will not shift Russia's plans to continue developing Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and Yars RS-24 missiles, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said on Saturday.

Earlier in the day, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged the instruments of ratification for the New START arms reduction treaty and the document came into effect.

"This treaty does not envision any duties on Russia except for one: to observe the limits stated in the treaty," Ivanov said.

"The plans we had to develop the strategic component of the armed forces remain in force, this concerns Bulava and Yars," Ivanov said.

Ivanov emphasized that not only Russia and the United States, but all of the countries which develop and have nuclear arms should hold talks aimed at reducing strategic nuclear arsenals.

MUNICH, February 5 (RIA Novosti)

[vector7]

New Start in force

Tags: Politics, Russia, World, News, 47th Munich Conference , START Treaty

Feb 6, 2011 06:04 Moscow Time

US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (seated R) and Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov (seated L) sign documents of the START treaty in Munich, Germany, on 05 February 2011. Photo: EPA

The new Russian-American START Treaty has officially come into force. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged instruments of ratification on the sidelines of the Munich security conference on Saturday.

The treaty was signed by Russian and U.S. presidents Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama in April 2010 in Prague. As Lavrov underscored at the ceremony, the treaty enters force in exactly the form in which it was signed by the two presidents. According to him, the document meets the national interests of both Russia and the U.S.

In turn, Hillary Clinton said that within 45 days the parties will exchange full information on weapons, and in 60 days inspections will resume, which will allow each party to "trust but verify."

[vector7]

U.S. reviewing nuclear arsenal with eye to new cuts

11:48 a.m., Wednesday, March 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has begun examining whether it can make cuts to its nuclear weapons stockpiles that go beyond those outlined in a recent treaty with Russia.

The classified review is not expected to be completed until late this year, but some Republicans already are worried that it will go too far. On Tuesday, 41 Republican senators warned Obama in a letter not to make major changes in nuclear policy without consulting Congress.

Arms control advocates say the United States is mired in Cold War-era thinking about nuclear deterrence and are pressing the administration to use the review to rethink U.S. nuclear requirements. They say the decisions will be a test of President Barack Obama’s commitment nearly two years ago to put the world on a path toward eliminating nuclear weapons.

Obama ordered the nuclear review early last year with an aim of shrinking the nuclear arsenal, but the work, led by the Defense Department, began recently, according to a department spokeswoman, Lt. Col. April Cunningham.

The review will look at issues such as what targets the U.S. would have to hit with nuclear weapons in a worst-case scenario and what kind of weapons it would need to hit them. Rethinking the requirements could open the way to cuts.


** FILE ** President Obama (left) and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign the New START nuclear pact at the Prague Castle in Prague on April 8, 2010. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

In the letter to Obama, Republicans warned against any big reductions from those outlined in the New START treaty, ratified by the Senate and the Russian Duma in recent months. The treaty limits each side to 1,550 deployed warheads — a level military officials have said meets the need of the current directives.

Sharp reductions in nuclear forces “would have important and as yet unknown consequences for nuclear stability,” the letter said.

The letter was circulated by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a leading opponent of the New START treaty when it was considered in the Senate. It makes clear that significant changes in nuclear policy without consulting Congress could affect consideration of a new treaty with Russia. The 41 lawmakers who signed it include a number who supported New START and represent sufficient numbers to block any treaty.

There is no indication that the Obama administration is considering drastic cuts as a result of the review. But the study could shape talks it has proposed with Russia on weapons not covered by the New START treaty. The administration wants to focus on stored nuclear weapons and those intended for short-range delivery, known as tactical nuclear weapons. But negotiations with Russia also could lead to further reductions in deployed long-range nuclear weapons.

Administration officials say the review has just begun and no decisions have been made. In a broader look at nuclear weapons policy last year, called the nuclear posture review, the administration stressed the need for maintaining a strong U.S. deterrent.

“The United States will continue to ensure that, in the calculations of any potential opponent, the perceived gains of attacking the United States or its allies and partners would be far outweighed by the unacceptable costs of the response,” the document said.

Disarmament advocates who follow administration thinking on nuclear issues say the document is unlikely to lead quickly to sharp cuts.

“For better or worse, it’s not in the cards,” says Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, which advocates nuclear disarmament.

But advocates hope the review could open the way to reconsidering what would be needed to deter potential adversaries.

“We shouldn’t have to dump 60 hydrogen bombs on Odessa to ensure U.S. nuclear security,” says Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. “This review will determine whether the president is serious about moving toward deep reductions and the elimination of nuclear weapons or if he is giving up on that vision.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Most Powerful U.S. Nuclear Bomb Being Dismantled

October 25, 2011

The last of the nation's most powerful nuclear bombs -- a weapon hundreds of times stronger than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima -- is being disassembled nearly half a century after it was put into service at the height of the Cold War.

The final components of the B53 bomb will be broken down Tuesday at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, the nation's only nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility. The completion of the dismantling program is a year ahead of schedule, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration, and aligns with President Barack Obama's goal of reducing the number of nuclear weapons.

Thomas D'Agostino, the nuclear administration's chief, called the bomb's elimination a "significant milestone."

First put into service in 1962, when Cold War tensions peaked during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the B53 weighed 10,000 pounds and was the size of a minivan. According to the American Federation of Scientists, it was 600 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, at the end of World War II.

The B53 was designed to destroy facilities deep underground, and it was carried by B-52 bombers.

Since it was made using older technology by engineers who have since retired or died, developing a disassembly process took time. Engineers had to develop complex tools and new procedures to ensure safety.

"We knew going in that this was going to be a challenging project, and we put together an outstanding team with all of our partners to develop a way to achieve this objective safely and efficiently," said John Woolery, the plant's general manager.

Many of the B53s were disassembled in the 1980s, but a significant number remained in the U.S. arsenal until they were retired from the stockpile in 1997. Pantex spokesman Greg Cunningham said he couldn't comment on how many of the bombs have been disassembled at the Texas plant.

The weapon is considered dismantled when the roughly 300 pounds of high explosives inside are separated from the special nuclear material, known as the pit. The uranium pits from bombs dismantled at Pantex will be stored on an interim basis at the plant, Cunningham said.

The material and components are then processed, which includes sanitizing, recycling and disposal, the National Nuclear Security Administration said last fall when it announced the Texas plant's role in the B53 dismantling.

The plant will play a large role in similar projects as older weapons are retired from the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal.

I know they're old and have been scheduled to be dismantled since the '80s but, I hate retiring something we don't have a replacement for. Sometimes you just need a really big hammer.

[American Patriot]

Pantex. Good security. Been there.

/chuckles

[Toad]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...db3677f1a7f144

Russia successfully tests Bulava ballistic missile
(AP) – 2 days ago (10/28/2011)


MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's navy on Friday successfully test-fired an advanced intercontinental ballistic missile, the weapon the government hopes will become a key part of the nation's nuclear arsenals, the Defense Ministry said.


The Bulava missile was launched from the Yuri Dolgoruky submarine underwater in the White Sea, and the missile's warheads reached the Kura testing range on the Pacific Kamchatka Peninsula, some 5,500 kilometers (3,500 miles) away, ministry spokesman Col. Igor Konashenkov said in televised remarks.


The test was Bulava's third successful launch in a row after a string of failures that raised questions about the future of Russia's most expensive post-Soviet military project.


The Bulava is a three-stage missile that can carry up to 10 individually targeted warheads at a range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles). Russian officials have boasted of its ability to dodge any potential missile defenses.


Friday's test was the third launched from the Yuri Dolgoruky, a new Borei-class nuclear submarine specifically designed to carry 12 Bulava missiles. The submarine's construction started in 1996 and dragged on due to poor financing.


Several other Borei-class nuclear submarines are under construction, and Russia plans to complete a total of eight subs by 2015. They will gradually replace aging Soviet-built submarines.

[Ryan Ruck]

Seems like they have been having more successful tests since they underwent that modification a while back.