US nuclear weapons: will there be a reduction? Nuclear disarmament leads to an increase in the power of weapons Nuclear weapons reduction treaties
The Disarmament Week is held annually from October 24 to 30, as provided for in the Final Document of the 1978 General Assembly Special Session.
Disarmament - a set of measures designed to stop the buildup of war, their limitation, reduction and elimination. The general international legal basis for disarmament is contained in the UN Charter, which classifies "the principles that determine disarmament and the regulation of armaments" as one of the "general principles of cooperation in maintaining peace and security."
The only multilateral negotiating forum of the international community to work out agreements on disarmament issues - Disarmament conference (Conference on Disarmament). Created in January 1979. As of 2007, there are 65 participating states.
Since the decisions of the Conference on Disarmament are taken strictly by consensus, since 1997 the body has had difficulty agreeing on the main program of work due to the lack of agreement of the participants on disarmament issues.
Nuclear weapon
Nuclear weapons began to be produced in 1945. Since then, more than 128 thousand charges have been manufactured. The peak of the arms race came in 1986, when the total global nuclear arsenal reached 70,481 charges. At the end of the Cold War, the reduction process began. In 1995, the total number of charges was 43,200, in 2000 - 35,535.
As of January 1, 2007, Russia's strategic nuclear forces included 741 strategic carriers capable of carrying 3,084 nuclear charges.
Essential Arms Reduction Treaties
Soviet-American Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty (ABM Treaty). Signed May 26, 1972. He limited the number of missile defense systems of the USSR and the USA to two on each side - around the capital and in the area where the launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles were concentrated (in 1974 the USSR and the USA signed an additional protocol that limited the number of missile defense systems to one on each side). Not valid since June 14, 2002, when the United States unilaterally withdrew from it.
Soviet-American Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-1 Treaty). Signed May 26, 1972. He limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers of the USSR and the USA at the level reached by the time the document was signed, and also provided for the adoption of new ballistic missiles deployed in submarines, strictly in the amount in which obsolete ground-based ballistic missiles were previously written off.
Soviet-American Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-2 Treaty). Signed on June 18, 1979. He limited the number of launchers and introduced a limitation on the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.
Soviet-American Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). Signed on December 7, 1987. The parties undertook not to produce, test, or deploy ballistic and ground-based cruise missiles of medium range (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and shorter (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range. In addition, the parties within three years undertook to destroy all launchers and ground-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 kilometers. This was the first ever agreement to achieve a real reduction in armaments.
By June 1991, the agreement was fully implemented: the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems, the United States - 846. At the same time, the technological equipment for their production was liquidated, as well as the operational bases and training places for specialists (a total of 117 Soviet facilities and 32 American ones).
Soviet-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1). It was signed on July 30-31, 1991 (in 1992, an additional protocol was signed fixing the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine). The USSR and the USA for seven years committed to reduce their own nuclear arsenals to 6,000 warheads on each side (at the same time, in reality, according to the rules for offsetting warheads on heavy bombers, the USSR could have about 6.5 thousand warheads, the United States - up to 8 , 5 thousand).
On December 6, 2001, the Russian Federation and the United States announced the fulfillment of their obligations: the Russian side possessed 1,136 strategic carriers and 5518 warheads, the American side - 1237 strategic carriers and 5948 warheads.
Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-2). Signed on January 3, 1993. It implied a ban on the use of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and provided for a reduction by January 2003 of the number of nuclear warheads to 3,500 units on each side. It did not enter into force, because in response to the withdrawal on June 14, 2002, the United States withdrew from the Strategic Missile Defense Treaty from START-2. Replaced by the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SOR).
Russian-American Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SOR Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty). Signed on May 24, 2002. Limits the number of nuclear warheads on alert to 1700-2200 on each side. It remains valid until December 31, 2012 and may be extended by agreement of the parties.
Multilateral Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Open for signature on July 1, 1968, and has more than 170 member states (these do not include, in particular, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea). It establishes that the state possessing nuclear weapons is considered to be the one that produced and detonated such weapons before January 1, 1967 (that is, the USSR, USA, Great Britain, France, China).
Since the signing of the NPT, it has been possible to reduce the total number of nuclear charges from 55 thousand to 22 thousand.
Multilateral Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Open for signature on September 24, 1996 and has 177 participating States.
Conventional weapons
Key documents:
1980 - The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (KOKVOO) prohibits certain types of conventional weapons that are considered to be causing excessive damage or having indiscriminate effect.
In 1995, as a result of the revision of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (also known as the Convention on Inhuman Weapons), amended Protocol 2 appeared, introducing a more stringent restriction on certain methods of use, types (self-deactivating and detectable) and the transfer of anti-personnel mines.
1990 - The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) limits the number of different types of conventional weapons in the region, stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains.
At the same time, a group of states considered the measures taken insufficient and developed a document on a complete ban on all anti-personnel mines - the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines - open for signature in 1997. As of 2007, 155 states have acceded to the convention.
The application of conventions has led to the destruction of stockpiles, the clearance of areas in some states and the reduction in the number of new victims. At least 93 states are now officially cleared of mines and at least 41 of the 55 producing states have stopped producing this type of weapon. States that are not members of any of the conventions have declared a unilateral moratorium on the use and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
Chemical and biological weapons
Key documents:
In 1925, the Geneva Protocol “On the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Similar Gases and Bacteriological Agents” was signed. The protocol was an important step in creating an international legal regime for restricting the use of bacteriological weapons in war, but left behind their development, production and storage. By 2005, 134 States were members of the Protocol.
In 1972, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) was adopted, which imposed a comprehensive ban on these weapons. In 1975, it entered into force. As of April 2007, signed by 155 states.
In 1993, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was adopted, imposing a comprehensive ban on this type of weapon. In 1997, it entered into force. As of August 2007, it was signed by 182 states. It is the first multilateral treaty prohibiting a whole class of weapons of mass destruction and providing a mechanism for international verification of the destruction of this type of weapon.
According to August 2007 data, 33 percent of chemical weapons stockpiles were destroyed by countries participating in the CWC (the process should be completed by April 29, 2012). 98 percent of the world's stockpiles of chemical warfare agents are in the hands of the states parties to the CWC.
In Russia, in order to fulfill obligations under the CWC, in 2001 the Federal Target Program "Destruction of Chemical Weapons in the Russian Federation" was approved. The implementation of the Program began in 1995, and the end was 2012. It provides for the destruction of all stockpiles of chemical warfare agents in the Russian Federation, and the conversion or liquidation of the corresponding production capacities.
At the time of the start of the Program, there were about 40 thousand tons of chemical warfare agents in the Russian Federation. Upon completion of the second stage of fulfilling international obligations under the CWC - on April 29, 2007 - 8 thousand tons of chemical warfare agents (20 percent of the available) were destroyed in the Russian Federation. By the end of December 2009, when it is decided to complete the third stage of fulfilling international obligations to destroy chemical weapons, Russia will destroy 45 percent of all chemical weapons stockpiles, i.e. - 18.5 thousand tons.
The United States achieved the final results not only due to real arms reductions, but also due to the re-equipment of part of the Trident-II SLBM launchers and heavy B-52N bombers, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. At the same time, the Russian Ministry clarifies that it cannot confirm the bringing of these strategic weapons to the unsuitable state stipulated by the agreement.
How many charges are left
- 527 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;
- 1,444 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;
- 779 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.
In the United States, according to the State Department on September 1 last year, there were:
- 660 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;
- 1393 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;
- 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.
Invitation to negotiations
State Department spokesman Heather Neuert, in a statement on the implementation of the START treaty, noted that “the implementation of the new START enhances the security of the United States and its allies, makes strategic relations between the United States and Russia more stable<...> "critical at a time when trust in relationships has declined, and the threat of misunderstanding and erroneous calculations has grown." The US, as Neuert said, will continue to fully implement the new strategic offensive arms. The Foreign Ministry in its statement also reaffirmed its commitment to the treaty.
However, politicians and experts draw attention to the fact that it is time to start discussing the future of the treaty. “We must now decide what to do with the contract,<...> it seems to end soon. We must think about how to prolong it, what to do there, ”Russian President Vladimir Putin paid attention on January 30 this year at a meeting with proxies. There was no direct answer from US President Donald Trump to this question.
The current START expires in 2021, by agreement of the parties, as indicated in the text, it can be extended for five years. If the agreement is not renewed or a new document is not concluded in its place, the United States and Russia will lose a unique instrument of mutual control, American experts draw attention. According to the State Department, since the start of the treaty, the parties exchanged 14.6 thousand documents on the whereabouts and movement of weapons, conducted 252 on-site inspections, and 14 meetings as part of the commission on the contract.
In order to extend START-3 for another five years, as the text of the agreement implies, it is enough for Moscow and Washington to exchange diplomatic notes. PIR Center Council Chairman Lieutenant-General Reserve Yevgeny Buzhinsky told RBC that due to the current political differences between Russia and the United States, it will be extremely difficult for the parties to agree on a fundamentally new agreement, so extending the START-3 by five years seems a much more likely scenario .
The preparation of a new agreement is a realistic and even desirable option if there is political will in Moscow and Washington, but if it does not exist, the parties will go on extending the current version, says Alexey Arbatov, head of the Center for International Security of the IMEMO RAS.
What to negotiate
Russia and the United States have reduced strategic weapons for three decades, but meeting the conditions under the START treaty is likely to put an end to the process of reducing nuclear arsenals, The New York Times writes. The priorities for the development of nuclear weapons and the creation of new low-power nuclear weapons specified in the February 2 Review of US Nuclear Forces will lead to a new nuclear arms race, but countries will now compete not in their quantity, but in tactical and technical characteristics, the newspaper writes.
The new US nuclear doctrine proclaims the concept of selective nuclear strikes and the introduction of low explosive power and high precision systems that potentially set the stage for the escalation of nuclear conflict, Arbatov warns. That is why, the expert believes, a new, comprehensive agreement is needed that addresses the problems of developing high-precision non-nuclear systems.
Even when preparing the current treaty, experts on both sides pointed out that the treaty base of Russia and the United States should be expanded to non-strategic nuclear weapons, missile defense and other sensitive issues.
Still in charge of arms reduction in the State Department in the rank of acting As early as 2014, Assistant Secretary of State Anna Fridt said that the United States and NATO should, in the future, when political conditions permit, develop and offer Russia their position on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Non-strategic (tactical) weapons are notable for their low power; these weapons include air bombs, tactical missiles, shells, mines and other local ammunition.
For Russia, the issue of non-strategic nuclear weapons is as fundamental as the issue of missile defense for the United States, Buzhinsky notes. “There are mutual taboos, and none of them is ready to concede in areas where one of the parties has an advantage. Therefore, in the foreseeable future we can only talk about a further quantitative reduction. Discussing the qualitative characteristics of weapons in the negotiation process is a long-standing proposal, but in the current conditions it borders on fantasy, ”he says.
Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry told RBC that the next START treaty should introduce restrictions on all types of nuclear weapons - not only strategic but also tactical: “When people say what the nuclear arsenal is today, they mean about 5,000 warheads in service, which is already quite bad. But in the USA we still have a couple of thousands of nuclear shells in warehouses that can also be used. And such shells are not only in the USA, but also in Russia, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons. ”
An increase in the number of parties involved in the reduction of nuclear arsenals, according to Buzhinsky, is unlikely, since other nuclear powers - Britain, France, China - logically require Moscow and Washington to first reduce the number of warheads to their level before entering into any agreements .
The new agreement, according to Arbatov, should take into account the topics that the START-3 drafters bypassed. First of all, these are missile defense systems and the development of high-precision non-nuclear long-range equipment. “Three years to prepare a new agreement on the basis of what diplomats already have is enough: START-3 was agreed for a year, START-1 was signed in 1991 after three years of work from scratch,” sums up Arbatov.
On May 26, 1972, Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements (SALT). In connection with the anniversary of this event, the Le Figaro newspaper offers you an overview of the main Russian-American bilateral agreements.
Disarmament or limitation of strategic arms buildup? The policy of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War led to a frantic arms race between the two superpowers, which could lead to disaster. That is why 45 years ago the United States and the USSR signed the first strategic arms reduction treaty.
Treaty 1: First Bilateral Arms Reduction Agreement
On May 26, 1972, US President Richard Nixon and Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev signed an agreement on the limitation of strategic arms. The signing took place in front of television cameras in the Vladimir Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow. This event was the result of negotiations that began in November 1969.
The agreement limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers, their location and composition. The 1974 treaty amendment reduced the number of missile defense areas deployed by each side to one. However, one of the clauses of the contract allowed the parties to terminate the contract unilaterally. This is exactly what the United States did in 2001 to begin deploying a missile defense system on its territory after 2004-2005. The final US withdrawal from this agreement came on June 13, 2002.
The 1972 treaty includes a 20-year interim agreement that prohibits the manufacture of launchers for ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and restricts ballistic missile launchers in submarines. Also, according to this agreement, the parties undertake to continue active and comprehensive negotiations.
This “historical” agreement should have been particularly helpful in restoring the balance of deterrence. And this does not apply to the production of offensive weapons and restrictions on the number of warheads and strategic bombers. The striking forces of both countries are still very large. First of all, this agreement allows both countries to moderate spending, while maintaining the ability to mass destruction. This prompted André Frossard to write in a newspaper on May 29, 1972: “Being able to make about 27 ends of the world — I don’t know the exact number — gives them a good sense of security and allows them to save us from many additional ways of destruction. For this we need to thank their kind heart. "
Treaty 2: easing tensions between the two countries
After 6 years of negotiations, a new treaty between the USSR and the United States on the limitation of strategic offensive arms was signed by US President Jimmy Carter and Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. This complex document includes 19 articles, 43 pages of definitions, 3 pages with transfers of stockpiles of military arsenals of the two countries, 3 pages of a protocol that will enter into force in 1981 and, finally, a declaration of principles that will form the basis of the negotiations on the SALT-3 .
The treaty limited the number of strategic nuclear weapons of both countries. After signing the treaty, Jimmy Carter said in a speech: "These negotiations, which have been ongoing for ten years now, give the impression that nuclear competition, if it is not limited by general rules and restrictions, can only lead to disaster." At the same time, the American president clarified that "this agreement does not take away the need for both countries to maintain their military power." But this treaty was never ratified by the United States due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Short-Range Missiles
On December 8, 1987, in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed an indefinite Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles (INF), which entered into force in May 1988. This "historical" treaty was the first to provide for the elimination of armaments. It was about medium and short-range missiles with a range of 500 to 5.5 thousand km. They represented from 3 to 4% of the entire arsenal. In accordance with the agreement, the parties, within three years from the date of its entry into force, had to destroy all medium and short-range missiles. The agreement also provided for mutual on-site verification procedures.
At the time of signing the treaty, Reagan emphasized: “For the first time in history, we went from discussing arms control to discussing their reduction.” Both presidents insisted on cutting 50% of their strategic arsenals. They were guided by the future START treaty, the signing of which was originally planned for the spring of 1988.
START-1: the beginning of real disarmament
On July 31, 1991, US President George W. Bush and his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in Moscow. This agreement was the first real reduction in the strategic arsenals of the two superpowers. According to its conditions, countries should have reduced the number of the most dangerous types of weapons: intercontinental ballistic missiles and underwater-based missiles in three stages (seven years).
The number of warheads was to be reduced to 7 thousand for the USSR and 9 thousand for the United States. The privileged position in the new arsenal was given to bombers: the number of bombs was supposed to increase from 2.5 to 4 thousand in the USA and from 450 to 2.2 thousand in the USSR. In addition, the agreement provided for various control measures, and it finally entered into force in 1994. According to Gorbachev, he was a blow to the "infrastructure of fear."
START-2: radical reductions
Context
End of INF Treaty?
Defense24 02.16.2017Is the INF Treaty dead?
The National Interest 03/03/2017START-3 and Russia's nuclear breakthrough
The Washington Times 10/22/2015US to discuss nuclear disarmament with Russia
Voice of America Russian Service 02.02.2013 On January 3, 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and his American counterpart George W. Bush signed START II in Moscow. It was a big event, as it provided for a reduction of nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. After the agreement entered into force in 2003, US stocks were supposed to decrease from 9 thousand 986 warheads to 3.5 thousand, and Russian - from 10 thousand 237 to 3 thousand 027. That is, to the level of 1974 for Russia and 1960 for America .Another important point was spelled out in the agreement: the elimination of missiles with multiple warheads. Russia refused high-precision weapons, which formed the basis of its deterrence forces, while the United States removed half of the missiles mounted on submarines (almost undetectable). START II was ratified by the United States in 1996 and Russia in 2000.
Boris Yeltsin saw in him a source of hope, and George W. Bush considered it a symbol of "the end of the Cold War" and "a fearless better future for our parents and children." Be that as it may, the reality remained not so idyllic: both countries can still destroy the entire planet several times.
SNP: a point in the cold war
On May 24, 2002, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (DPR) in the Kremlin. It was about reducing arsenals by two-thirds in ten years.
However, this small-scale bilateral agreement (five brief articles) was not accurate and did not contain verification measures. From the point of view of the image of the parties, its role was more important than its filling: it was not the first time they talked about reduction. Be that as it may, it still became a turning point, the end of military-strategic parity: not possessing the necessary economic opportunities for that, Russia abandoned claims to the status of a superpower. In addition, the treaty opened the door to a “new era” because it was accompanied by a statement on a “new strategic partnership”. The United States relied on conventional military forces and understood the futility of most of its nuclear arsenal. Bush noted that the signing of the SOR allows us to get rid of the "legacy of the Cold War" and hostility between the two countries.
START-3: protecting national interests
On April 8, 2010, US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed another strategic arms reduction treaty (START-3) in the Spanish lounge of Prague Castle. It was intended to fill the legal vacuum that arose after the expiration of START-1 in December 2009. A new ceiling for nuclear arsenals of the two countries was installed on it: reduction of nuclear warheads to 1.55 thousand units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles of submarines and heavy bombers - to 700 units.
In addition, the agreement provides for verification of numbers by a joint group of inspectors seven years after its entry into force. It is worth noting here that the installed planks are not too different from those that were indicated in 2002. It also does not talk about tactical nuclear weapons, thousands of deactivated warheads in warehouses and bombs of strategic aviation. The US Senate ratified it in 2010.
START-3 was the last Russian-American agreement on nuclear arms control. A few days after taking office in January 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that he would offer Vladimir Putin the lifting of sanctions on Russia (were introduced in response to the annexation of Crimea) in exchange for a nuclear arms reduction treaty. According to the latest data from the US State Department, the US has 1 thousand 367 warheads (bombers and missiles), while the Russian arsenal reaches 1 thousand 096.
InoSMI materials contain estimates of exclusively foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.
On February 5, 2018, the deadline for fulfilling the main restrictions that were imposed on Russia and the United States, which they signed on START-3, expired. The full name of the signed document is the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures to Further Reduce and Limit Strategic Offensive Arms, START III. This bilateral treaty regulated further mutual reductions in the arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and replaced START-I, which expired in December 2009. The START-3 agreement was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague by the presidents of the two countries Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, it entered into force on February 5, 2011.
the issue
It is worth noting that countries thought about reducing strategic offensive weapons back in the late 1960s. In addition, the moments of both the USSR and the USA have accumulated nuclear arsenals that made it possible not only to burn each other’s territory to ashes, but also to destroy all human civilization and life on the planet. In addition, the nuclear race, which was one of the attributes of the Cold War, seriously hit the economies of the two countries. Huge amounts of money were spent on building up the nuclear arsenal. Under these conditions, negotiations began in 1969 between the Soviet Union and the United States in Helsinki with the goal of limiting nuclear stockpiles.
These negotiations led to the signing of the first agreement between the countries - the SALT-I (strategic arms limitation), which was signed in 1972. An agreement signed by the USSR and the USA fixed the number of nuclear delivery vehicles for each of the countries at the level at which they were at that time. True, by that time both the USA and the USSR had already begun equipping their ballistic missiles with separable warheads with individual guidance units (they carried several warheads at once). As a result, it was precisely during the period of detente of relations that a new, previously unprecedented, avalanche-like process of building up nuclear potential began. At the same time, the agreement provided for the adoption of new ICBMs deployed on submarines, strictly in the quantity in which ground-based ballistic missiles had previously been decommissioned.
The continuation of this agreement was the SALT-II agreement, signed by countries on June 18, 1979 in Vienna. This treaty forbade the launch of nuclear weapons into space; it also set limits on the maximum number of strategic carriers: ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, strategic aircraft and missiles (but not nuclear warheads themselves) below the existing level: up to 2400 units (including up to 820 launchers of ICBMs equipped with a shared warhead). In addition, the parties pledged to reduce the number of carriers to 2,250 by January 1, 1981. Of the total number of strategic systems, only 1,320 carriers could be equipped with warheads with individual guidance warheads. He also imposed other restrictions: he prohibited the design and deployment of ballistic missiles based on watercraft (with the exception of submarines), as well as on the seabed; mobile heavy ICBMs, cruise missiles with homing missiles, limited the maximum throwing weight for ballistic missile submarines.
The next joint treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms was the indefinite Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles of 1987. He banned the development and deployment of ballistic missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km. In accordance with this treaty, for three years, countries were required to destroy not only all ground-based ballistic missiles of these types, but also all launchers, including missiles in both the European and Asian parts of the Soviet Union. The same treaty introduced for the first time a universal classification of ballistic missiles in range.
The next treaty was START-1, signed by the USSR and the United States on July 31, 1991 in Moscow. It entered into force after the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 5, 1994. The new contract was designed for 15 years. The terms of the signed agreement forbade each side to have more than 1600 units of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers) on alert. The maximum number of nuclear charges themselves was limited to 6,000. On December 6, 2001, it was announced that countries had fully complied with their obligations under this treaty.
The START II treaty, signed back in 1993, at first could not be ratified for a long time, and then it was simply abandoned. The next agreement in force was the agreement to reduce the offensive capabilities of the SOR, which limited the maximum number of warheads by another three times: from 1,700 to 2,200 units (compared to START-1). At the same time, the composition and structure of arms that fell under the reduction were determined by the states independently, in the agreement this moment was not regulated in any way. The agreement entered into force on June 1, 2003.
START-3 and its results
The Treaty on Measures to Further Reduce and Limit Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3) entered into force on February 5, 2011. He replaced START-1 and canceled the 2002 SOR Treaty. The agreement provided for further large-scale reduction of the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. According to the terms of the agreement, by February 5, 2018 and further, the total number of weapons did not exceed 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers, 1550 charges on these missiles, as well as 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers . It was in the START-3 treaty that the concept of “non-deployed” carriers and launchers, that is, those not in combat readiness, was first introduced. They can be used for training or testing and do not have warheads. The treaty also separately fixed a ban on basing strategic offensive arms outside the national territories of the two states.
The START-3 treaty, in addition to limiting directly nuclear weapons, implies a bilateral exchange of telemetric data that was obtained during test launches. Telemetry information on missile launches is exchanged by mutual agreement and on a parity basis for no more than five launches per year. At the same time, parties are required to exchange information on the number of carriers and warheads twice a year. Inspection activities were also separately prescribed, up to 300 people can participate in the inspection, the candidates of which are agreed within a month, after which they are issued visas for two years. At the same time, the inspectors themselves, members of the inspection delegations and flight crews, as well as their aircraft, during inspections in the two countries enjoy complete inviolability.
In 2018, the START-3 treaty is expected to be extended, as it expires only in 2021. As the U.S. ambassador to Russia John Huntsman noted in January 2018, trust between states on the issue of arms reduction has not been lost - Washington and Moscow are successfully working on the implementation of START-3. “We are working in a positive direction regarding START-3, I call it the“ moment of inspiration ”, after February 5, the work will not stop, the work will be more intensive. The fact that we are approaching this date for achieving our goals inspires confidence, ”said the ambassador.
According to TASS, on September 1, 2017, the Russian Federation had 501 deployed nuclear weapons carriers, 1,561 nuclear warheads and 790 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB. The United States possessed 660 deployed carriers, 1,393 warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. It follows from the published data that for Russia, in order to fit into the START-3 limit, it was necessary to reduce 11 warheads.
The nuclear arsenal of Russia and the United States
Today, the basis of modern strategic weapons continues to be nuclear weapons. In some cases, it also includes high-precision weapons with conventional warheads, which can be used to destroy strategically important enemy targets. According to its purpose, it is divided into offensive (strike) and defensive weapons. The strategic offensive arms (START) include all land-based ICBM complexes (both mine and mobile), strategic nuclear missile submarines (ARPL), as well as strategic (heavy) bombers that can serve as carriers of strategic air-to-air cruise missiles surface "and atomic bombs.
Topol-M mobile version
Russia
The following ICBMs fall under the START-3 treaty as part of the Strategic Missile Forces (Strategic Missile Forces): RS-12M Topol; RS-12M2 "Topol-M"; RS-18 (according to the NATO codification - “Stiletto”), RS-20 “Dnepr” (according to the NATO codification “Satan”), R-36M UTTKh and R-36M2 “Voevoda”; RS-24 "Yars". According to TASS, at present about 400 ICBMs with various types of warheads and various power units are located in the Russian Strategic Missile Forces group. Thus, more than 60 percent of the weapons and warheads of the strategic nuclear forces of the Russian Federation are concentrated here. A noticeable difference from the United States is the presence in the ground component of the nuclear triad - mobile complexes. If in the USA ICBMs are located exclusively in stationary mine installations, then in the Strategic Missile Forces, along with mine-based, mobile ground missile systems based on the MZKT-79221 multi-axle chassis are also used.
In 2017, the Strategic Missile Forces replenished with 21 new ballistic missiles. Future plans include the decommissioning of the Topol ICBMs with their replacement with the more modern and advanced Yars ICBMs. At the same time, Moscow expects to extend the service life of the heaviest ICE R-36M2 Voevoda ICBMs in service with the Strategic Missile Forces until at least 2027.
The maritime component of the Russian nuclear triad is represented, as of March 1, 2017, by 13 nuclear submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles on board. The basis is made up of 6 Project 667BDRM Dolphin submarine missile carriers, which are armed with the Sineva R-29RMU2 ballistic missiles and their Liner modification. Also in service are three submarines of the earlier project 667BDR Kalmar and one submarine of Project 941UM Akula - Dmitry Donskoy. She is the largest submarine in the world. It was at Dmitry Donskoy that the first tests of the new Russian ICBM were carried out, falling under the START-3 treaty - the Bulava R-30 missile, which is being launched in Votkinsk. In addition to the listed submarines, three nuclear submarines of the new 955 Borey project armed with a Bulava are currently on combat duty, these are boats: K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky, K-550 Alexander Nevsky and K-551 Vladimir Monomakh ". Each of these submarines carries on board up to 16 ICBMs. Also, under the modernized Borey-A project, another 5 such missile carriers are being built in Russia.
Nuclear submarine of project 955 Borey
The airborne part of the nuclear triad in Russia is based on two strategic bombers falling under the START-3 treaty. This is a supersonic strategic bomber bomber with a variable sweep wing Tu-160 (16 pieces) and an honorary veteran - a turboprop strategic bomber bomber Tu-95MS (about 40 deployed). According to experts, these turboprop aircraft can be successfully used until 2040.
The US modern nuclear arsenal consists of Minuteman-III silo ICBMs (there are 399 deployed ICBM launchers and 55 non-deployed), ballistic missiles in Trident II submarines (212 deployed and 68 non-deployed), as well as cruise missiles and aerial bombs with a nuclear warhead carriers of which are strategic bombers. The Minuteman-III missile has long been the backbone of the American nuclear deterrence forces, it has been in service since 1970 and is the only land-based ICBM in service with the American army. All this time, the missiles were constantly being modernized: replacing combat units, power plants, control and guidance systems.
Test Launch ICBM Minuteman-III
Trident II ICBMs are powered by Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which carries 24 such missiles on board, equipped with individual individually guided warheads (no more than 8 warheads per missile). In total, 18 such submarines were built in the USA. At the same time, 4 of them have already been converted into carriers of cruise missiles, the modernization of missile mines has allowed them to place up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 7 in each mine. 22 shafts were converted, two more are used as lock chambers for docking mini-submarines or special modules for the exit of combat swimmers. Since 1997, it is the only type of American SSBNs in service. Their main armament is the Trident II D-5 ICBM. According to American experts, this missile is the most reliable weapon in the US strategic arsenal.
The Pentagon also included 49 vehicles among the deployed strategic bombers, including 11 hardly noticeable Northrop B-2A Spirit strategic bombers and 38 "old" Boeing B-52Hs, another 9 B-2As and 8 B-52Hs are not deployed. Both bombers can use both cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, and atomic free-fall bombs and guided bombs. Another American strategic bomber B-1B, developed in the 1970s specifically for launching missile strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union, has been converted into a carrier of conventional weapons since the 1990s. By the time START-3 expires, the US Army does not plan to use it as a carrier of nuclear weapons. As of 2017, the U.S. Air Force had 63 B-1B Lancer bombers.
Stealth Northrop B-2A Spirit strategic bomber
Mutual claims of the parties
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State John Sullivan said what conditions must be fulfilled for the U.S. to comply with the agreement on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms (the START-3 treaty) and the agreement on the elimination of medium and short-range INF missiles. According to Sullivan, the United States “wants to comply with arms control agreements, but for this, their“ interlocutors ”must be“ set up in the same way, ”Interfax reports. It is worth noting that in January 2018, the State Department confirmed Russia's compliance with the conditions of the START-3 treaty signed in 2010, but the United States continues to accuse Russia of violating the INF Treaty. In particular, Washington believes that in Yekaterinburg, the Novator Design Bureau has created a new ground-based cruise missile - a land modification of the famous Caliber. The Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, notes that the 9M729 ground-based cruise missile cited as an example meets the terms of the agreement.
At the same time, according to the chairman of the Russian State Duma’s defense committee Vladimir Shamanov, Moscow has serious doubts about Washington’s fulfillment of its START-3 commitments. Shamanov noted that Russia has not received confirmation of the conversion of Trident II missile launchers and B-52M heavy bombers. The main questions of the Russian side relate to the re-equipment of part of the US strategic offensive weapons. As Vladimir Putin noted during a meeting with the leaders of leading Russian media on January 11, 2018, the United States should verify the ongoing changes so that Russia can be convinced of the lack of return potential for some media. The lack of such evidence in Moscow is a matter of concern. According to Russian Ambassador to the United States Anatoly Antonov, a dialogue is ongoing with the American side on this issue.
Sources of information:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4925548
https://vz.ru/news/2018/1/18/904051.html
http://www.aif.ru/dontknows/file/chto_takoe_snv-3
Open Source Materials
Today, like half a century ago, this agency, subordinate to the Pentagon, is responsible for maintaining the world technological superiority of the US armed forces. Among the concerns of DARPA is the development of new technologies for use in the armed forces.
In February 2013, agency experts began to actively prepare for a nuclear war. Wasproject launched for protection against radiation damage, including using techniques that directly affect human DNA. We are talking about new treatment methods, devices and systems to mitigate the effects of radiation. The main goal of the agency’s project is to develop technologies that will radically reduce the susceptibility of the human body to high doses of radiation. Those who are treated with the latest technology have a high chance of survival.
Today, the efforts of scientists are directed in three areas: a) prevention and treatment after exposure to radiation; b) reducing the level of negative consequences and preventing death and the development of cancer complications; c) modeling the effects of radiation on the human body through research at the molecular and system-wide levels.
The agency started a new project because the level of nuclear threat in the world has not decreased. Today, any country may face the threat of nuclear terrorism, a disaster at a nuclear power plant, or a local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.
This project, of course, did not arise from scratch. It is known that Barack Obama is positioning himself as a peacemaker. He dropped atomic bombs like Truman on foreign states. And in general he constantly repeats about reductions in nuclear arsenals - not only Russian, but also native, American.
This peacekeeping went so far that very influential mysteries turned to him with a written petition, in which they tearfully asked not to reduce the nuclear weapons of the long-suffering homeland of the Republicans and Democrats.
An appeal to the president was signed by 18 people: former CIA director James Wolsey, former US representative to the United Nations John Bolton, former commander of the Marine Corps General Karl Mandi and others. International analyst Kirill Belyaninov (Kommersant ) believes that this appeal was a confirmation that the White House is really working on plans to reduce nuclear arsenals.
According to a secret report, the authors of which include individuals from the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Intelligence and Strategic Command of the United States (in short, a complete military secret set), the number of nuclear warheads that are in the country's arsenal, today “Far exceeds the amount necessary to ensure nuclear deterrence”, in modern conditions, an arsenal of 1-1.1 thousand warheads is quite enough. But a group of influential politicians who know this data, of course, still requires Obama to abandon the “rash step”.
What were the 18 Misters afraid of?
The authors of the petition are sure that “the growing cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran” can lead to “catastrophic changes”. And the "American nuclear triad guaranteeing strategic stability" can hold back the aspirations of Iran and North Korea, and only it, and nothing more.
The signatories of the document believe that the threshold set by the new START treaty is critical: by 2018, the Russian Federation and the United States should leave no more than 1,550 warheads on combat duty.
Nevertheless, the Obama administration intends to continue negotiations with Moscow on reducing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
The concern of eighteen people is based more on the interests of the US military-industrial complex than on the real situation. What “catastrophic changes” can Iran cause in the world? It is ridiculous to assume that the gentlemen of the American politicians and the military, who signed the letter to their president, were frightened by Ahmadinejad’s recent words that Iran is a "nuclear power." Or 1550 warheads are not enough to defeat the DPRK?
The reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons, which this time will probably bring to life Obama, is by no means a “refinement” of the Nobel Peace Prize. The President of the United States is facing the collapse of the national economy: a huge public debt is also supplemented by a large budget deficit, which is addressed by sequestration, cuts, layoffs, cuts in military programs and an extremely unpopular tax increase for any class of population. Reducing nuclear stocks is the road to savings: after all, maintaining arsenals costs a lot of money.
Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) ) recalls that the US military budget will be reduced by $ 500 billion over 10 years by sequestration - the so-called "automatic reduction". The Pentagon suggests that by the end of the current fiscal year (September 30), it will have to “cut off” expenses by $ 46 billion. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said cuts would make America a secondary military power.
Reductions will hurt and military contractors. For example, Texas’s economic losses will amount to a gigantic amount of $ 2.4 billion. An entire army of civil servants — 30,000 — will lose their jobs. Their personal financial loss in earnings will amount to $ 180 million.
As for maintenance, the states where large warehouses are located will suffer: they will be closed in the coming months due to upcoming budget cuts. Pennsylvania, for example, has two main maintenance depots where modernization of integrated weapons systems is underway, including, for example, Patriot. Texas and Alabama will be hit hard. The closure of the depot will stop the repair of weapons, communications devices and vehicles. Reducing the flow of orders will affect 3,000 companies. Another 1,100 companies will face bankruptcy.
The latest data on the alleged losses of contractors directly for nuclear services is not yet available. But the fact that there will be no doubt. Obama will seek any reserves in order to reduce budget spending.
As for the calls for Russia, then everything is clear: to cut America’s nuclear weapons alone is somehow not handy. That is why it was a question of negotiations with the Russians. Moreover, Obama swung at a major reduction: not only a third, not even twice. However, these are only rumors, albeit coming from the United States.
Vladimir Kozin (The Red Star)resembles that regarding information on further reductions in strategic offensive arms, White House spokesman Jay Carney said he did not expect new announcements on this subject in his next presidential address to Congress. Indeed, in his message on February 13, the American president only indicated Washington’s readiness to engage Russia in the reduction of “nuclear weapons”, without indicating any quantitative parameters. Nevertheless, the fact remains: a reduction is planned. Another thing is in what way and for what species.
V. Kozin believes that the United States “continues to intend to follow the path of selective reduction of nuclear weapons, focusing only on a further reduction in strategic offensive arms. But at the same time, they completely exclude from the negotiation process such important types of non-nuclear weapons as anti-missile systems, anti-satellite weapons and high-precision means of delivering a "lightning strike" anywhere in the world ... "According to the analyst, the United States" is trying to obscure "new proposals and ideas ”in the field of arms control, their ambitious plans for the deployment of advanced bases in the form of nuclear weapons and missile defense, destabilizing the global military-political situation and tearing apart the fragile military-strategic parity between Moscow and Washington, which has been created over several decades. ”
That is, nuclear weapons will be selectively reduced, and in parallel, a Euro-missile defense system will be created, and the former will serve as a diversion for the latter. And at the same time, he’ll probably free up money for this second one. With budget sequestration, this is a very hot topic.
Blaming Americans for guile or double standards is futile: politics is politics. Sergey Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Chairman of the Editorial Board of the journal Russia in Global Affairshe speaks that "the idea of \u200b\u200bfreeing the world from nuclear weapons is slowly dying away."
“Moreover,” he continues, “if you follow the dynamics of the views of such famous people as Henry Kissinger, George Schulz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, who played a role in launching the idea of \u200b\u200bnuclear zero, you can find that this famous four in the second The article, published two years after their first article, already spoke about the reduction and even destruction of nuclear weapons as a good goal, but it really required increasing efficiency and strengthening the existing US military nuclear complex. They realized that the United States of America would not be able to ensure its security without nuclear weapons. Understanding perfectly this whole situation, our leadership - both Putin and Medvedev - without blinking an eye, announced that they also advocated for complete nuclear disarmament. To say otherwise would be to admit bloodthirstiness. But at the same time, we are building up and modernizing our nuclear potential. ”
The recognition of the scientist is also interesting:
“Once I was involved in the history of the arms race, and since then I sincerely believe that nuclear weapons are something that the Almighty sent to us in order to save humanity. Because, otherwise, if there weren’t nuclear weapons, the deepest ideological and military-political confrontation in the history of mankind, the Cold War, would have ended with World War III. ”
Russians should give thanks for the current sense of security, says Karaganov, Sakharova, Korolev, Kurchatov and their associates.
Back to the USA. According to the 2010 nuclear doctrine, America retained the right to deliver a nuclear strike first. True, I narrowed the list of situations that lead to a similar use of the nuclear arsenal. In 2010, Obama announced his refusal to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons - on one condition: these countries must abide by the non-proliferation regime. The strategic document also stated: "... the United States is not ready to pursue a policy according to which deterrence of a nuclear strike is the only goal of nuclear weapons." This suggests a possible preventive use of nuclear weapons, albeit with the reservations cited above.
Both during the Cold War and after its conditional end, the United States and NATO did not exclude the option of using nuclear weapons against their opponents - the first to be used. The 2010 doctrine narrowed the list, but the right to use has not changed.
Meanwhile, China almost half a century agoannounced about the policy of non-use of nuclear weapons first. Then India took the same position. Even North Korea - and she adheres to a similar position. One of the main objections to the adoption of the doctrine of non-use first, writes the American journal Foreign Policy, is based on the fact that the enemy can "act dishonestly" and strike first. However, there is no answer to the simple question of retaliation. Why would the enemy arrange a nuclear disaster for himself? After all, the threat of guaranteed retaliatory destruction remains a very powerful deterrent.
You can, of course, call Obama's policy logical. The same 2010 doctrine was adopted during growing concerns about terrorism. Well, if nuclear bombs fall into the hands of terrorists? US President in 2010said : “The Concept recognizes that the greatest threat to the United States and global security is no longer a nuclear war between states, but nuclear terrorism carried out by extremists and the process of nuclear proliferation ...”
Therefore, the current proposed reduction in nuclear arsenals is logically combined with the "taming" of what was called 3 years ago the "greatest threat to the United States and global security." The smaller the number of nuclear weapons, rightly noted in the journal Foreign Policy, the less the likelihood of them falling into the hands of terrorists.
To create a perfectly clean logical picture, the White House lacks only one point. Claiming their right to use nuclear weapons first, the United States is likened to its artificially nurtured enemy - al-Qaeda. The latter does not state nuclear rights for obvious reasons. But, for even more understandable reasons, in the case of “need” and with the appropriate opportunity, she will arrange an explosion first (this is not necessarily about a bomb: there are nuclear power plants). The right to the first, albeit “preventive”, nuclear strike puts America in the ranks of those who threaten peace. Like al Qaeda.
