iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

START Nuclear Arms Treaty In Effect Between US And Russia

DAVID RISING   02/ 5/11 12:10 PM ET   AP

Start Treaty
This undated handout photo provided by the National Nuclear Safety Administration shows fuels pins loaded into a container, in Sevastopol, Ukraine. In a secret operation to secure nuclear material, the United States has helped Ukraine send to Russia enough uranium to build two atomic bombs. This week's removal of more than 110 pounds of highly enriched uranium followed a pledge by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to get rid of all of his country's highly enriched uranium by April 2012. The

MUNICH — A new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty went into effect Saturday, securing a key foreign policy goal of President Barack Obama and raising hopes among officials on both sides that it will provide the impetus for Moscow and Washington to negotiate further reductions.

"The treaty marks significant progress toward President Obama's vision of a world without nuclear weapons," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said after exchanging ratification papers with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of an international security conference in Munich.

"Partnership with Russia is vital to our continued progress and to all that we hope to accomplish," she said. "We must build the habits of cooperation that let us rise above our differences to address urgent matters of global security together."

The New START treaty – the first major revamping of nuclear disarmament deals since the late Cold War era – was approved by the U.S. Senate in December after a bruising fight during which Obama pressed strongly for its passage. Russia ratified the deal last month.

Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov suggested that the two countries could build upon the new treaty in other areas, saying that "coordinated efforts" were needed in missile defense, and that Moscow also was willing to talk about tactical nuclear weapon reductions.

"We are ready to discuss this very complex topic in the framework of a comprehensive approach to strategic stability," he said.

He also stressed that any "hypothetical" negotiations on tactical nuclear weapons "must take into consideration not only Russia's or the U.S. nuclear arsenal but weapons systems of all nuclear and threshold" states.

The 10-year New START treaty, which can be extended by another five years, is a cornerstone of Obama's efforts to "reset" U.S. relations with Russia, and Clinton called it a "milestone in our strategic partnership."

"When it comes to the button that has worried us the most over the years – the one that would unleash nuclear destruction – today we take another step to ensure it will never be pushed," Clinton told reporters after the treaty went into effect.

Lavrov said the treaty is in the national interests of both Russia and the United States.

"Both Russia and the U.S. share responsibility for security in the whole world," he said through a translator.

The treaty builds on the original START, or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, initially proposed by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan, which went into effect in 1994. The conclusion of the New START treaty comes the day before the 100th anniversary of Reagan's birth.

New START, negotiated last year, limits each side to 1,550 strategic warheads, down from 2,200. It limits the number of deployed strategic launchers and heavy bombers to 700.

The pact also re-establishes a monitoring system that ended in December 2009 with the expiration of an earlier arms deal. Russia and the U.S. have the right to conduct onsite inspections beginning 60 days from the agreement going into effect Saturday.

The two countries have seven years to meet the treaty's central limits.

Looking ahead, Clinton said the U.S. is in talks with Russia about how the two countries can further work together to address issues that affect their common security, while maintaining strategic stability.

Suggestions include joint analysis, joint exercises, and sharing of early warning data that could form the basis for a cooperative missile defense system, Clinton said.

She said she also would talk with Lavrov about "further arms control issues, including non-strategic and non-deployed nuclear weapons and our ongoing work to revive, strengthen and modernize the regime on conventional forces."

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said New START's conclusion marked "a very significant day for disarmament" and offered encouragement to pursue further progress.

"I particularly welcome the fact that the U.S. secretary of state now also wants to bring the issue of nonstrategic nuclear weapons into the talks," Westerwelle said. He hopes to secure the eventual removal of the remaining U.S. nuclear weapons stationed in Germany.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the treaty "adds significant impetus to the hard-won momentum achieved in recent years."

"I believe that the entry into force of the New START treaty will inspire further action toward creating a safer and more secure world for all," he said in a statement.

"I encourage the Russian Federation and the United States to continue their efforts to identify and carry forward the next steps, together with other nuclear-weapon states, in this historic endeavor of pursuing a nuclear weapon free world."

Lavrov called New START "a product of the understanding that unilateral approaches to security are counterproductive."

"The principles of equality, parity, equal and indivisible security ... form a solid basis for today's Russian-American interaction in a range of areas," Lavrov said. "The treaty that enters into force today will enhance international stability."

_____

AP writer Geir Moulson contributed to this story.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

MUNICH — A new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty went into effect Saturday, securing a key foreign policy goal of President Barack Obama and raising hopes among officials on both sides that it...
MUNICH — A new U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control treaty went into effect Saturday, securing a key foreign policy goal of President Barack Obama and raising hopes among officials on both sides that it...
Filed by Hunter Stuart  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 513
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
10:58 AM on 02/07/2011
Right wingers will say anything to demonize Obama. They'll even post made-up stories about how the treaty betrays the UK.
10:57 AM on 02/07/2011
The START treaty is a great idea. Even the republicans should like it because it reduces the national debt by decreasing the amount of nukes we have to maintain. Unfortunately, the right wingers on this thread are looking for excuses to demonize Obama and are falsely claiming that he betrayed the UK.
10:37 PM on 02/06/2011
I'm not too worried by Russia's arsenal. They have shown themselves to be rational players. It's the mad mullahs I'm concerned with.
photo
ken607
Nothing natural about gas,nothing clean about coal
10:28 PM on 02/06/2011
no nukes is the goal.i long for the days that mass murder can be done by green resources, renewable energy for lazers to kill our fellow man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MikeyJaii
Free $$ For Everyone.
06:21 PM on 02/06/2011
Reducing the amount of nuclear warheads will only mean, create another bomb that is 10x stronger and deadly.
05:15 AM on 02/07/2011
Not practical and not useful in any case.

The most powerful warhead in the U.S. arsenal, the B83, is a 2,400-pound gravity weapon with a selectable yield of 1.2 megatons, or about 80 times as powerful as Hiroshima's Little Boy. This is the heaviest weapon that can be carried by a strike fighter and the most powerful weapon that can be dropped from under the radar floor without sacrificing the aircraft.

Our ICBMs and SLBMs carry warheads about one-third this size, and we also have a gravity weapon in this smaller yield class that is a lot more practical for air carriage than the B83. These warheads are still quite capable of leveling most of a large city. We only keep the B83 in service for the hypothetical situation where we need to take out a deep underground bunker facility.

A larger weapons is pointless and has no additional deterrent effect. All that matters is we can hit many different targets from many different locations. Above the kiloton range, yield becomes essentially irrelevant and numbers are all that really matters.
02:46 PM on 02/06/2011
NICE

http://www.biographystuff.com/seven-layer-dip
06:01 PM on 02/06/2011
Listened to interviews of folk attending the Start meeting. Everyone was calm and reasonable and talking sense.

I like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CllJKSlj3vQ
photo
John Heckers
Think of it as evolution in action!
12:56 PM on 02/06/2011
As wonderful as it is that the U.S. and Russia are negotiating a reduction in nuclear arms, we are ignoring the 10,000 lb. dragon in the room...the People's Republic of China. We are behaving as if it is 1989 rather than 2011, and that the Russians are still the Soviets with a great deal of power and influence. By concentrating on Islamic states and ignoring the very real challenge posed by the PRC, (as well as putting ourselves into debt with the Chinese) we are placing our nation in danger. Let's get real and negotiate some realistic treaties with the Chinese that will prevent tensions from arising instead of doing what we usually do and operate in crisis mode.
06:05 PM on 02/06/2011
Given history of foreign aggression and expansionism since 1783, I think it should be the Chinese rushing to deal with the crazy, mad-on-defense-spending, invade-you-if-you-look-sideways-at-them Americans.
photo
MajorKong
If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally
12:29 AM on 02/07/2011
The Chinese maintain a relatively small nuclear force. Their nuclear strategy is to maintain a "minimal sufficient deterrence".

In other words - they want just enough to keep us from using ours but they don't want to spend any more than that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BeachBubbaTex
three cheers for anarchy, hiphip...
12:11 PM on 02/06/2011
Congrats to both sides. Now get back to the table and lower the number again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TrotskyMemo
10:33 AM on 02/06/2011
Well it is Ray-Gun's 50th... how about dusting off the whole laser missile defense plans instead? If nothing else it'd be a lot cooler to watch.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:06 AM on 02/06/2011
a world without nuclear weapons...

fat chance. Unless you can first make a world without human nature.
02:50 PM on 02/26/2011
That's the beauty of nukes! If we use all of them at once, then the nukes are gone, and so is human nature. Problem solved... Sort of.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:04 AM on 02/06/2011
Not included in the report is the fact that the USA has, as part of the negotiations for this treaty, just butt-f**@ed one of its closest allies; Russia asked for details of the UK's nuclear arsenal - USA asked UK if it could give these to Russia - UK refused - USA gives UK nuclear secrets to Russia regardless. Thank you very much USA. This at a time when our armed forces have been fighting (and dying) side by side with the USA's for the last decade. Stay classy America.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:09 AM on 02/06/2011
I read the link, the US disclosed the serial numbers of the missiles it supplied to Britain.
Since it is a treaty to reduce arms, and seeing how we would probably request the same, it seems pertinent to the negotiations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:16 PM on 02/06/2011
"....it seems pertinent to the negotiatio­ns."

Sorry, I must have missed the changeover when the USA started conducting treaty negotiations on behalf of the UK.

This is a treaty between the USA and Russia. Where the hell does the UK figure in that?

The USA asked, and were refused permission, to give these details to Russia - yet the USA still went ahead and gave Russia the details.

What gives the USA the right to undermine a friendly sovereign nation's defences in this way.
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
09:55 AM on 02/06/2011
The Downing Street Memos revealing the perfidity of the Bush Administration gave all the proof the Brits need about our reliability as an ally.  Providing the seriel numbers of missles we sell to Britian proves nothing -- but it sure does give Fox and its viewers a lot to rant about
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:20 PM on 02/06/2011
Not sure what you are referring to by "The Downing Street Memos", but just to clarify;

These negotiations took place in 2009.

Obama sworn into office 20 Jan 2009.

So, unless these details were revealed between 1 - 19 Jan, it was on Obama's watch that these details were revealed.
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
04:53 AM on 02/06/2011
It's just a treaty agreeing to take out our garbage which we want to get rid of anyway.
03:16 PM on 02/06/2011
Very true. We want to reduce anyway, this treaty is just a formality.
photo
yoyodyne666
Just here to spool you up.
04:49 AM on 02/06/2011
Russia get rid of it's nukes, and the U.S. and Isreal will continue to deny it has any.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:45 PM on 02/06/2011
The US hardly denies that it is a nuclear power, nor does it deny that it's a pretty well-armed nuclear power.

Israel plays a fairly silly game about its arsenal: it leaks enough to give a good idea about the size of the arsenal, but it refuses to officially acknowledge the leaks or to comment further.

It's the equivalent of wearing a T-Shirt that says "I own two Ferrarris" and then acting all surprised and refusing to elaborate when someone asks for the model numbers and years of your cars.
03:23 PM on 02/06/2011
Or like you ran the cars in the garage, and someone from a distance measured the amount of CO coming out of the garage door.

I like that there's some ambiguity with respect to Israel's stockpile. They're saying (or not saying) we may have the capability to retaliate, but we're not interested in picking a fight with you.
photo
dim
one in a can
01:37 AM on 02/07/2011
Since when has the US or Israel denied they had nukes? Or are you just making things up as you go along?
03:25 AM on 02/06/2011
In 5 years, Republicans will undoubtedly be taking credit for New START because Reagan proposed the original one.
01:29 AM on 02/06/2011
obama not only stabbed America in the back with this treaty, but England as well.
photo
yoyodyne666
Just here to spool you up.
04:51 AM on 02/06/2011
It's not like we won't still have enough firepower to blow up the enitire planet twenty times over.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:12 AM on 02/06/2011
Seriously? We have nukes, reductions of 100 or even 500 would still mean we could make the planet entire hostile for all life several times over.

Cut your hyperbole bs.