US and Russia claim they are on brink of nuclear deal

[buglerbilly]

US and Russia claim they are on brink of nuclear deal

More than three months late, Obama and Medvedev dive for the finish line in a bid to maintain momentum on disarmament

Apologies if you have read this somewhere before many times, but Washington and Moscow are once again saying they are really, really close to a new START nuclear arms control treaty.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev spoke on the telephone on Saturday and agreed to give their negotiators in Geneva "new instructions" to conclude a draft treaty that would cut each sides deployed strategic arsenal from well over 2,000 warheads apiece to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675. Launch vehicles (missiles and bombers) would be cut from 1600 to a range of 500 to 1,100.

Those numbers were agreed by the two presidents in Moscow back in July. The negotiations have since got bogged down in dense questions of telemetry encryption. Basically, the old treaty involves lots of sharing of data from new missile tests for the sake of transparency. But as Russia is in the midst of replacing its old cold war missiles while the US is sticking to its existing arsenal, Moscow has insisted the old rule is unfair.

The two sides seemed to have got past that in the new year, with a fudge on limited data sharing, but then in February the talks were knocked sideways by Romania's announcement that it would host America's new SM-3 anti-ballistic missile system. A week later Bulgaria said it was interested in following suit.

This was a terrible piece of timing, to say the least. US-Russian relations had been 'reset' last September by Obama's decision to junk the Bush missile defence scheme, which was to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. For all Washington's insistence that the missiles were pointed towards a potential Iranian threat, Russia considered the sites to be in its backyard and a direct challenge to its deterrent. Dumping the scheme may have been essential to making progress on the START follow-on treaty.

It is not clear why the US defence department thought Romania and Bulgaria would be any more palatable to the Russians than Poland and the Czech Republic, especially as the later version of the SM-3 (the 2B to be deployed by 2020) will be close in potential to the Bush missiles. It may have been the case of Washington's left hand not knowing what the right was doing, but however it happened, it brought the START talks grinding to a halt once more.

Obama is now running out of time. April 5 will be the first anniversary of his Prague speech in which he pledged America's pursuit of a world without nuclear arms, and with three weeks to go, there is no real progress. No new START treaty, no new nuclear posture review. Obama is hosting a nuclear security summit in mid-April and the non-proliferation treaty is up for review in May. He desperately needs some momentum.

[Weasel]

US and Russia claim they are on brink of nuclear deal

More than three months late, Obama and Medvedev dive for the finish line in a bid to maintain momentum on disarmament

Apologies if you have read this somewhere before many times, but Washington and Moscow are once again saying they are really, really close to a new START nuclear arms control treaty.

Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev spoke on the telephone on Saturday and agreed to give their negotiators in Geneva "new instructions" to conclude a draft treaty that would cut each sides deployed strategic arsenal from well over 2,000 warheads apiece to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675. Launch vehicles (missiles and bombers) would be cut from 1600 to a range of 500 to 1,100.

Those numbers were agreed by the two presidents in Moscow back in July. The negotiations have since got bogged down in dense questions of telemetry encryption. Basically, the old treaty involves lots of sharing of data from new missile tests for the sake of transparency. But as Russia is in the midst of replacing its old cold war missiles while the US is sticking to its existing arsenal, Moscow has insisted the old rule is unfair.

The two sides seemed to have got past that in the new year, with a fudge on limited data sharing, but then in February the talks were knocked sideways by Romania's announcement that it would host America's new SM-3 anti-ballistic missile system. A week later Bulgaria said it was interested in following suit.

This was a terrible piece of timing, to say the least. US-Russian relations had been 'reset' last September by Obama's decision to junk the Bush missile defence scheme, which was to be based in Poland and the Czech Republic. For all Washington's insistence that the missiles were pointed towards a potential Iranian threat, Russia considered the sites to be in its backyard and a direct challenge to its deterrent. Dumping the scheme may have been essential to making progress on the START follow-on treaty.

It is not clear why the US defence department thought Romania and Bulgaria would be any more palatable to the Russians than Poland and the Czech Republic, especially as the later version of the SM-3 (the 2B to be deployed by 2020) will be close in potential to the Bush missiles. It may have been the case of Washington's left hand not knowing what the right was doing, but however it happened, it brought the START talks grinding to a halt once more.

Obama is now running out of time. April 5 will be the first anniversary of his Prague speech in which he pledged America's pursuit of a world without nuclear arms, and with three weeks to go, there is no real progress. No new START treaty, no new nuclear posture review. Obama is hosting a nuclear security summit in mid-April and the non-proliferation treaty is up for review in May. He desperately needs some momentum.

There has been a lot of traffic on this issue lately, so "watch this space". I find it intriguing, as just because you don't have a nuclear weapon, doesn't mean the USA will not be thinking the word "deterrence" . It will just come in another package, but the question is "what package?" or even "how?"

cheers

w

[Riđđu]

I find it intriguing, as just because you don't have a nuclear weapon, doesn't mean the USA will not be thinking the word "deterrence" . It will just come in another package, but the question is "what package?" or even "how?"


It seems there is always going to be various outsourced government projects studying weapons of mass destruction. It might be called "countering biological threats" or whatever. Just about every developed country does it in some form or another.

[Poor_Canada]

Is my opinion wrong, or are nuclear weapons going to become obsolete over the next few decades? There is simply no need to inflict massive damage with the eventual appearance of hypersonic, ultra accurate missile systems. In fact, I'm of the belief warfare will become quite common by 2050, but will be far less catastrophic as military facilities can be exclusively targeted. I guess this theory only applies if you are talking about logical nation states.

[Weasel]

It seems there is always going to be various outsourced government projects studying weapons of mass destruction. It might be called "countering biological threats" or whatever. Just about every developed country does it in some form or another.


Is my opinion wrong, or are nuclear weapons going to become obsolete over the next few decades? There is simply no need to inflict massive damage with the eventual appearance of hypersonic, ultra accurate missile systems. In fact, I'm of the belief warfare will become quite common by 2050, but will be far less catastrophic as military facilities can be exclusively targeted. I guess this theory only applies if you are talking about logical nation states.

The answer is "I don't know". You think about... Deterrence... have a good look at it, walk around it, sniff it and all that and it is the same duck as fear.

Ok, so deterrence is based upon fear. Fear of what? Ceasing to exist? No. It is fear of being insecure. Of not being able to carry out your life as you hoped without having to constantly think about being snuffed out.

So, if the base kernel of MAD is the need for security, then it follows that you can create other things to generate that same insecure feeling in other states.

After 9-11 people 100s of miles away from New York city actually ducked or flinched if they heard a plane over head... for weeks! This has filtered down to where you are having behavorial problems with kids today, that were exposed to the event as 5 year olds.

So, what do you look at? An example would be the stealthy transport that could deliver SOF forces anywhere on the planet. That would create insecurity in smaller states harboring terrorists. And even though I am going to be pummeled for saying it, The USMC.

You can say they have no necks and all that, but their mission is changing to deterrence. Or rather deterrence could easily be added to their mission.

cheers

w

[Riđđu]

I think international relations researchers used lots of ink defining deterrence during the Cold War. Remember game theories and all that. Conclusion was that deterrence is a relational variable. We do not know for certain how leaders behave in particular scenarios. They might choose not to be deterred.

[Weasel]

I think international relations researchers used lots of ink defining deterrence during the Cold War. Remember game theories and all that. Conclusion was that deterrence is a relational variable. We do not know for certain how leaders behave in particular scenarios. They might choose not to be deterred.

only if one doesn't feel helpless. If you do not feel helpless, or fateful then there is no deterence. So it is difficult to deter stupid people (for example).

cheers

w

[Poor_Canada]

only if one doesn't feel helpless. If you do not feel helpless, or fateful then there is no deterence. So it is difficult to deter stupid people (for example).

cheers

w


The media tells us that leaders such as Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong are stupid and irrational, while political science teaches us that stupid people do not rise to rule nations.

I would argue that is quite easy to deter anybody, with the exception of fringe non state actors (terrorist organizations).

[Gubler, A.]

The media tells us that leaders such as Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong are stupid and irrational, while political science teaches us that stupid people do not rise to rule nations.

I would argue that is quite easy to deter anybody, with the exception of fringe non state actors (terrorist organizations).

Stupid is not the problem. Sensible is. There isn’t much in their history or actions to indicate that “Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong” are sensible. They are power hungry.

You can deter a power hungry person by threatening to take away what power they currently have. But you’re always running a chance that their lack of sensibility and desire for power is such that they are willing to risk their all of their current power for more. Which is why deterrence worked against the Stalinist and post Stalinist Soviet Union but not against the pre Stalin Soviets or the Nazis. In the later case they were willing to risk their then current power for more.

Now apply that question to “Saddam, Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong” and you find that each of them in turn has failed to NOT risk their current power for more. Arguably Saddam and the Kims learnt from their first (or third) attempts at expanding their power dominion that sticking with what you have is better than losing it all. But certainly the Iranians haven’t learnt that lesson. Current deterrence methods have not stopped them from exporting their brand of revolution to Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, Iraq and Yeman in an huge multi billions way.

[buglerbilly]

Nuclear Review Nears Completion

(Source: U.S Department of Defense; issued March 17, 2010)

WASHINGTON --- Several conclusions drawn from a nearly complete review of the nation’s nuclear posture already have been incorporated into the Defense Department’s fiscal 2011 budget request, a senior Pentagon official told Congress yesterday.

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review will be presented to Congress within a month, James N. Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on strategic forces.

“The Nuclear Posture Review will be a foundational document for this administration,” Miller said in a hearing on the status of U.S. strategic forces. It’s intended to be a practical work plan for the agenda laid out by President Barack Obama, he added.

The congressionally mandated review establishes U.S. nuclear policy, strategy, capabilities and force posture for the next five to 10 years. It’s conducted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff, with representation from the military services and combatant commands. It is written in collaboration with the Energy and State departments and in coordination with the National Security Council.

The process was done concurrently with the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Ballistic Missile Defense Review, both published last month. The Nuclear Posture Review originally was scheduled to be released this month, Miller said, but defense officials concluded that additional time was needed to address the range of issues under consideration in the report.

Obama has sought to minimize the role of nuclear weapons in defense policy, with the ultimate goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. The report will provide concrete steps outlining how the United States will carry out this process while still maintaining a secure and effective nuclear arsenal as long as other nuclear states remain, Miller said.

The nuclear review also was valuable for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty negotiations with Russia, he said, helping to refine several U.S. negotiating positions, particularly on the treaty’s limitations of nuclear warheads and delivery vehicles. The talks are ongoing in Switzerland and could prove historic, Miller told the panel.

“U.S. and Russian negotiators are now meeting in Geneva to complete an agreement that will reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear weapons to their lowest levels in decades,” he said in a prepared statement.

The fiscal 2011 defense budget submission already reflects several conclusions drawn from the review, Miller said. The United States will retain a “nuclear triad” under the new START, composed of land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bomber aircraft.

Budget submissions for added infrastructure investment, such as in nuclear facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory in California and Oak Ridge, Tenn., also were determined based on the review. The Defense Department also requested a 13-percent increase for the National Nuclear Security Administration, in part to support life-extension program research to maintain the usefulness of aging warheads.

Miller said it’s essential that the United States continues to invest in its nuclear arsenal and infrastructure while pursuing a nuclear-free world.

“Guaranteeing the safety, security and effectiveness of our stockpile, coupled with broader research and development efforts, will allow us to pursue nuclear reductions without compromising our security,” he said.

-ends-

[buglerbilly]

U.S., Russian negotiators 'at the finish line' on new START nuclear pact

By Mary Beth Sheridan

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, March 19, 2010

MOSCOW -- U.S. and Russian negotiators are "at the finish line" in negotiating a major agreement to cut the number of nuclear warheads each side has deployed against the other, with just one or two issues left to resolve, officials said Thursday.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Russian foreign minister said after talks here that they awaited word soon from negotiators in Geneva who have been working 18-hour days to wrap up the agreement.

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) is a top priority of President Obama, who initially had pledged to finish it by last year. Obama spoke by phone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last weekend to iron out remaining obstacles, giving new momentum to the talks, officials said.

But the optimism over the arms control talks contrasted with a fresh sign that Russia is not necessarily going to fall in line with U.S. priorities in other areas -- such as Iran's nuclear program.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced Thursday that Russia would fire up the reactor it is building at an Iranian nuclear power plant at midyear. Asked about the move, Clinton told reporters it was "premature," because "we want to send an unequivocal message to the Iranians" that they have to desist from developing a nuclear bomb.

"If it [Iran] reassures the world [about its program], or if its behavior has changed because of international sanctions," then the country can go ahead with nuclear power plants, she told a news conference. Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Russia agreed to build Iran's first nuclear power plant near Bushehr 15 years ago, but the construction schedule has constantly slipped. Many analysts think Russia is using the delays as leverage. Putin's announcement actually appeared to mark a further setback in the plant's completion date, which had been set for the spring. But the timing of the announcement was awkward for Clinton and appeared to be a jab at her efforts to put together a tough international line on Iran.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. government did not oppose the Russian nuclear project, which would be open to international inspectors and require Iran to return the spent fuel so it could not be turned into weapons material. The concern, Crowley said, was the "potential for a mixed message."

The Bushehr plant did not come up in Clinton's discussions with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Crowley said.

Clinton's two-day trip is built around a meeting of the Quartet of Middle East peace mediators -- the European Union and the United Nations, in addition to Russia and the United States. But she will discuss bilateral issues as well as Iran in her meetings with Lavrov and Medvedev. A Friday visit with Putin was added to her schedule at the last minute at the request of the prime minister, who had previously indicated he would be out of town, U.S. officials said.

The new START pact would replace a 1991 treaty that expired in December. Obama and Medvedev agreed last year that it would reduce deployed "strategic" or long-range warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675. It also will trim the number of bombers and missiles that launch the nuclear weapons.

"We have every reason to believe we are now at the finish line," Lavrov told a news conference Thursday.

Crowley said the negotiations on START were "down to one or two items" still to be resolved. "We're very, very close," he said.

He declined to identify the final obstacles, but officials familiar with the talks said one of them involved the data that the Russians send their U.S. counterparts from their long-range missile tests.

The Russians have balked at continuing to send such data. But U.S. negotiators believe they can't give much ground on such verification procedures, since the Senate has indicated that it won't approve a treaty without them.

[Weasel]

Who was that famous dude who said "mission accomplished" ?

cheers

w

[Riđđu]

Who was that famous dude who said "mission accomplished" ?



I don´t know about the famous dude, but the infamous one was G.W. Bush.

[ARH v.3.0]

Obama and Medvedev agreed last year that it would reduce deployed "strategic" or long-range warheads from the current ceiling of 2,200 to somewhere between 1,500 and 1,675.

I take it there is nothing stopping anyone from maintaining a non-deployed strategic arsenal in reserve?

[Weasel]

I don´t know about the famous dude, but the infamous one was G.W. Bush.

That is a bit harsh. Name one thing that would make G.W. Bush infamous.. apart from the carrier thing... and no child left behind.

cheers

w

[Weasel]

I take it there is nothing stopping anyone from maintaining a non-deployed strategic arsenal in reserve?
I read the "release" that way.

cheers

w

[buglerbilly]

U.S., Russia To Sign Nuke Treaty In April: Report

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 20 Mar 2010 11:04

MOSCOW - Russia and the United States will sign a new nuclear disarmament treaty in early April in the Czech capital Prague, Russian daily newspaper Kommersant reported March 20, citing a diplomatic source.

"The new nuclear disarmament treaty is ready," said the source, who took part March 19 in talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"The negotiators in Geneva are just matching up the formulations, given the nuances of Russian and English," the source added.

Russian and U.S. negotiators have been in intense talks to agree a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expired in December, but have so far failed to reach a final accord.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed in July the new treaty should slash the number of warheads on either side to between 1,500 and 1,675.

Russian media reports have already said the leaders would like to sign the final agreement in an Eastern European capital before the United States hosts a nuclear security summit April 12-13.

Kommersant's source was sure that this would happen - and that the treaty would be signed in Prague, as the U.S. side had rejected Kiev as a venue.

The new treaty also acknowledged a link with the planned U.S. missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe, the source told Kommersant.

The New York Times reported last week that talks had hit a hitch over the issue. It said Obama was frustrated that Medvedev was linking the disarmament treaty with the dispute over the missile defense system.

Clinton said March 19 that Russia and the United States were "on the brink" of signing a new nuclear disarmament treaty after resolving all outstanding issues.

Lavrov concurred, saying: "We believe that in the nearest time we can count on the finishing of negotiations on a new agreement."

The United States currently has some 2,200 nuclear warheads, while Russia is believed to have about 3,000.

[buglerbilly]

News Alert: Obama, Medvedev reach agreement on nuclear arms treaty

10:21 AM EDT Friday, March 26, 2010
--------------------

President Obama and Russia President Dmitry Medvedev sealed a new nuclear arms reduction treaty during a phone call this morning, committing the two nations to a significant new reduction of the strategic missiles each side has deployed, U.S. officials announced today.

[buglerbilly]

White House: Arms Treaty Doesn't Restrict Missile Defense

By william matthews

Published: 26 Mar 2010 13:54

It took "a year of intense negotiations" with Russia to work out a new nuclear weapon reduction treaty, U.S. President Barack Obama said March 26.


President Obama, joined by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, left, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, right, discusses the new arms agreement with Russia. (JEWEL SAMAD / AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE)

Even tougher negotiations might be required to push the treaty through the U.S. Senate.

At least two senior Republicans - Sens. Jon Kyl, Ariz., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell - have warned Obama that he must develop a plan for modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal before they will support a nuclear weapon drawdown treaty.

The pair have also warned that any restrictions on U.S. plans to build missile defenses in Europe would doom ratification.

Obama needs at least 67 votes in the Senate for ratification. That means eight Republicans and all Democrats would have to vote for it. But lately, Republicans have been voting unanimously against major legislation that Obama favors.

Putting a positive spin on the situation, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she expects the treaty to be ratified with "broad bipartisan support" in the Senate.

The United States and Russia have agreed to reduce their deployed nuclear weapons by about a third. The cuts are spelled out in a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that would reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons for each country to 1,550. The United States now has about 2,200 deployed weapons; Russia has about 2,600, said John Isaacs, director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

Obama announced the arms agreement shortly after ending what he called "a productive phone call with [Russian] President [Dimitri] Medvedev." Obama called the pact "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades."

The White House made a point of stating that the treaty "does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs" or of conventional long-range strike capabilities.

Medvedev and Obama are expected to meet in Prague on April 8 to sign the treaty. It must then be ratified by the Senate and the Russian parliament.

The "deployed weapons" the treaty controls include warheads on deployed intercontinental missiles and on long-range submarine-launched missiles. Each deployed bomber equipped to carry nuclear weapons is to count as one warhead.

The treaty does not reduce tactical nuclear weapons or warheads held in reserve, Isaacs said. Counting those, the United States nuclear arsenal includes about 9,000 weapons, he said.

Each country would be limited to possessing 800 bombers and nuclear missile launchers - land and submarine based. Of those, only 700 could be deployed.

Those limits cut the number of allowed "delivery vehicles" by more than half, according to information provided by the White House.

The treaty includes provisions for each country to perform on-site inspections and data exchanges and to use spy satellites to monitor treaty compliance. In addition, the two countries would exchange telemetry, which includes information on missile performance, warhead size and other data.

Concern about whether the treaty can win Senate ratification prompted Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to issue an appeal for Republican support.

"I know there has been a partisan breakdown in recent years, but we can renew the Senate's bipartisan tradition on arms control and approve ratification of this new treaty in 2010. I know that can happen," Kerry said.

Isaacs said previous arms control treaties have passed with 90 to 95 votes, but orchestrated resistance by Republicans could block this one.

[Riđđu]

Mr. Obama speaks for the New York Times...

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

April 5, 2010
By DAVID E. SANGER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/david_e_sanger/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and PETER BAKER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/peter_baker/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

WASHINGTON — President Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/atomic_weapons/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier).
But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/i/international_atomic_energy_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org). “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy (http://www.nytimes.com/info/nuclear-energy?inline=nyt-classifier) for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per). And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org), and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/george_w_bush/index.html?inline=nyt-per) published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.
But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.
There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”


He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations.

“We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) as a whole,” he said.

An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment.

The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.

“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”

[Riđđu]

Nuke Review Takes Comprehensive Look at Strategy
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

See report online: http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

WASHINGTON, April 6, 2010 – The Nuclear Posture Review, released today, is the first overarching look at U.S. nuclear strategy since the end of the Cold War, a senior defense official briefing reporters on background said yesterday.

The review builds on President Barack Obama’s promise to take concrete steps toward the goal of achieving the safety and security of a world free of nuclear weapons, the official said. 

A second element, the official added, was to maintain a nuclear deterrent as long as those weapons remain, and ensuring the safety, security and effectiveness of that deterrent while they remain. 

The Nuclear Posture Review provides the basis behind many moves in the nuclear arena in the coming months, the official said. Obama will travel to Prague to sign the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia on April 8.

The treaty mandates further reductions to the U.S. and Russian arsenals, and officials looked to the Nuclear Posture Review guidance as they negotiated the treaty. 

The review also will influence U.S. thinking in the nonproliferation treaty, the nuclear security summit and the nonproliferation review conference. 

The review is a “concrete, pragmatic work plan for moving forward this agenda,” the official said. 

Congress mandated the review, and it is the third since the end of the Cold War. The Clinton administration conducted the first review in 1994, and the Bush administration the second in 2001.

The scope of the review is broader than in the past, officials said. 

That scope includes the roles of missile defense, conventional strike, force levels, the weapons complex and the role of arms control in shaping U.S. nuclear posture, the senior official said. 

Specifically, Congress asked officials to look at seven elements pertaining to the role of nuclear forces in U.S. military strategy, planning and programming. They looked at how the United States would maintain a safe, reliable and credible nuclear deterrence posture, as well as the relationship among U.S. nuclear deterrence policy, targeting strategy and arms control objectives. 

Officials also examined the role missile defense and conventional strike capabilities play in determining roles and sizes of nuclear forces.

They looked at the levels and composition of nuclear delivery systems and what the nuclear complex required. Finally, officials studied the nuclear stockpile required to implement U.S. strategy. 

Senior officials said the current review is Defense Department-led, but has strong interagency participation. Officials worked with international partners, the State Department, the Energy Department and various U.S. government agencies. 

The review had intense scrutiny at the highest level of the government. 

“It’s shorthand in the nuclear business that nuclear weapons are the president’s weapons,” the official said. Obama has been directly engaged in the process in a deliberative and thoughtful way, he added. 



The key objectives of U.S. nuclear policy are to prevent nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism, the official said, and the government also wants to reduce the role and numbers of nuclear weapons. An objective, the official added, is to maintain effective deterrence with fewer weapons. 

Another objective, he said, is to strengthen regional deterrence and reassurance of U.S. allies and partners. The United States provides a nuclear umbrella for NATO allies, Japan and South Korea, for example, and the review looks at changes in those relationships.

[buglerbilly]

Ares

A Defense Technology Blog

Nuclear Posture Review a New World Order?

Posted by Michael Bruno at 4/6/2010 10:49 AM CDT

The Pentagon's new Nuclear Posture Review may be one small step for U.S. strategic posture, but it is one giant leap for any Cold War hawks.

“These investments, and the NPR’s strategy for warhead life extension, represent a credible modernization plan necessary to sustain the nuclear infrastructure and support our nation’s deterrent,” writes Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his introduction to the NPR. The 2010 NPR outlines President Barack Obama’s agenda for “reducing nuclear dangers and pursuing the goal of a world without nuclear weapons.”

True, President Ronald Reagan had a similar dream, and he took bold strides with the Soviets to move in that direction with earlier Start-related efforts. But President Barack Obama's NPR comes after the Cold war and while the country, and the whole world, face a new landscape of challenges - some of them similar to the arms race against the Soviet Union, but others disturbingly unknown, like weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-state actors who can reach out and touch your local Main Street.

Obama wants to dramatically throttle back on the inherent danger that a world with nuclear weapons presents; this much is already well known since his campaign for the White House. But the goal of scaling back does not mean curtailing investments. The U.S.’s current arsenal must remain “safe, secure and effective,” according to the NPR. To that end, the administration will increase funding to $2.7 billion, a 25 percent increase, in the 2011 budget for DOE non-proliferation programs.

And the NPR lists numerous near-term plans, some of which are already in progress, including seeking the ratification and implementation of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which would substantially reduce deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and the elimination from U.S. stores of the Tomahawk, a nuclear-equipped, sea-launched cruise missile.

Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen will conduct a press briefing at noon EDT in the Pentagon, and it will be broadcast by C-Span and the Pentagon Channel. Immediately following, there will be a press briefing by Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Jim Miller, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher and National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Thomas D'Agostino to discuss further detail.

[buglerbilly]

Bombs Away on Administration’s Nuclear Review

By Nathan Hodge April 6, 2010 | 10:09 am



One year after President Barack Obama announced his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons, the administration is set to unveil the Nuclear Posture Review today. And that means we’ll finally be able to issue a report card on the president’s arms-control agenda.

For starters, there’s the New START treaty, which is due to be signed this week in Prague. The pact commits Russia and the United States to cuts in the number of deployed warheads. The 2002 Moscow treaty obliged the two countries to reduce their arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads; the new treaty puts the ceiling at 1,550 warheads. It also places limits on delivery vehicles: The treaty imposes a combined limit of 800 deployed and nondeployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear missions, plus a separate limit on the number of deployed systems.

But there’s some wiggle room, depending on how you do the counting: Each warhead on a deployed intercontinental ballistic missile or submarine-launched ballistic missile will count toward the total; but each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear missions, like the B-52 pictured here, will count as one warhead toward this limit.

When fully loaded, a single nuclear-armed bomber can carry a healthy assortment of nukes. As Peter Baker notes at The New York Times, that theoretically gives both sides flexibility to deploy as many or more warheads as permitted by the Moscow treaty.

So are the cuts real, or an accounting trick, as some arms-control wonks argue? Danger Room pal Jeffrey Lewis says it’s time to chillax on the bomber counting. The new limits, he argues, will force the Russians and the Americans to stick to a more stable nuclear-force structure. “Yes, the bomber rules are silly,” he writes. “Bomber rules always are. But as a whole, the limits are serious and meaningful.”

And there may be serious implications for the nuclear weapons complex, the network of design laboratories and manufacturing facilities involved in maintaining the arsenal. The Nuclear Posture Review, will be closely watched at places like Los Alamos National Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as well as at facilities like the Y-12 National Security Complex. Broad changes to the arsenal may have a very real impact on the work and mission of these institutions.

We’ll also scrutinize the report for language about how the administration plans to maintain the arsenal without a return to testing. Excerpts published today in The New York Times suggest that the review will underscore the administration’s intent not develop new nuclear warheads. “Life Extension Programs will use only nuclear components based on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities,” one excerpt states.

Update: The full Nuclear Posture Review is now online.

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.pdf

Photo: U.S. Air Force

[buglerbilly]

Danger Room What’s Next in National Security Nuke Review: Deploying, De-MIRVing, and De-Targeting

By Nathan Hodge April 6, 2010 | 11:51 am



At noon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Adm. Mike Mullen will hold a press briefing on the new Nuclear Posture Review. The document, however, is now online, and it’s worth highlighting some of the key passages ahead of the briefing.

Much of the conversation about arms control has fixated on counting warheads: As part of the New START treaty, the United States and Russia are committing to new limits on deployed warheads and delivery systems. But the technical details are also important: All U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) will be “de-MIRVed” (i.e., limited to a single warhead each instead of carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles).

The current alert posture of U.S. strategic forces – referred to in Cold War shorthand as “hair-trigger” alert — will be maintained. That means Air Force missile crews will stay on alert, and a significant number of nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines will remain at sea, although nuclear-armed bombers will be off full-time alert. The practice of “open-ocean targeting” for ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles will continue: In the event of an unauthorized or accidental launch, the missiles will be programmed to land in the ocean (or in the case of the ICBMs, drop somewhere in the Arctic Sea).

European allies should also give the document a close read. The United States keeps some forward-deployed “non-strategic” nuclear weapons stationed in NATO countries. The nuclear review says a “small number” of those nuclear weapons will remain. The document also calls for “retain[ing] the capability to forward-deploy U.S. nuclear weapons on tactical fighter-bombers and heavy bombers, and proceed with full scope life extension for the B-61 bomb including enhancing safety, security, and use control.”

Among other things, the administration will press for ratification the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 but never ratified by the Senate. The document also calls for investment in new facilities to support the requirements of the stockpile stewardship: Maintenance of the nuclear arsenal without testing. And it foresees more funding for chemistry and metallurgy research facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory to replace the existing 50-year old facility, as well as a a new Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 Plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

[PHOTO: U.S. Department of Defense]

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/04/the-nuclear-posture-review-deploying-de-mirving-and-de-targeting/#more-23568#ixzz0kModWgNa

[buglerbilly]

Flexible Credibility (1 of 4)

Tuesday, April 6, 2010 at 4:06PM

Some uses for which the United States has historically reserved the right to use nuclear weapons may not be a credible threat to some potential adversaries. Additionally, the U. S. may be backing into a strategic corner if the only stated response to certain situations is nuclear. Conventional alternatives to nuclear weapons may create a more flexible and credible response to a broader range of strategic problems.

The United States historically has reserved the right to use nuclear weapons for the following principal reasons:

1.Deter use of nuclear weapons against the United States (e.g. USSR or PRC vs. US/NATO)
2.Deter general conventional war between major powers (e.g., USSR vs. NATO)
3.Defend against overwhelming conventional enemy force (e.g., USSR vs. NATO)
4.Retaliate for use of biological and chemical weapons
5.Recently, some cases have been identified as new reasons for requiring nuclear weapons. These specialized targets include:
6.Hardened deep underground bunkers (HDUB)
7.Satellites (sensors, and weapons)
8.C4ISR systems
9.Nuclear, Biological, and chemical development sites

The use of nuclear weapons is justified for the above targets based principally on the tremendous power they possess and the ability to quickly inflict exceptional damage over large areas. In the case of specialized targets, nuclear weapons are justified because of their unique ability to overcome various difficulties.

If, in the calculus of American national security, the above targets remain valid, and if it is true that nuclear weapons offer the only valid response to neutralizing those targets, then current strategy is also valid. If, however, some targets are not threats to national security, or if non-nuclear answers are available and perhaps even more useful, a change to strategy is warranted to make it more credible and offer greater flexibility of response.

Part 2: http://civmilblog.com/journal/2010/4/6/flexible-credibility-ndash-historical-perspective.html

Part 3: http://civmilblog.com/journal/2010/4/6/flexible-credibility-ndash-analysis-and-conventional-alterna.html

Part 4: http://civmilblog.com/journal/2010/4/6/flexible-credibility-ndash-summary-and-conclusions.html

[buglerbilly]

ANALYSIS

New nuclear arms policy shows limits U.S. faces

By Mary Beth Sheridan

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, April 7, 2010

In a landmark speech in Prague last year, President Obama pledged to "put an end to Cold War thinking" and move toward a world without nuclear weapons. This week, that soaring vision came down to Earth, with the issuance of a new policy reflecting the limits the president faces.

Obama's nuclear policy breaks with the past by narrowing the circumstances under which the U.S. government says it will use the devastating weapons. But on one point after another, the changes are gradual rather than transformational.

Although a senior White House official had predicted, for example, that the policy would "point to dramatic reductions in the stockpile," the document released Tuesday mentions only the modest cuts included in a new treaty the president is scheduled to sign with Russia on Thursday. Officials said that further shrinkage of the nuclear arsenal will come through a second round of negotiations with Russia that are expected to be drawn-out and difficult.

The new document is less ambiguous about the purposes of nuclear weapons than in the past, saying their "fundamental role" is to deter a nuclear attack. But it shies away from declaring that their "sole purpose" is deterrence, as some Democratic lawmakers and arms-control activists had wanted. That leaves open the possibility that the weapons can be used in some other scenarios, such as in response to a conventional attack.

Further, while Obama in his presidential campaign had called for taking U.S. nuclear weapons off "hair-trigger alert," the military balked. The document instead adopts compromise measures aimed at giving leaders more time to decide whether to launch nuclear weapons in a crisis.

Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists, noted that the new policy highlights the eventual goal of a world without nuclear weapons. However, he said, "the document is surprisingly cautious in terms of the measures that will move us there, because it essentially retains current U.S. nuclear policy."

Analysts said Obama's policy reflects the hard reality of advancing an agenda that has not attracted enthusiastic support among the American public or lawmakers and has raised some opposition in the U.S. military. Obama needs support for his nuclear policies in Congress, starting with ratification of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia.

The new document "is clearly thought through and written in a way to be the best posture review that President Obama could do that would attract 67 votes to ratify the new START treaty," said George Perkovich, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The policy document, known as the Nuclear Posture Review and mandated by Congress, drives nuclear investments and war-planning for five to 10 years.

It does break with some policies of George W. Bush's administration, most notably in putting unprecedented emphasis on the nuclear threat from terrorists and rogue states, as opposed to nuclear powers such as Russia and China.

"There's more realization that our nuclear competitors that are states already are basically deterred," Perkovich said. The emphasis on post-Cold War threats will change priorities at the Pentagon and in budgeting for nonproliferation activities, he said.

Peter D. Feaver, a former defense and strategy official in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, wrote on ForeignPolicy.com that the new document is not "the bold leap that wins plaudits in academic seminar rooms, activist think-tanks and Norwegian parliaments."

Rather, he wrote, it reflects the kind of pragmatism Obama has shown in foreign policy decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan: "Critics may complain that this results in a lack of strategic clarity . . . but perhaps it will come to be seen as a politically deft balance of competing desiderata."

In fashioning a new nuclear policy, Obama faced not only domestic political constraints but international ones as well. Some countries expressed nervousness about any changes that would appear to weaken the U.S. nuclear "umbrella" protecting them, officials said.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said officials had wrestled in interagency meetings with how much they could change U.S. policy and had even considered a U.S. commitment not to use nuclear arms first in a conflict.

However, he said at a news conference: "We didn't think we were far enough along the road of getting control of nuclear weapons around the world to limit ourselves so explicitly. . . . We recognize we need to make progress moving in the direction the president has set. But we also recognize the real world we continue to live in."

In the end, the policy settled for saying that the "fundamental role" of the U.S. arsenal is deterrence. It also clears up the ambiguity about whether the United States would use its arsenal to attack a nonnuclear country. Unlike the Clinton and Bush administrations, the Obama team says it would not authorize a nuclear strike against a nonnuclear country in retaliation for a chemical or biological attack.

But it attaches important caveats: The nonnuclear country must be in compliance with its nonproliferation obligations under international treaties, which leaves Iran on the list of potential targets. And the U.S. government reserves the right to change its mind if biological weapons become more powerful.

Officials said nuclear arms reductions continue to be driven by the need to maintain "approximate parity" with Russia, the other nuclear giant. It might lead to "misperceptions, misunderstandings" if one side sharply reduced its arsenal, said James Miller, a senior Defense Department official.

[buglerbilly]

The deal has just been signed by the way.............

Critics uneasy about Russian concessions in arms-control deal

By Philip P. Pan

Washington Post Foreign Service

Thursday, April 8, 2010

MOSCOW -- As President Obama prepares to sign a landmark arms-control treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a chorus of skeptics here is quietly expressing concerns that Moscow has conceded too much in the deal.

The concerns, fueled by lingering suspicions and anxieties about the vast superiority of U.S. conventional forces, will do little to impede the signing of the treaty in Prague on Thursday. But they will render difficult further progress toward Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

In a sign of the Kremlin's own unease about how the treaty will be received in Russia, neither Medvedev nor Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has uttered a word about it in public, even as Obama called a news conference to celebrate the conclusion of the talks and followed up this week by unveiling the findings of his administration's review of U.S. nuclear weapons policy.

Criticism of the new treaty has focused on its failure to set any limits on U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield in Europe -- long a point of friction with Russia -- as well as a change in rules that will make it easier for the Pentagon to keep nuclear warheads in storage and quickly rebuild the U.S. arsenal if necessary. Others have delivered an even broader critique, questioning whether the entire post-Cold War enterprise of nuclear disarmament, including the now-expired 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, has served Russia's interests.

"The departing point or assumption of the critics is that the previous treaty was detrimental to Russian security, and the new treaty, which contains more concessions of Russia to the United States, will be still more detrimental," said Alexei Arbatov, an arms-control scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center and former member of the Russian parliament.

Limit on warheads

The treaty calls for both nations to cut their deployed arsenals to 1,550 nuclear warheads and 700 missile silos and bombers each, with an additional 100 such launchers permitted to be in repair or other noncombat status.

On the ground, experts say, the treaty will ultimately require a U.S. reduction of about 100 launchers, the equivalent of two squadrons of Minuteman III missiles. Russia deploys fewer launchers than the ceiling set by the treaty.

The limit on warheads should result in cuts by both nations. How deep the reductions will be is unclear, though, because of a new provision that counts bombers as carrying one warhead each regardless of how many are stored on their bases or they are capable of carrying.

The overall deal may seem like a generous one for Russia, and given the Kremlin's tight grip on the political system, ratification of the treaty will no doubt prove easier in the Russian Duma than in the U.S. Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain. But Russian analysts note two substantial concessions by the Kremlin.

Unlike the original START, they say, the new treaty won't count the maximum number of warheads each missile can carry, thus allowing Washington to make cuts by removing and storing warheads while keeping missiles in their silos. That means the United States could quickly rebuild its forces and dwarf the Russian arsenal, which relies on missiles that have less room for extra warheads.

"The good news is that your stockpile will be reduced, but the bad news is that you will have more warheads that could be redeployed in six to 12 months," said Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies.

A more obvious retreat by Moscow relates to missile defense, which Putin publicly insisted as recently as December be included in the treaty. Although the Kremlin applauded Obama's decision to scrap President George W. Bush's version of the system, Russian officials have since voiced concerns about the regional shield Obama proposed instead, noting U.S. assertions that it would eventually use interceptors fast enough to strike a Russian intercontinental missile.

Sergei Brezkun, a professor at the Russian Academy of Military Sciences, said missile defense and a reduced Russian nuclear arsenal would embolden the United States to take dangerous risks. "When a person gets an advantage, he can go too far," Brezkun said. "Unfortunately, further cuts would not only leave Russia more vulnerable, but strategic stability in the world will be more vulnerable."

Talks on tactical weapons

The Obama administration has said that it wants the next stage of negotiations to include tactical nuclear weapons, of which the United States has about 500 in its active arsenal and Russia about 2,000.

But Russian officials say that such talks must be linked to NATO's superior conventional forces, as well as missile defense, and that the United States must first withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe, where some allies want them to remain as a symbol of U.S. commitment to defending the continent.

Pavel Podvig, an arms-control researcher at Stanford University, said a new round of talks trying to balance U.S. forces against Russian ones would only open "a can of worms." If the new treaty fosters enough trust, though, the two nations might agree that tactical nuclear weapons have no military value and treat them as a safety issue, he said. "You have to approach it as securing something that is dangerous and useless," Podvig said.

Experts say further nuclear cuts would certainly face resistance from the Russian military. But Alexander Golts, an author and military analyst, said there is a growing consensus within the leadership that Russia's vast arsenal far exceeds its needs and is draining funds needed for conventional arms that might actually be used in a war.

"Military people who are professional know that, with or without this treaty, Russia has to reduce its arsenal," he said. "All these conservatives talking about the treaty not being good for Russia, it's just militaristic rhetoric. It has nothing to do with reality."

[buglerbilly]

Barack Obama signs nuclear treaty with Russia• US and Russian presidents meet in Prague

• Arms treaty will slash two countries' nuclear arsenals by a third

Mark Tran guardian.co.uk, Thursday 8 April 2010 10.17 BST


US president Barack Obama arrives at Prague Castle to sign the treaty. Photograph: Filip Singer/EPA

The US president, Barack Obama, and Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian leader, today signed an arms treaty that will slash their respective nuclear arsenals by a third.

The two men shook hands to applause after signing what Obama called a historic agreement in the opulent setting of Prague castle in the Czech Republic. Obama said the new agreement made the US and the world more secure and helped stopped the drift in US-Russia relations.

"Together we've stopped that drift," Obama said, adding that the agreement was a "milestone for US-Russia relations".

He acknowledged, however, that the new agreement was "just one step on a longer journey" and said it has set the stage for further cuts. There was also a stern message for Iran as Obama said the world would not tolerate actions from countries that flouted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and threatened collective security. Medvedev echoed Obama's concerns, saying that the world could not turn a blind eye to Iran, which he said had not responded to "many constructive proposals". He hinted that Russia would be open to further sanctions against Tehran.

The new treaty will cut American and Russian strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 over seven years, about a third less than the 2,200 currently allowed.

Obama returned to Prague one year after he outlined his vision before an enthusiastic crowd for a world without nuclear weapons. The speech helped him win the Nobel peace prize, but Obama has acknowledged that eliminating nuclear weapons is unlikely to be achieved during his lifetime.

The agreement to reduce nuclear warheads by a third succeeds the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty (Start), which expired in December. It will have to be ratified by the US Senate – where conservative Republicans can be expected to give it a rough ride – and the Russian parliament.

In addition to the warhead limit, the US and Russia must cut their total land, sea and air-based launchers to 800 each, and no more than 700 actually deployed within seven years. While that will leave plenty of nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, it marks a big drop from the total of 19,000 strategic warheads both sides deployed during the cold war.

Obama wants to move for even deeper cuts but faces Russian reluctance because of American plans to build a missile defence system in Europe to counter a possible Iranian threat. Russia argues that antiballistic missile systems could neutralise its smaller arsenal.

Even as Obama pushes for deep cuts in nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is developing a weapon to plug the gap left by nuclear warheads: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. US military officials say the intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as prompt global strike weapons, are a necessary new form of deterrence against terrorist networks.

Obama will have to balance his desire for deep cuts against the more immediate goal of keeping Russia on side to ratchet up the pressure on Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons programme. The US is seeking another round of sanctions against Tehran and Obama is also courting support from China, which recently signalled its willingness to adopt a tougher line towards Iran.

Obama's trip to Prague is part of an intensive round of nuclear diplomacy. On Tuesday, the US released the results of a comprehensive nuclear strategy review in which the US committed itself for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations – a caveat that excludes North Korea and Iran.

Next week, Obama welcomes to Washington the leaders of 46 countries, including the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

[ARH v.3.0]

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_lauds_nuclear_pact_but_reserves_right_to_wi thdraw_999.html

The US-Russia nuclear arms treaty to be signed this week enhances trust between the Cold War foes but Moscow may quit the pact if US missile defence plans go too far, a top Russian official said Tuesday.

The nuclear arms treaty to be signed by US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday "reflects a new level of trust between Moscow and Washington," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said.

Speaking to journalists in Moscow, Lavrov said the new disarmament treaty, which succeeds the 1991 US-Soviet START agreement, corresponds perfectly to the national interests of both the United States and Russia.

The previous pact was "born from the Cold War", he said. It contained much that was to the United States' advantage and "discriminatory" toward Russia -- an imbalance which will be wholly corrected in the new treaty, Lavrov said.

Lavrov stressed that the agreement to be signed this week in Prague explicitly acknowledges a direct link between offensive nuclear weapons and missile defence systems.

But he also admitted that the pact placed no restrictions on either side developing and deploying new missile defences, warning that US moves to do so could provide grounds for Russia to quit the treaty unilaterally.

"Russia will have the right to abandon the START treaty if a quantitative and qualitative buildup of the US strategic anti-missile potential begins to significantly affect the efficiency of Russia's strategic forces," Lavrov said.

He spoke to reporters amid US media reports that Obama plans on Tuesday to unveil a radical overhaul of the US nuclear arms strategy, placing explicit new limits on the use of such weapons.

In an interview with The New York Times, a senior US administration official said the new strategy would stress non-nuclear deterrence but would also make exceptions for "outliers like Iran and North Korea."

US commentators have described the new US-Russia START pact as a key step toward an eventual total elimination of nuclear arms, a generations-old disarmament goal that has been revived by the Obama administration.

Asked to comment on how Russia felt about a nuclear-free world, Lavrov was circumspect.

"To talk seriously about practical steps towards a world without nuclear weapons, attention should be drawn to a whole range of factors that could potentially upset global strategic stability," he said.

Chief among those, according to Lavrov, is the deployment of weapons in space, an area that previous US administrations have acknowledged work in and that Lavrov said Russia and China wanted to make off-limits.

Regulation of conventional weapons deployed by air, land and sea with huge destructive power, should also come under greater scrutiny, he said.

Lavrov added that US missile defence systems at their current stage of development do not threaten Russia.

"The first phase has to do with a regional system, which does not harm strategic stability and does not pose a risk to Russia's strategic nuclear forces," Lavrov said.

Plans under the previous US administration of George W. Bush to site US anti-missile batteries in Poland and a radar in the Czech republic were strongly opposed by Moscow.

The new US-Russia treaty limits each side to a ceiling of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads, a reduction of around 30 percent by comparison with the 1991 START treaty.

Critics however say counting gimmicks and the current state of the US and Russian nuclear stockpiles make the new pact more a symbolic document than a real nuclear weapons-reduction tool.