US + Russia Sign Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

[Sionnach Glic]

Washington (CNN) -- The United States and Russia have reached "the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades," President Obama said Friday.

The agreement cuts by about one-third "the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy," the president said.

The new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) will last 10 years, and builds on the previous agreement that expired in December.

"It significantly reduces missiles and launchers," Obama told reporters at the White House. "It puts in place a strong and effective verification regime. And it maintains the flexibility that we need to protect and advance our national security, and to guarantee our unwavering commitment to the security of our allies."

Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will sign the agreement April 8 in Prague, Czech Republic, Obama said, calling arms control "one of his administration's top national security priorities."

Information released by the White House says the new treaty limits both nations to "significantly fewer strategic arms within seven years" of its signing. One of the limits: 1,550 warheads. "Warheads on deployed ICBMs (Intercontinental ballistic missiles) and deployed SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit," the White House said. There are also limits on launchers.

The treaty lays out a "verification regime" that includes on-site inspections, data exchanges and notifications, the White House said.

"The Treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned U.S. missile defense programs or current or planned United States long-range conventional strike capabilities," the White House said.

Obama said the agreement is part of the U.S. effort to "reset" the U.S. relationship with Russia.

"With this agreement, the United States and Russia -- the two largest nuclear powers in the world -- also send a clear signal that we intend to lead," the president said. "By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities."

President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the changes will not hamper the U.S. ability to protect itself and its allies.

Negotiators have been working since April 2009 to wrap up the "follow-on" to the 1991 agreement. Talks were difficult, with disagreements over verification, including on-site inspection of missiles that carry nuclear warheads.

A U.S. official with knowledge of the talks earlier told CNN that negotiators had found "innovative" ways to verify what each side has. Verification will be a top issue politically because the U.S. Senate and the Russian parliament will each have to ratify any agreement.

Russian officials at one point objected to the Obama administration's plans to build a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe. Specifically, they were angered by news leaks from Romania that it had agreed to allow missile interceptors to be installed in that country.

The issue, according to arms control experts, was resolved by including non-binding language in the START treaty's preamble stating that there is a relationship between offensive and defensive weapons; however, the treaty itself deals only with limits on offensive weapons systems. This resolution could help placate U.S. critics who want no link in the treaty between offensive and defensive weapons, arguing that it might be used to try to limit a U.S. missile-defense plan.

The new START would be the first treaty related to arms control since the end of the Cold War, experts have said, setting the stage for further arms reductions that will tackle thorny issues like what to do with non-deployed warheads that are kept in storage, tactical nuclear weapons and further cuts in missiles and launch vehicles.

Good to hear.

[Monroe]

Now 67 Senators have to ratify it...

[Deepcrush]

Hey, what could go wrong between the USA and Russia? We've been friends for so long.

[sunnyside]

I'd think this should be something both parties could get behind.

Less nukes makes Dems happy. Less Russian nukes going up against more American intercepters should give Republicans a warm fuzzy.

[Monroe]

I'd think this should be something both parties could get behind.

Less nukes makes Dems happy. Less Russian nukes going up against more American intercepters should give Republicans a warm fuzzy.

That was what Hillary was saying. Like in '03 the vote was 95-0 in favor of renewing START. However, I wouldn't it pass Republicans to hope for a nuclear holocaust.

[Aaron]

I would actually favour an increase in warheads, if it came with a corresponding reduction in US/Russian conventional forces. Basically making them both an actual defencive force.

[Deepcrush]

The US is cutting back on is armed forces... Though I doubt the Russians have any plans to do the same.

[sunnyside]

The US is cutting back on is armed forces... Though I doubt the Russians have any plans to do the same.

They'd cut back massively on their armed forces. Not that they'd wanted to, but their nation sort of collapsed. Since Putin got in they've been kicking it up a notch, but I really doubt they'd be willing to gear down again until they have something closer to parity with the US. And I don't think even Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama would significantly reduce US conventional forces during a war where we're using them.

[Deepcrush]

[Monroe]

Russia's little escalation of conventional forces hit a snag though with the great recession. Back when oil prices were sky high they were doing great, but now that the economy turned down they can't upgrade. At least that's my understanding.

[BigJKU316]

Russia's little escalation of conventional forces hit a snag though with the great recession. Back when oil prices were sky high they were doing great, but now that the economy turned down they can't upgrade. At least that's my understanding.

They cannot keep their nuclear force maintained. They were headed towards this number anyway so this is a concession by the US really.

I would echo the sentiment that would like to see the US re-evaluate its force structure, even without involving the Russians.

Get out of Europe and Korea, downsize the Army ASAP. Base the Airforce around long range precision strike, beef up the Navy and maintain a strong nuclear deterrent. That meets the US strategic needs better than what we have now. If we need an army we have oceans to buy us time to build one up.

[Tyyr]

And in other news the United States and Russia now only possess enough nuclear weapons to blow each other to unholy hell three times over instead of four.

[Deepcrush]

[BigJKU316]

And in other news the United States and Russia now only possess enough nuclear weapons to blow each other to unholy hell three times over instead of four.

Not really, especially if you are going after hardened targets. Believe it or not they did not build all those weapons with no real plan for them. Increased accuracy allowed the US to cuts its arsenal in the 70's and 80's but you need a fair number to hit all the high priority targets and some of them can take a surprising amount of warheads targeted to achieve a high probability of kill.

[Tyyr]

The sonic boom you just heard was the point doing a low level fly by.