Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush, Putin to sign disarmament treaty in late May
yahooo ^ | Tuesday May 14

Posted on 05/13/2002 2:49:52 PM PDT by jonatron

Former superpower rivals Russia and the United States announced that, during a late-May summit, they will sign a treaty that will slash their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds over the next 10 years.

"This treaty will liquidate the legacy of the Cold War," US President George W. Bush said here on announcing that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin will sign the formal accord during Bush's May 23-26 visit to Russia.

In Moscow, Putin said the two sides had erased stubborn differences during high-level talks in the Russian capital, paving the way for a deal to reduce their stockpiles from roughly 6,000 warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200.

And the Kremlin boss paid tribute to Bush for his key role in breaking a logjam in the negotiations that had threatened to scupper plans for the two leaders to ink the agreement at the summit.

"Without the active will of the US administration and the close involvement of President Bush, reaching these agreements would have been difficult," Putin said, adding: "We are satisfied with our joint efforts."

The accord "will be the culmination of a lot of months of hard work and a relationship built on mutual trust that I established with President Putin in Slovenia," site of their first meeting last June, said Bush.

The news took some seasoned observers by surprise after months in which the two sides had failed to settle a dispute over decommissioning, with Moscow balking at Washington's plans to store -- rather than destroy -- some of its warheads.

A senior US administration official suggested that talks in Moscow between US Under Secretary of State John Bolton and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov had overcome that resistance.

"Some of the weapons will be dismantled, some of the weapons will be placed in deep storage, and some of them will be stored as operational spares," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Once signed, the treaty will go into force after being ratified by the US Senate and the Russian Duma.

But the anonymous senior US official, noting that Bush has long pledged to enact such cuts even absent a formal accord, said the US side's reductions would proceed even if the US lawmakers voted down the treaty.

However, the official said, the US president supports a treaty because it will "codify predictability" in the Russo-US relationship beyond the warm ties he and Putin share and into future administrations.

The accord "will begin the new era of US-Russian relationships," Bush told reporters. "The new era will be a period of enhanced mutual security, economic security and improved relations."

Asked about implementation, the official said that procedures created under the 1991 START I treaty would apply.

Those rules "require on-site inspection and counting of warheads and actually going to operational bases and looking in missile silos or in submarine tubes," the official said, adding that both sides "are going to continue discussions on looking at further ways to enhance transparency."

Putin said that Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and US Secretary of State Colin Powell would "finally agree the texts of other summit documents" -- including one defining a US-Russian strategic partnership -- when they hold talks in Reykjavik on Tuesday on the sidelines of a NATO meeting.

A new partnership between the former superpower rivals in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States will be high on the agenda at the NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Reykjavik.

Putin's move last September to back the US-led war in Afghanistan has fostered closer relations between NATO and Russia, which are set to approve a new "Council of 20," giving Moscow a say in decision-making by the military alliance's 19 members.

Under the new agreement, to be signed by Putin and alliance leaders at a NATO-Russia summit in Rome on May 28, the 20th member will have a full if non-voting role in key areas of the Atlantic organization's policy.

In addition to antiterrorism, these areas include global crisis management, nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, defense against short-range "theatre" missiles, arms control, high-sea rescue missions and civil disaster plans.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; Russia
KEYWORDS: nucleardisarmament; russia; usa
Happy Happy Joy Joy!


                       ...until we get nuked.

1 posted on 05/13/2002 2:49:53 PM PDT by jonatron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jonatron
It's a good deal. The need for 20,000 strategic nukes is gone. They are expensive and of no military usefulness.
2 posted on 05/13/2002 2:54:41 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Good news. Now, about those suitcase nukes....

One less SS-2X in the world is a better thing. I shudder at the thought of North Korea or Iran getting one of those things.

3 posted on 05/13/2002 3:04:02 PM PDT by jbstrick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
How do you figure? Is this a reduction of our total number? The only nuclear power that we no longer consider an "enemy" is the Russian Federation. Still have to counter China, and a more unstable Pakistan, and a questionable India. Not to mention the loathesome possibility of Iraq or another Islamic state joining the club.

I'm not saying I know what a good number is, just that the threats seem more apparent now, not less.

4 posted on 05/13/2002 3:07:19 PM PDT by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
No, I disagree. Are we safer with 1,000 nukes, or 20,000 nukes? All of these nukes cannot be tested; and each 'batch' of nukes has different electronics, thus have to have supercomputers model the various failure modes, to see how many of these nukes still work, and what their yield would theoretically be. Better to dismantle the old ones, reduce the storage and analytical costs associated with them. We still have more than enough to take care of our potential enemies. Remember, we have enough to take out the world about 1,000x over. We have overkill, because our old enemy had anti-missle defences, so we had to assume some percentage of our attack would be neutralized. Thus, we had to overwhelm his defences. That scenario does not exist today.
5 posted on 05/13/2002 3:16:12 PM PDT by Hodar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
2000 strategic nukes is enough to blow any country even the size of China to Mars. India wouldn't be interested in being involved in an intercontinental shootout. Many smaller countries don't have potential targets worth a nuke. If Nor Kor decides to launch, they wouldn't care if they are vaporized by 10 or 200 return shots. There aren't 2000 cities on the whole planet suitable for a 20 megaton blast. That's what they are, city busters.
6 posted on 05/13/2002 3:18:48 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Better to dismantle the old ones, reduce the storage and analytical costs associated with them. We still have more than enough to take care of our potential enemies. Remember, we have enough to take out the world about 1,000x over.

Even better, instead of wasting old and difficult to service old nukes why not just conduct a joint preemptive strike against the Islamic fascits states that are the new theat to both both countries.

7 posted on 05/13/2002 3:27:44 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jonatron
What I see here on this thread is a complete repudiation of the MAD theory. It's essentially the same agruement that gun control nuts make, getting rid of all your guns will create the safest environment for your family.

With MIRVed warheads, we'll likely have less than 500 missiles at any given time. That makes a first strike a very real possibility. At any given time who knows what our nuclear policy is. Under Clinton it was enunciated to be, respond on first strike. Imagine us with 500 nuke missiles and a policy of respond on first strike. This would leave us about 90% open to a first strike defanging.

George McGovern was the single biggest fruitcake this nation has ever seen. He was a peacenic before peacenics became sheik. He wanted us to unilaterally de-nuke in the late 1960s and 70s. Well, now our President has adopted his defense stragegy. Amazing stuff this is. That I would ever see a majority of people on a "supposedly" conservative forum propose such nonsense is beyond my wildest dreams. It just goes to show have watered down conservatism has become. In the interest of backing the man, we have opted to betray the nation.

8 posted on 05/13/2002 3:30:52 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jonatron
i think iraq qould be a great place to destroy are extra nukes
9 posted on 05/13/2002 3:35:37 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
2200 warheads is not nonsense. Thinking it takes 6000+ warheads as a deterrent is. A much better defense against China is Russia as an ally, not adversary, of the US.
10 posted on 05/13/2002 3:39:20 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
LOL, and Russia can't be our ally unless we disarm? Russia will be our ally if we treat them reasonably and develop a mutually respective relationship, separate of any other consideration.
11 posted on 05/13/2002 3:44:15 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I did not say that this treaty had anything to do with making Russia an ally.
12 posted on 05/13/2002 3:50:21 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I tend to agree with you. MAD worked well for 50 years. What is being proposed is untested. Noone knows whether it will be a stable deterrence.

When we each had ten to twenty thousand warheads we could afford to ride out an attack and be assured of having enough warheads surviving to completely decimate the other guys cities and the bunkers in which the other guys leadership would be hiding. We had a very stable balance. The fewer the warheads deployed, especially when they are heavily MIRV'd, the harder it will be to achieve such stability. It doesn't take a genius to realize that at some point the surviving deterence won't be credible.

The defender might see nukes go off in every one of its cities while the attacker would lose only a few. Some governments might see that as acceptable, especially when they are watching themselves fall farther and farther behind to the potential inherent in a free market and a free society. They might decide to do the unthinkable ... especially if their leadership and the families of those leaders are set to ride out any retaliation in a now almost invulnerable deep underground bunker. Just a thought.

13 posted on 05/13/2002 3:58:17 PM PDT by BeAChooser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: arkfreepdom
Well I appologize for misinterpreting the intent of your comments. I agree that Russia could be an ally, and have postulated that I think it's insanity to deal with China the way we are and leave Russia in the brink. Russia is a natural possibility for ally status. Many of it's people share close religious beliefs with US citizens. Russia has also morphed it's government into a model much more conduscive to harmony with us than China has.
14 posted on 05/13/2002 3:58:29 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Not a problem. I should have been more clear with my comments.
15 posted on 05/13/2002 4:04:50 PM PDT by arkfreepdom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: jonatron
After listening to Condoleezza Rice discuss the impending treaty this evening it became obvious that the primary purpose of the treaty has nothing to do with defense or the cost of defense; it has to do with the internal, domestic politics of both signatories.

I suspect for Bush the motivation was to remove another issue from the Democratic arsenal in November 2004. I suspect this is a Carl Rove treaty.

17 posted on 05/13/2002 6:53:41 PM PDT by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Rumsfeld is a genius.
18 posted on 05/13/2002 9:48:42 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ecomcon
The real threats, in general are not in straight up nose to nose warfare, but rather unclear 'free for alls' or assymetric battles. The dangerous ones are the ones who hide in the masses and strike when you don't see them.

To try and rely on a big nuke system for defense is not a detterent to the real dangers. Are we gonna burn the house to get rid of the roaches?

2000 nukes (not including NMD) is enough to deter China or anyone else from miscalculation.

The best thing we can do is get our intel to the point where we know when Saddam is picking his nose...then we can hit em where they are weak and soft... and pack a real wallop without nessesarily having the intention of 'burning the SOB to the ground with all of em in it!'.

Its Sun Zi on a nuclear scale. Everything else is overkill.

19 posted on 05/13/2002 10:00:08 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
true maui the next wave of military is lasers from space much like in the movie real genius
20 posted on 05/14/2002 1:56:11 AM PDT by Leclair10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"What I see here on this thread is a complete repudiation of the MAD theory."

Nuclear proliferation, not US policy, has marginalized the MAD theory. At the heart of MAD is the expectation that combatants will 1) survive a first strike with the ability to counter attack and 2) behave rationally. Neither applies to N. Korea, Pakistan or Iraq (if it succeeds in going nuclear). MAD is no longer possible where the most probable threat resides.

I haven't studied nuclear scenarios in almost 20 years, but loosing 90% in a first strike seems unlikely. By the time relations with the USSR deteriorate to that level, we'd have our Tridents and air craft carriers at sea, B52s back up and circling, and perhaps be prepared to launch ICBMs on warning. Even in the exceptionally unlikely USSR surprise strike during peacetime scenario, I don't think there's any doubt that they would cease to exist as a governable nation the next day. You don't need to take my word for this. Just recognize that if this 2/3s reduction really did threaten our security, huge portions of our retired military would be protesting it, not just a few commander wannabes and fringe ideologies.

21 posted on 05/14/2002 5:12:35 AM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Yea but policy changes with time, just like the McGovern era was during the height of the Cold War. The Bush era is not.
22 posted on 05/14/2002 6:49:24 AM PDT by mikhailovich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
Its amazing someone so enlightened on this subject doesn't realize there's no such thing as the USSR anymore.
23 posted on 05/14/2002 6:54:07 AM PDT by mikhailovich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mikhailovich
"Its amazing someone so enlightened on this subject doesn't realize there's no such thing as the USSR anymore."

{Smile} And I still put '2001' on checks.

24 posted on 05/14/2002 7:03:11 AM PDT by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: maui_hawaii
Rumsfeld is a genius

At that level they all are. McNamara was a genius, and shouldn't have been let out without his mother. Geniuses need to be watched closely. Genius plus power is an explosive combination.

25 posted on 05/14/2002 9:17:27 AM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mikhailovich
During the heighth of the Cold War, we faced Russia. Today we face Russia, China, North Koreah, Pakistan, India and soon...

Iran, Iraq and anyone else China decides to bump into the nuclear club as they did Pakistan.

Take a look at the land mass Russia and China make up by themselves and tell me 500 MIRVed missiles will suffice. When it comes to first strike and response, plus second waves the 500 missiles are too thin to intimidate people out of taking a chance.

People are convincing themselves that they will be safer with fewer. That fact is the fewer the more thinkable. Now that's scarey!

26 posted on 05/14/2002 3:58:46 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"During the heighth of the Cold War, we faced Russia. Today, we face Russia, China, North Koreah, Pakistan, India and soon..."

I'd put it more like this, during the heighth of the Cold War, we faced the Soviet Union, China, North Koreah, East Germany, and a host of other communist nations. Today, we face China, N Korea, and a host of Muslim nations.

Notice Russia is not on today's list, in my version. In case you forgot, our two nations are closer than at any time since the end of WWII. And I call that a very good thing. I wish you would recognize the same. Good day sir.

27 posted on 05/16/2002 6:40:48 AM PDT by mikhailovich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson