President Obama Announces New START Treaty

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
March 26, 2010
President Obama Announces New START Treaty

White House: Key Facts about the New START Treaty

The United States and Russia have agreed to the most comprehensive arms control agreement in nearly two decades. After concluding a phone call with Russian President Medvedev this morning, President Obama announced the new START treaty during a press briefing with Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Mullen. President Obama said:

"Since taking office, one of my highest priorities has been addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons to the American people. And that's why, last April in Prague, I stated America's intention to pursue the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons, a goal that's been embraced by Presidents like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

"While this aspiration will not be reached in the near future, I put forward a comprehensive agenda to pursue it -- to stop the spread of these weapons; to secure vulnerable nuclear materials from terrorists; and to reduce nuclear arsenals. A fundamental part of that effort was the negotiation of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia.

"Furthermore, since I took office, I've been committed to a 'reset' of our relationship with Russia. When the United States and Russia can cooperate effectively, it advances the mutual interests of our two nations, and the security and prosperity of the wider world. We've so far already worked together on Afghanistan. We've coordinated our economic efforts through the G20. We are working together to pressure Iran to meet its international obligations. And today, we have reached agreement on one of my administration's top national security priorities -- a pivotal new arms control agreement.

"In many ways, nuclear weapons represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time. Today, we've taken another step forward by -- in leaving behind the legacy of the 20th century while building a more secure future for our children. We've turned words into action. We've made progress that is clear and concrete. And we've demonstrated the importance of American leadership -- and American partnership -- on behalf of our own security, and the world's.

"Broadly speaking, the new START treaty makes progress in several areas. It cuts -- by about a third -- the nuclear weapons that the United States and Russia will deploy. It significantly reduces missiles and launchers. 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.

"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. 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."Full TextRead more on the White House Blog.

Comments

Comments

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 27, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Looks like change I can live with.

Good job!

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
March 28, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

I agree with this policy but both sides will have to ensure they are complying with each other. The question will be, "How will we know for sure Russia isn't still selling these weapons on the black market"? Or selling any Nuclear product to Iran?

Its good to have a piece of paper, a handshake but more will have to be done to ensure compliance. There also should be big penalties for those that break the rules or the treaty.

Al R.
|
Argentina
March 30, 2010

Al R. in Argentina writes:

I'm think was the 1/3 of the both parts nukes disarm are a joke, because what with all nukes ramaining us can blast 10 times the complete planet. But consider so cautionly that: All world say was the U.S. want to lisen attack Argentine with the stupid IT System scripts, what include USA under the Rothschild & Dole orders. I'm already win by the Legal Whichts World Haunts or the WWIII winner definition. Was how the things are, the USA will be isolated over the NWO Rothschild turn attack of it, understands what Argentine are not the important target like the big fruit shop was the next NWO Global Focus Attack will show over the world's rear thinking actions work against USA, with the Argentine's World and USA asymmetric center core defense justice resource of the world socom IT jerk sys heavy demands owner argue against the NWO to defeat it, over the IT AI PSY TORTURE RADIO-TV CYBERWAR INTERACTIVE PRODUCTIONS TRANSFERS ORDERS TORTURE SCANDAL GATE TRIAL IN THE HAGUE INTERNATIONAL CRIME TRIBUNAL.
The NWO finish are so near to happend, if the FBI Swine Flu poisoned lethal vaccines Scandal Gate Investigation stand by involve at UN,WHO, Rothschild, Rockefeller and Obama can ones, can twice, to the NWO many criminal legal mistakes cases what by the us blackmail the NWO, us are gain time to the all join together world with U.S. prosecute the NWO choice, was USA not understands yet.
I'm in Argentine boring of the U.S. & World bananas attacks wait for the USA turn what will copy my nation defense strategy work, with me how the USA Home of the Braves Winners Constitutional Revolution Fight honor duty service, like the high military intelligence camaraderie patriot general pace.
Best, Al R.*****
*****ONE*****

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
March 30, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

@ AI R in Argentina,

here's been some 2900 above-ground nuclear tests conducted since the 40's and the total deployable warheads is now to be 700 apiece with a few in reserve not mounted on a deliverey system.

When we had 30,000 apiece it was as you say, we could make the rubble bounce.

@ 700 we'll still have a planet left to live on, and it will be renamed "Hell" if folks ever use them.

But that's change I can live with for the moment, considering the alternatives.

I really want to see all nuclear armed nations declare a cap of fifty apiece (active and reserve) for the level of deterance won't change much, if at all.

That is achievable before the decade is out, so long as Iran and North Korea are no longer building them.

As for the rest, you'll have to do better in explaining what you're talking about, because it isn't making a whole lot of sense.

palgye
|
South Korea
April 2, 2010

Palgye in South Korea writes:

Thinks, fine achievement.

At the degree which will use the last means which is a terror…

Thinks, fine achievement.

sorry,

Acting what kind of, was anxious.

Tanveer B.
|
Oregon, USA
April 5, 2010

Tanveer B. in Oregon writes:

The Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) will focus on a series of actions leading to securing the nuclear future of the World –

The whole issue is very complex because parts of the nuclear control regime are so intertwined:
• the expansion of nuclear power [need to decrease carbon emissions],
• the future of nuclear weapons disarmament, and
• the future of the NPT

There are two areas which have been defined by experts as a pre-requisite for safe use of Nuclear Energy:-
First, for nuclear energy programs to be developed and managed safely and securely, it is important that states have the following good governance characteristics:
• Process for corruption control – Independent judiciary;
• High degrees of political stability, defined as likelihood that the government will not be destabilized or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, like Military coup;
• High governmental effectiveness scores [based upon World Bank data], high quality of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures;
• High quality policy formulation and implementation, and a
• Strong degree of regulatory competence.
Second, all Non Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) under the NPT must accept IAEA safeguards inspections on their nuclear power facilities in order to reduce the danger that governments might cheat on their commitments not to use the technology to acquire nuclear weapons

As we monitor the progress of the NSS, the following questions if answered one way or the other will reflect the outcome of the Summit:
Q1. Will there be agreement at developing new international or regional mechanisms to control the front-end (the production of nuclear reactor fuel) and the back-end (the management of spent fuel containing plutonium) of the nuclear fuel cycle?
Q2. What political agreements and disagreements are likely to emerge between the nuclear-weapons states (NWS) and the non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) as an outcome of the NSS and beyond?
Q3. What role, will crucial actors among the NNWS–Japan, Iran, Brazil, and Egypt, for example–play in determining the global nuclear future?
Q4. Will the nonproliferation regime be supported and strengthened or will it be questioned and weakened?

There is no guarantee that NSS will usher in a new era – Leading to the development of a framework that supports present arrangements, and which will be adequate to manage the World’s nuclear future effectively. The foremost goal for US and global security should be to minimize the proliferation risks associated with the expansion of [civilian] nuclear power (NP) – The nuclear future will depend on the successful management of this aspect of NP.

Then there is the Disarmament-Nonproliferation Connection – Bone of Contention: Article VI of the NPT calls for the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and all other states to make good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. But in essence obligations to Article VI has led to acrimonious exchanges between NWS and NNWS – The NNWS feel the Article VI was the core bargains of the NPT and the weapons states are not abiding to their end of the bargain.

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 5, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Well Tanaveer, all that's good reference, but the bottom line for a nation seeking the right to peaceful nuclear power is its intentions.

If they cannot demonstratably be proved to be a member in good standing among nations, with good relations, abiding by international norms of behavior and the rule of law in such peaceful intent toward other nations, that "soverign right" cannot and should not be recognized as a right that can be permitted to be persued in tecnological or any other manner at the risk of other nation's peace and security.

Thus when the IAEA says they "cannot determine the peaceful nature" of Iran's nuclear program, such a determination should automaticly void any and all claim by a nation to have such rights until peaceful intent can be transparently proven to the international community's satisfaction.

Otherwise it's like handing a drunk the keys to your car and asking him to drive you home.

IE; Bad things happen.

Leave the driving to mullahs and you'll have a 30 car pileup on the international freeway.

I hope folks have liability insurance.

Flavius
|
Virginia, USA
April 5, 2010

Flavius in Virginia writes:

Excellent summation, Tanveer. Nicely done.

John P.
|
Greece
April 5, 2010

John P. in Greece writes:

@ Donald in VA --

"How will we know for sure Russia isn't still selling these weapons on the black market"? Or selling any Nuclear product to Iran?

I agree with you and this a very intelligent question. Let me do it "worst", How do we know for sure Russia has not already selled weapons on the black market, or any N products to Iran and others? and how can we be sure that they will keep their "promise"?

You have serious a point "Captain"!

Eric
|
New Mexico, USA
April 6, 2010

Eric in New Mexico writes:

Why can Russia be trusted?

Because Moscow would be within reach of Iranian nuclear tipped missiles John, and honestly, I'd be more concerned with North Korean involvement over the years through today, and what the Khan network provided.

You don't believe Russia would ever allow Iran to achieve parity with them do you? Put yourself in their shoes.

Building Bushir nuclear power plant on a major fault line is not real smart, but I don't think the Russians did that with ill intent.

Whether they'll flip the switch on or not remains to be seen.

I'm not sure they will reward bad behavior. I'm inclined to be betting they won't.

Donald M.
|
Virginia, USA
April 6, 2010

Donald M. in Virginia writes:

@ John P. in Greece

Thanks John

I keep hearing how Mr. Chavez in Venz. keeps on bragging about his buying habbits from Russia. Makes me ponder that the Russians must be dining Mr. Chavez pretty good at the Kremlin. The United Nations Security team is not going far enough to prevent Russia or China from selling deadly weapons. Greed-Profit-Arms and the balance of power all rolled up. It's only a matter of time before Mr. Chavez or the Iranian Leader start using these kinds of weapons. I like what the FBI said in one of their briefs. Preventive measures can help obviously prevent the next 9/11 from happening. How do you prevent if the Russians continue selling weapons? What I still do not understand in the world, the countries that have sold arms, weapons or even Nuclear Weapons to Nations and they take no responsibility for their actions, if or when a war happens. Business as usual. I think Mrs. Clinton is doing everything possible to reduce arms. The world will be a safe place without Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Bombs that would only destroy millions of lives.

.

Latest Stories

July 26, 2014

The Situation in Gaza

Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Cairo, Egypt, July 21-22, 2014 to meet with Egyptian and other senior officials… more

Pages