Disarmament Week is held annually from 24 to 30 October, as stipulated in the Final Document of the 1978 General Assembly Special Session.

Disarmament is a set of measures designed to stop the build-up of means of war, their limitation, reduction and elimination. The general international legal basis for disarmament is contained in the UN Charter, which lists "the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments" as " general principles cooperation in the maintenance of peace and security".

The only multilateral negotiating forum of the international community for the development of agreements on disarmament issues - Conference on Disarmament(Conference on Disarmament). Created in January 1979. As of 2007, it has 65 member states.

Since the decisions of the Conference on Disarmament are taken strictly by consensus, since 1997 the body has experienced difficulties in agreeing on a substantive program of work due to the lack of agreement among the participants on disarmament matters.

Nuclear weapon

Nuclear weapons began to be produced in 1945. Since then, more than 128 thousand charges have been manufactured. The peak of the arms race came in 1986, when the total world nuclear arsenal reached 70,481 charges. At the end " cold war"The reduction process began. In 1995, the total number of charges was 43200, in 2000 - 35535.

As of January 1, 2007, Russia's strategic nuclear forces included 741 strategic carriers capable of carrying 3,084 nuclear warheads.

Major arms reduction treaties

Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Systems missile defense(ABM Treaty). Signed May 26, 1972. He limited the number of anti-missile systems of the USSR and the USA to two on each side - around the capital and in the area of ​​​​concentration of launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles(In 1974, the USSR and the USA signed an additional protocol that limited the number of anti-missile systems to one for each side). Not valid since June 14, 2002, when the US unilaterally withdrew from it.

Soviet-American Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-1 Treaty). Signed May 26, 1972. It limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers of the USSR and the USA at the level reached by the time the document was signed, and also provided for the adoption of new ballistic missiles deployed on submarines, strictly in the amount in which obsolete ground-based ballistic missiles were previously decommissioned.

Soviet-American Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT-2 Treaty). Signed June 18, 1979. He limited the number of launchers and introduced a restriction on the placement of nuclear weapons in space.

Soviet-American Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate and Short-Range Missiles (INF Treaty). Signed on December 7, 1987. The parties pledged not to manufacture, test or deploy ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles of medium (from 1,000 to 5,500 kilometers) and shorter (from 500 to 1,000 kilometers) range. In addition, the parties undertook to destroy all launchers and land-based missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers within three years. This was the first time in history that an agreement was reached on the question of a real reduction in armaments.

By June 1991, the agreement was fully implemented: the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems, the USA - 846. At the same time, the technological equipment for their production was eliminated, as well as operational bases and places for training specialists (a total of 117 Soviet facilities and 32 - American).

Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-1 Treaty). Signed on July 30-31, 1991 (an additional protocol was signed in 1992, which fixed the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine). The USSR and the USA undertook to reduce their own nuclear arsenals to 6 thousand warheads on each side within seven years (however, in reality, according to the rules for counting warheads on heavy bombers, the USSR could have about 6.5 thousand warheads, the USA - up to 8 .5 thousand).

On December 6, 2001, the Russian Federation and the United States announced that they had fulfilled their obligations: the Russian side had 1,136 strategic launchers and 5,518 warheads, while the American side had 1,237 strategic launchers and 5,948 warheads.

Russian-American Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-2). Signed on January 3, 1993. It assumed a ban on the use of ballistic missiles with multiple reentry vehicles and provided for the reduction by January 2003 of the number of nuclear warheads to 3,500 units on each side. It did not enter into force, because in response to the withdrawal of the United States from the ABM Treaty on June 14, 2002, the Russian Federation withdrew from START-2. Superseded by the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Potentials (SOR Treaty).

Russian-American Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Potentials (SOR Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty). Signed on May 24, 2002. Limits the number of nuclear warheads on alert to 1700-2200 on each side. Remains in force until December 31, 2012 and may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Multilateral Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Opened for signature on July 1, 1968 and has more than 170 participating States (these do not include, in particular, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). Establishes that a state possessing nuclear weapons is considered to be one that produced and detonated such weapons before January 1, 1967 (that is, the USSR, USA, Great Britain, France, China).

Since the signing of the NPT, the total number of nuclear warheads has been reduced from 55,000 to 22,000.

Multilateral Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Opened for signature on 24 September 1996 and has 177 member states.

Conventional weapons

Main documents:

1980 - The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) bans certain weapons conventional weapons, which are considered to cause excessive damage or have an indiscriminate effect.

In 1995, as a result of the revision of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (also known as the Convention on Inhuman Weapons), Protocol 2 was amended, imposing more severe restrictions on certain uses, types (self-deactivating and detectable) and transfer of anti-personnel mines.

1990 - The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) limits the number of different types of conventional weapons in the region stretching from Atlantic Ocean to the Ural mountains.

However, a group of States considered Taken measures inadequate and developed a total ban on all anti-personnel mines, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, opened for signature in 1997. As of 2007, 155 states have acceded to the convention.

The application of the conventions has led to the destruction of stockpiles, the clearance of areas in some States and a reduction in the number of new casualties. At least 93 states are now officially cleared of mines, and at least 41 out of 55 producing states have ceased production of this type of weapon. States that are not members of any of the conventions have declared a unilateral moratorium on the use and transfer of anti-personnel mines.

Chemical and biological weapons

Main documents:

In 1925, the Geneva Protocol "On the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous and other similar gases and bacteriological agents" was signed. The Protocol was an important step in the creation of an international legal regime for restricting the use of bacteriological weapons in war, but left out their development, production and storage. By 2005, 134 States were members of the Protocol.

In 1972, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) was adopted, which imposed a comprehensive ban on these types of weapons. It entered into force in 1975. As of April 2007, signed by 155 states.

In 1993, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was adopted, which imposed a comprehensive ban on this species weapons. It entered into force in 1997. As of August 2007, signed by 182 states. Is the first multilateral treaty to ban an entire class of weapons mass destruction and providing for a mechanism for international verification of the destruction of this type of weapon.

As of August 2007, countries participating in the CWC have destroyed 33 per cent of stockpiles chemical weapons(the process must be completed by April 29, 2012). The CWC member states hold 98 percent of the world stocks of chemical warfare agents.

In the Russian Federation, in order to fulfill obligations under the CWC, in 2001, the Federal Target Program "Destruction of stockpiles of chemical weapons in the Russian Federation" was approved. The beginning of the implementation of the Program - 1995, the end - 2012. It provides for both the destruction of all stocks of chemical warfare agents in the Russian Federation and the conversion or liquidation of the corresponding production facilities.

At the time the Program was launched, there were about 40,000 tons of chemical warfare agents in the Russian Federation. Upon completion of the second stage of execution international obligations According to the CWC - on April 29, 2007 - 8 thousand tons of chemical warfare agents (20 percent of the available ones) were destroyed in the Russian Federation. By the end of December 2009, when it is determined to complete the third stage of the fulfillment of international obligations on the destruction of chemical weapons, Russia will destroy 45 percent of all stockpiles of chemical weapons, i.e. - 18.5 thousand tons.

In 1958, in response to the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in the USSR, the Americans founded DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) - an agency of advanced defense research projects. The main task of the new agency was to maintain the primacy in US military technology.

Today, as it was half a century ago, this agency, subordinate to the Pentagon, is responsible for maintaining the world's technological superiority. armed forces USA. Among the concerns of DARPA is the development of new technologies for use in the armed forces.

In February 2013, the agency's specialists began to actively prepare for a nuclear war. Was project launched on protection against radiation damage, including with the help of techniques that directly affect human DNA. We are talking about new methods of treatment, devices and systems that can mitigate the effects of radiation exposure. The main goal of the agency's project is to develop technologies that will radically reduce the susceptibility of the human body to high doses of radiation. For those who are treated with the latest technologies, chances of survival are high.

Today, the efforts of scientists are directed in three directions: a) prevention and treatment after exposure to radiation; b) reducing the level of negative consequences and preventing lethal outcome and development of oncological complications; c) modeling the impact of radiation on the human body through research at the molecular and systemic levels.

The agency took up a new project because the level of nuclear threat in the world has increased and has not decreased. Today, any country may face the threat of nuclear terrorism, a catastrophe at a nuclear power plant or a local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.

This project, of course, did not come out of nowhere. It is known that Barack Obama positions himself as a peacemaker. Atomic bombs, like Truman, he did not drop on foreign countries. And in general, he constantly talks about cuts. nuclear arsenals- not only Russian, but also native, American.

It was his peacemaking that reached the point where very influential misters turned to him with a written petition, in which they tearfully asked not to reduce the nuclear weapons of the long-suffering homeland of the Republicans and Democrats.

The appeal to the president was signed by 18 people: former CIA director James Woolsey, former US representative to the UN John Bolton, former corps commander marines General Carl Mundy and others. International Analyst Kirill Belyaninov ("Kommersant" ) believes that such an appeal was a confirmation that the White House is indeed working on plans to reduce nuclear arsenals.

According to some secret report, among the authors of which are individuals from the State Department, the Pentagon, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, intelligence services and the US strategic command (in a word, a complete military secret set), the number of nuclear warheads in service with the country today "far exceeds the number needed to ensure nuclear deterrence", while in modern conditions an arsenal of 1-1.1 thousand warheads is quite enough. But a group of influential politicians who, of course, know these data, still demand that Obama abandon the "rash step."

What were the 18 misters afraid of?

The authors of the petition are confident that "the growing cooperation between Pyongyang and Tehran" can lead to "catastrophic changes." And the aspirations of Iran and North Korea can be restrained by "the American nuclear triad, which guarantees strategic stability," and only that, and nothing else.

The signatories of the document believe that the threshold set by the new START treaty is critical: by 2018, the Russian Federation and the United States must leave no more than 1,550 warheads on combat duty.

However, the Obama administration intends to continue talks with Moscow to reduce its stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The concern of eighteen people is based more on the interests of the US military-industrial complex than on the real situation. What "catastrophic changes" can Iran cause in the world? It is absurd to assume that gentlemen American politicians and military men, who signed the letter to their president, were frightened by Ahmadinejad's recent words that Iran is a "nuclear power." Or is 1550 warheads not enough to defeat the DPRK?

The reduction in stockpiles of nuclear weapons, which Obama is sure to enforce this time, is by no means a "debriefing" Nobel Prize peace. The President of the United States is facing the fact of the collapse of the national economy: a huge public debt is also complemented by a large budget deficit, the issue of which is being solved through sequestration, cuts, layoffs, cuts in military programs and an extremely unpopular tax increase among any class of the population. Reducing nuclear stockpiles is a road to savings: after all, maintaining arsenals costs a lot of money.

Tom Vanden Brook (USA Today) ) recalls that the US military budget will be reduced by $ 500 billion over 10 years through sequestration - the so-called "automatic reduction". The Pentagon assumes that before the end of the current fiscal year (September 30), it will have to "cut off" spending by $46 billion. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the cuts would make America a minor military power.

The cuts will also affect military contractors. For example, the economic losses of Texas will amount to a gigantic sum of $2.4 billion. A whole army of civil servants - 30,000 people - will lose their jobs. Their personal financial loss in earnings will be $180 million.

In terms of maintenance, those states with large warehouses will suffer here, as they will be closed in the coming months due to upcoming budget cuts. Pennsylvania, for example, has two main maintenance depots where complex weapon systems are upgraded, including, for example, the Patriot. Texas and Alabama will be hit hard. The closure of the depot here will stop the repair of weapons, communication devices and Vehicle. The reduction in the flow of orders will affect 3,000 companies. Another 1,100 companies will face the threat of bankruptcy.

The latest data on the estimated losses of contractors directly for nuclear services are not yet available. But that they will be is beyond doubt. Obama will look for any reserves in order to cut budget spending.

As for calls to Russia, everything is clear here: to reduce atomic weapon alone, America is somehow not out of hand. That's why we started talking about negotiations with the Russians. Moreover, Obama swung at a large reduction: either by a third, or by half. However, these are only rumors, albeit coming from the United States.

Vladimir Kozin ("Red Star") recalls that regarding information about further reductions in START, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that he does not expect new announcements about this in the next presidential address to Congress. Indeed, in his message on February 13, the American president only indicated Washington's readiness to involve Russia in the reduction of "nuclear weapons", without specifying any quantitative parameters. Nevertheless, the fact remains: the reduction is planned. Another thing is how and in what ways.

V. Kozin believes that the United States “still intends to follow the path of selective reduction of nuclear weapons, focusing only on the further reduction of strategic offensive weapons. But at the same time, they completely exclude from the negotiation process such important types of non-nuclear weapons as anti-missile systems, anti-satellite weapons and high-precision means of application. lightning strike" at any point the globe... "According to the analyst, the United States" is trying to obscure, behind various "new proposals and ideas" in the field of arms control, its far-reaching plans to deploy forward-based means in the form of tactical nuclear weapons and missile defense, destabilizing the global military-political situation and undermining the fragile military- strategic parity between Moscow and Washington, which has been established over the course of several decades.”

That is, nuclear weapons will be reduced selectively, and in parallel, the European missile defense system will be created, and the first will serve as a distraction for the second. And at the same time, it will probably free up money for this very second one. With budgetary sequestration, this is a very hot topic.

It is useless to accuse Americans of slyness or double standards: politics is politics. Sergey Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Chairman of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, speaks that "the idea of ​​freeing the world from nuclear weapons is slowly fading away."

“Moreover,” he continues, “if we trace the dynamics of the views of such famous people like Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, who played a role in launching the idea of ​​nuclear zero, you will find that these famous four in the second article, published two years after their first article, already talked about the reduction and even the destruction of nuclear weapons as a good goal, but really required an increase in efficiency and strengthening of the existing US military nuclear complex. They realized that the United States of America could not ensure its security without nuclear weapons. Understanding perfectly well this whole situation, our leadership, both Putin and Medvedev, announced without batting an eyelid that they are also in favor of complete nuclear disarmament. To say otherwise would be to admit to bloodlust. But at the same time, we are building up and modernizing our nuclear potential.”

The scientist's confession is also interesting:

“Once I studied the history of the arms race, and since then I sincerely believe that nuclear weapons are something sent to us by the Almighty in order to save humanity. Because, otherwise, if there were no nuclear weapons, the deepest ideological and military-political confrontation in the history of mankind, the Cold War, would have ended with World War III.

Russians should be thankful for their current sense of security, says Karaganov, Sakharov, Korolev, Kurchatov and their associates.

Let's go back to the USA. Under the 2010 nuclear doctrine, America retained the right to launch a nuclear strike first. True, it narrowed down the list of situations that lead to such use of the nuclear arsenal. In 2010, Obama announced the renunciation of the use of nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons - on one condition: these countries must comply with the nonproliferation regime. Also in the strategic document it was stated: "... the United States is not ready to pursue a policy according to which the deterrence of a nuclear strike is the only goal of nuclear weapons." This speaks of a possible preventive use of nuclear weapons, albeit with the reservations cited above.

Both during the Cold War and after its conditional end, the United States and NATO did not rule out the option of using nuclear weapons against their opponents - and be the first to use them. The 2010 doctrine narrowed the list, but did not change the right of application.

Meanwhile, China almost half a century ago announced on a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. Then India took the same position. Even North Korea takes a similar position. One of the main objections to the adoption of the doctrine of no first use, writes the American magazine " Foreign policy”, is based on the fact that the enemy can “act dishonestly” and strike first. However, there is no answer to the simple question of retribution. Why would an enemy arrange a nuclear catastrophe for himself? After all, the threat of guaranteed retaliatory destruction remains a very strong deterrent.

One can, of course, call Obama's policy logical. The same doctrine of 2010 was adopted at a time of growing concerns about terrorism. Well, if nuclear bombs fall into the hands of terrorists? President of the United States in 2010 said : “The Concept recognizes that the greatest threat to the United States and global security is no longer nuclear war between states, but nuclear terrorism carried out by extremists and the process of nuclear proliferation…”

Therefore, the current proposed reduction in nuclear arsenals is logically combined with the "taming" of what was called 3 years ago "the greatest threat to the United States and global security." The fewer nuclear weapons, as Foreign Policy magazine rightly notes, the less likely they are to fall into the hands of terrorists.

To create a perfectly clear logical picture to the white house only one item is missing. By declaring its right to be the first to use nuclear weapons, the United States is likening its artificially nurtured enemy, Al-Qaeda. The latter does not declare nuclear rights for obvious reasons. But, for even more understandable reasons, in case of "need" and with the appropriate opportunity, it will be the first to explode (it is not necessarily about a bomb: there is also a nuclear power plant). The right to a first, albeit “preventive,” nuclear strike puts America precisely in the ranks of those who threaten peace. Like Al Qaeda.

On May 26, 1972, Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreements (SALT). In connection with the anniversary of this event, the newspaper Le Figaro brings to your attention an overview of the main Russian-American bilateral agreements.

Disarmament or limiting the buildup of strategic arms? The policy of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War led to a frenzied arms race between the two superpowers that could have led to disaster. That is why 45 years ago the US and the USSR signed the first strategic arms reduction treaty.

Treaty 1: the first bilateral arms reduction agreement

On May 26, 1972, US President Richard Nixon and General Secretary CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev signed an agreement on the limitation of strategic arms. The signing took place in front of television cameras in the Vladimir Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow. This event was the result of negotiations that began in November 1969.

The treaty limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers, their location and composition. An addendum to the treaty in 1974 reduced the number of missile defense areas deployed by each side to one. However, one of the clauses of the agreement allowed the parties to terminate the agreement unilaterally. This is exactly what the United States did in 2001 in order to start deploying a missile defense system on its territory after 2004-2005. The final date for US withdrawal from this agreement was June 13, 2002.

The 1972 treaty includes a 20-year temporary agreement that bans the production of land-based ICBM launchers and restricts submarine-launched ballistic missile launchers. Also, according to this agreement, the parties undertake to continue active and comprehensive negotiations.

This "historic" agreement was to be especially helpful in restoring the balance of the forces of deterrence. And this does not apply to the production of offensive weapons and restrictions on the number of warheads and strategic bombers. The striking forces of both countries are still very large. First of all, this treaty allows both countries to moderate spending while maintaining the ability to mass destruction. This prompted André Frossard to write in a newspaper on May 29, 1972: “To be able to arrange about 27 ends of the world - I don't know the exact number - gives them a fair sense of security and allows them to spare us many additional ways of destruction. For this we need to thank their good heart.”

Treaty 2: easing tensions between the two countries

After 6 years of negotiations, a new treaty between the USSR and the USA on the limitation of strategic offensive arms was signed by American President Jimmy Carter and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. This complex document includes 19 articles, 43 pages of definitions, 3 pages listing the stockpiles of military arsenals of the two countries, 3 pages of a protocol that will enter into force in 1981 and, finally, a declaration of principles that will form the basis of negotiations on SALT-3 .

The treaty limited the number of strategic nuclear weapons of both countries. After the signing of the treaty, Jimmy Carter stated in his speech: "These negotiations, which have been going on continuously for ten years now, give rise to the feeling that nuclear competition, if it is not limited by common rules and restrictions, can only lead to disaster." At the same time, the American president clarified that "this treaty does not take away the need for both countries to maintain their military power." But this treaty was never ratified by the United States due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles

On December 8, 1987 in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed the indefinite Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which came into force in May 1988. This "historic" treaty for the first time provided for the elimination of armaments. It was about medium and short-range missiles with a range of 500 to 5.5 thousand km. They represented from 3 to 4% of the entire arsenal. In accordance with the agreement, the parties, during three years from the moment it came into force, were to destroy all medium and short-range missiles. The treaty also provided for procedures for mutual inspections "on the spot".

During the signing of the treaty, Reagan emphasized: "For the first time in history, we have moved from a discussion of arms control to a discussion of their reduction." Both presidents have been particularly pushful of cutting 50% of their strategic arsenals. They focused on the future START treaty, the signing of which was originally scheduled for the spring of 1988.

START-1: the beginning of real disarmament

On July 31, 1991, US President George W. Bush and his Soviet counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in Moscow. This agreement was the first real reduction in the strategic arsenals of the two superpowers. According to its terms, the countries had to reduce the number of the most dangerous species weapons: intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles.

The number of warheads was to be reduced to 7,000 for the USSR and 9,000 for the United States. A privileged position in the new arsenal was assigned to bombers: the number of bombs was to increase from 2.5 to 4 thousand for the United States and from 450 to 2.2 thousand for the USSR. In addition, the treaty provided for various control measures and finally entered into force in 1994. According to Gorbachev, it was a blow to the "infrastructure of fear."

START II: radical cuts

Context

End of the INF Treaty?

Defense24 16.02.2017

Is the INF Treaty dead?

The National Interest 03/11/2017

START-3 and Russia's nuclear breakthrough

The Washington Times 10/22/2015

US to discuss nuclear disarmament with Russia

Voice of America Russian Service 02.02.2013 On January 3, 1993, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and his American counterpart George W. Bush signed the START-2 treaty in Moscow. It was a big deal because it called for a two-thirds reduction in nuclear arsenals. After the entry into force of the agreement in 2003, American stocks were to decrease from 9,986 warheads to 3,500, and Russian stocks from 10,237 to 3,027. That is, to the level of 1974 for Russia and 1960 for America .

Another important point was spelled out in the agreement: the elimination of missiles with multiple warheads. Russia has abandoned precision-guided weapons that formed the backbone of its deterrence force, while the US has removed half of its submarine-launched missiles (virtually undetectable). START II was ratified by the US in 1996 and by Russia in 2000.

Boris Yeltsin saw him as a source of hope, and George W. Bush saw him as a symbol of "the end of the Cold War" and "a better future free from fear for our parents and children." Be that as it may, the reality is not so idyllic: both countries can still destroy the entire planet several times.

SNP: Point in the Cold War

On May 24, 2002, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SOR) in the Kremlin. It was about reducing the arsenals by two-thirds in ten years.

However, this small bilateral agreement (five short articles) was not precise and did not contain any screening measures. Its role in terms of the image of the parties was more important than its content: it was not the first time that the reduction was discussed. Be that as it may, it nevertheless became a turning point, the end of military-strategic parity: lacking the economic capabilities necessary for this, Russia abandoned its claims to the status of a superpower. In addition, the treaty opened the door to " new era because it was accompanied by a statement about a “new strategic partnership”. The United States relied on conventional military forces and understood the uselessness of most of its nuclear arsenal. Bush noted that the signing of the SNP allows to get rid of the "legacy of the Cold War" and hostility between the two countries.

START-3: protection of national interests

On April 8, 2010, US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev signed another agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive arms (START-3) in the Spanish drawing room of the Prague castle. It was intended to fill the legal vacuum that arose after START I expired in December 2009. According to it, a new ceiling was set for the nuclear arsenals of the two countries: reduction of nuclear warheads to 1.55 thousand units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic missiles of submarines and heavy bombers- up to 700 units.

In addition, the agreement provides for verification of numbers joint group inspectors seven years after its entry into force. It is worth noting here that the installed slats are not too different from those that were indicated in 2002. It also does not talk about tactical nuclear weapons, thousands of deactivated warheads in warehouses and bombs. strategic aviation. The US Senate ratified it in 2010.

START-3 was the last Russian-American agreement in the field of nuclear weapons control. Days after taking office in January 2017, US President Donald Trump announced that he would offer Vladimir Putin the lifting of sanctions on Russia (imposed in response to the annexation of Crimea) in exchange for a treaty to reduce nuclear weapons. According to the latest data from the US State Department, the US has 1,367 warheads (bombers and missiles), while the Russian arsenal reaches 1,096.

The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.

On February 5, 2018, the deadline for fulfilling the main restrictions that were imposed on Russia and the United States by the START-3 treaty signed by them expired. The full name of the signed document is the START-III Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. This bilateral agreement regulated further mutual contraction arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and replaced the START I treaty, which expired in December 2009. The START-3 Treaty was signed on April 8, 2010 in Prague by the presidents of the two countries, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, and entered into force on February 5, 2011.

question

It is worth noting that the countries began thinking about reducing strategic offensive weapons as early as the late 1960s. By that time, both the USSR and the United States had accumulated such nuclear arsenals that made it possible not only to turn each other's territory into ashes several times, but also to destroy all human civilization and life on the planet. In addition, the nuclear race, which was one of the attributes of the Cold War, seriously hit the economies of the two countries. Huge amounts of money were spent on building up the nuclear arsenal. cash. Under these conditions, negotiations began in Helsinki in 1969 between the Soviet Union and the United States in order to limit nuclear stocks.

These negotiations led to the signing of the first treaty between countries - SALT-I (strategic arms limitation), which was signed in 1972. The agreement signed by the USSR and the USA fixed the number of nuclear delivery vehicles for each of the countries at the level at which they were at that time. True, by that time both the United States and the USSR had already begun to equip their ballistic missiles with multiple reentry vehicles with individual targeting units (they carried several warheads at once). As a result, it was during the period of detente in relations that a new, previously unprecedented, avalanche-like process of building up relations began. nuclear capability. At the same time, the treaty provided for the adoption of new ICBMs deployed on submarines, strictly in the same quantity in which land-based ballistic missiles were previously decommissioned.

The continuation of this agreement was the SALT-II agreement, signed by the countries on June 18, 1979 in Vienna. This treaty forbade the launch of nuclear weapons into space, it also set limits on the maximum number of strategic launchers: ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, strategic aircraft and missiles (but not nuclear warheads themselves) below the existing level: up to 2400 units (including up to 820 multiple reentry vehicle ICBM launchers). In addition, the parties pledged to reduce the number of carriers to 2250 by January 1, 1981. Of the total number of strategic systems, only 1320 carriers could be equipped with warheads with individual targeting warheads. The treaty also imposed other restrictions: it prohibited the design and deployment of ballistic missiles based on watercraft (with the exception of submarines), as well as on the seabed; mobile heavy ICBMs, MIRVed cruise missiles, limited the maximum throw-weight for submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

The next joint treaty on the reduction of strategic offensive arms was the indefinite Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles of 1987. He banned the development and deployment of ballistic missiles with a range of 500 to 5500 km. In accordance with this agreement, the countries had to destroy not only all ground-based ballistic missiles of these types within three years, but also all launchers, including missiles in both the European and Asian parts. Soviet Union. The same treaty for the first time introduced a universal classification of ballistic missiles by range.

The next treaty was START-1, signed by the USSR and the USA on July 31, 1991 in Moscow. It came into force after the collapse of the Soviet Union - December 5, 1994. The new contract was designed for 15 years. The terms of the signed agreement forbade each of the parties to have more than 1,600 units of nuclear weapons delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers) on combat duty. Maximum amount the nuclear charges themselves were limited to 6,000. On December 6, 2001, it was announced that the countries had fully fulfilled their obligations under this treaty.

Signed back in 1993, the START-2 treaty could not be ratified for a long time, and then it was simply abandoned. The next agreement in force was the treaty on the reduction of the offensive potentials of the SOR, which limited the maximum number of warheads by another three times: from 1,700 to 2,200 units (compared to START-1). At the same time, the composition and structure of the weapons that fell under the reduction were determined by the states independently, this moment was not regulated in the treaty. The agreement entered into force on June 1, 2003.

START-3 and its results

The Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-3) entered into force on February 5, 2011. He replaced the START-1 Treaty and canceled the 2002 SORT Treaty. The treaty provided for further large-scale reductions in the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States. According to the terms of the agreement, by February 5, 2018 and thereafter, the total number of weapons did not exceed 700 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic missile-carrying bombers, 1550 charges on these missiles, as well as 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers (TB) . It was in the START-3 treaty that the concept of "non-deployed" carriers and launchers, that is, not in combat readiness, was first introduced. They can be used for training or testing and do not have warheads. The treaty also separately recorded a ban on the basing of strategic offensive weapons outside national territories two states.

The START-3 Treaty, in addition to directly limiting nuclear weapons, implies a two-way exchange of telemetry data that were obtained during test launches. The exchange of telemetric information on missile launches is carried out by mutual agreement and on a parity basis for no more than five launches per year. At the same time, the parties are obliged to exchange information on the number of carriers and warheads twice a year. Inspection activities were also prescribed separately, up to 300 people can take part in the inspection, whose candidacies are agreed within a month, after which they are issued visas for two years. At the same time, the inspectors themselves, members of inspection delegations and flight crews, as well as their aircraft, enjoy complete immunity during inspections on the territory of the two countries.

In 2018, the extension of the START-3 treaty is expected, since its term expires only in 2021. As US Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman noted in January 2018, trust between states on the issue of arms reduction has not been lost at present - Washington and Moscow are successfully working on the implementation of START-3. “We are working in a positive direction regarding START-3, I call it a “moment of inspiration”, after February 5, the work will not stop, the work will be more intense. The fact that we are approaching this date of achieving the goals inspires confidence,” the ambassador said.

According to TASS, as of September 1, 2017, the Russian Federation had 501 deployed nuclear weapons carriers, 1,561 nuclear warheads, and 790 deployed and non-deployed ICBM, SLBM, and HB launchers. The US had 660 deployed launchers, 1,393 warheads, and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. From the published data, it followed that for Russia, in order to fit into the START-3 limit, it was necessary to reduce 11 warheads.

Nuclear arsenal of Russia and the USA

To date, the basis of modern strategic weapons continues to be nuclear weapons. In some cases, it also includes precision-guided weapons with conventional warheads, which can be used to destroy strategically important enemy targets. According to its purpose, it is divided into offensive (shock) and defensive weapons. The composition of strategic offensive weapons (START) includes all ground complexes ICBMs (both silo and mobile), strategic nuclear missile submarines (ARPL), as well as strategic (heavy) bombers that can carry strategic air-to-surface cruise missiles and nuclear bombs.

Topol M mobile version

Russia

Under the START-3 treaty, consisting of Missile troops strategic purpose(RVSN) the following ICBMs fall: RS-12M Topol; RS-12M2 "Topol-M"; RS-18 (according to NATO codification - "Stiletto"), RS-20 "Dnepr" (according to NATO codification "Satan"), R-36M UTTKh and R-36M2 "Voevoda"; RS-24 "Yars". According to TASS, currently Russian group The Strategic Missile Forces has about 400 ICBMs with warheads various types and different power. Thus, more than 60 percent of the weapons and warheads of the strategic nuclear forces are concentrated here. Russian Federation. A noticeable difference from the United States is the presence in the ground component of the nuclear triad - mobile complexes. If in the United States ICBMs are located exclusively in stationary mine installations, then in the Strategic Missile Forces, along with mine-based, mobile ground missile systems based on multi-axle chassis MZKT-79221.

In 2017, the Strategic Missile Forces were replenished with 21 new ballistic missiles. Further plans include the decommissioning of the Topol ICBMs and their replacement with more modern and advanced Yars ICBMs. At the same time, Moscow expects to extend the service life of the heaviest R-36M2 Voyevoda ICBMs in service with the Strategic Missile Forces until at least 2027.

The maritime component of the Russian nuclear triad is represented, as of March 1, 2017, by 13 nuclear submarines with intercontinental ballistic missiles on board. The basis is 6 Project 667BDRM Dolphin submarine missile carriers, which are armed with R-29RMU2 Sineva ballistic missiles and their Liner modification. Also in service are still three nuclear submarines of the earlier project 667BDR "Kalmar" and one boat of project 941UM "Akula" - "Dmitry Donskoy". It is also the largest submarine in the world. It was on the Dmitry Donskoy that the first tests of the new Russian ICBM, falling under the START-3 treaty, were carried out - the R-30 Bulava missile, which is produced in Votkinsk. In addition to the listed submarines, three nuclear submarines of the new Project 955 Borey, armed with Bulava, are currently on combat watch, these are boats: K-535 Yuri Dolgoruky, K-550 Alexander Nevsky and K-551 Vladimir Monomakh ". Each of these submarines carries up to 16 ICBMs on board. Also, according to the modernized Borey-A project, 5 more such missile carriers are being built in Russia.

Nuclear submarine of project 955 "Borey"

The basis of the air part of the nuclear triad in Russia is made up of two strategic bombers that fall under the START-3 treaty. These are the Tu-160 supersonic strategic missile-carrying bomber with a variable-swept wing (16 units) and the honorary veteran, the Tu-95MS turboprop strategic missile-carrying bomber (about 40 deployed). According to experts, these turboprop aircraft can be successfully used until 2040.

The modern US nuclear arsenal consists of Minuteman-III silo ICBMs (there are 399 deployed ICBM launchers and 55 non-deployed), Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles (212 deployed and 68 non-deployed), as well as cruise missiles and aerial bombs with a nuclear warhead, carried by strategic bombers. The Minuteman-III missile has been the backbone of the US nuclear deterrent for a long time, it has been in service since 1970 and is the only land-based ICBM in service. american army. All this time, the missiles were constantly modernized: the replacement of warheads, power plants, control and guidance systems.

Test launch of the Minuteman-III ICBM

The carriers of Trident II ICBMs are Ohio-class nuclear submarines, each of which carries 24 such missiles on board, equipped with multiple independently targetable warheads (no more than 8 warheads per missile). In total, 18 such submarines were built in the United States. At the same time, 4 of them have already been converted into carriers of cruise missiles, modernization missile silos allowed to place on them up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 7 in the mine. 22 mines have been converted, two more are used as lock chambers for docking mini-submarines or special modules for the exit of combat swimmers. Since 1997, this is the only type of American SSBN in service. Their main armament is the Trident II D-5 ICBM. According to American experts, this missile is the most reliable weapon in the US strategic arsenal.

The Pentagon also included 49 vehicles in the number of deployed strategic bombers, including 11 Northrop B-2A Spirit stealth strategic bombers and 38 Boeing B-52H "old men", another 9 B-2A and 8 B-52H are listed as non-deployed. Both bombers can use both cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, as well as free-fall atomic bombs and guided bombs. Another American B-1B strategic bomber, developed in the 1970s specifically for the application of missile strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union, since the 1990s it has been converted into a carrier of conventional weapons. By the time the START-3 expires, the US Army does not plan to use it as a carrier of nuclear weapons. As of 2017, the US Air Force had 63 B-1B Lancer bombers.

Stealth strategic bomber Northrop B-2A Spirit

Mutual claims of the parties

US Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan told what condition must be met for the United States to comply with the treaty on measures to further reduce and limit START (we are talking about the START-3 treaty) and the treaty on the elimination of intermediate and short-range missiles of the INF Treaty. According to Sullivan, the United States “wants to comply with arms control agreements, but for this their “interlocutors” must be “set up in the same way,” Interfax reports him as saying. It is worth noting that in January 2018, the State Department confirmed Russia's compliance with the terms of the START-3 treaty signed in 2010, but the United States continues to accuse Russia of violating the INF Treaty. In particular, Washington believes that in Yekaterinburg, the Novator Design Bureau created a new cruise missile ground-based - land modification of the famous "Caliber". The Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, notes that the ground-based cruise missile 9M729, cited as an example, complies with the terms of the agreement.

At the same time, according to Vladimir Shamanov, chairman of the RF State Duma Defense Committee, Moscow has serious doubts about Washington's fulfillment of its obligations under START-3. Shamanov noted that Russia has not received confirmation of the conversion of Trident II missile launchers and B-52M heavy bombers. The main questions of the Russian side relate to the re-equipment of part of the American strategic offensive weapons. As Vladimir Putin noted during a meeting with the heads of leading Russian media on January 11, 2018, the United States should verify the ongoing changes so that Russia can make sure that there is no return potential for some media. Moscow's lack of such evidence is cause for concern. According to the Russian Ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, a dialogue with the American side continues on this issue.

Information sources:
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4925548
https://vz.ru/news/2018/1/18/904051.html
http://www.aif.ru/dontknows/file/chto_takoe_snv-3
Materials from open sources

The final figures were achieved by the United States not only thanks to real arms reductions, but also due to the re-equipment of some of the Trident-II SLBM launchers and B-52H heavy bombers, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. At the same time, the Russian department clarifies that it cannot confirm that these strategic weapons have been rendered unusable, as provided for by the treaty.

How many charges are left

- 527 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

— 1,444 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

— 779 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

The United States, according to the State Department on September 1 last year, had:

- 660 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers;

- 1,393 warheads on deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed SLBMs and nuclear warheads counted for deployed heavy bombers;

— 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, deployed and non-deployed launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers.

Invitation to Negotiate

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert, in a statement on the implementation of the START treaty, noted that "the implementation of the new START increases the security of the United States and its allies, makes the strategic relations between the United States and Russia more stable,<...>critical at a time when trust in relationships has declined and the risk of misunderstandings and miscalculations has risen.” The United States, Nauert said, will continue to fully comply with New START. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in its statement also confirmed its commitment to the treaty.

However, politicians and experts draw attention to the fact that it is time to start discussing the future of the treaty. “We must now decide what to do with the treaty,<...>it seems to be ending soon. We must think about how to extend it, what to do there,” Russian President Vladimir Putin drew attention to on January 30 this year at a meeting with proxies. There was no direct answer from US President Donald Trump to this question.

The current START expires in 2021, by agreement of the parties, as indicated in the text, it can be extended for five years. If the contract is not extended or instead of it is concluded new document, the United States and Russia will lose a unique instrument of mutual control, American experts pay attention. According to the State Department, since the beginning of the agreement, the parties have exchanged 14.6 thousand documents on the location and movement of weapons, conducted 252 on-site inspections, and 14 meetings within the framework of the commission on the agreement.

In order to extend START-3 for another five years, as the text of the agreement implies, it is enough for Moscow and Washington to exchange diplomatic notes. Chairman of the Council of the PIR Center, Lieutenant General of the Reserve Evgeny Buzhinsky, told RBC that due to the current political differences between Russia and the United States, it will be extremely difficult for the parties to agree on a fundamentally new agreement, so the extension of START-3 for five years looks like a much more possible scenario. .

The preparation of a new agreement is a realistic and even desirable option if there is political will in Moscow and Washington, but if there is no such will, the parties will agree to extend the current version, the head of the Center assures international security IMEMO RAS Alexey Arbatov.

What to negotiate

Russia and the United States have been reducing strategic weapons for three decades, but the implementation of the conditions under the START treaty is likely to put an end to the process of reducing nuclear arsenals, the newspaper writes. The New York Times. The priorities for the development of nuclear weapons and the creation of new low-yield nuclear weapons, indicated in the US Nuclear Forces Review adopted on February 2, will lead to a new nuclear arms race, but countries will now compete not in their number, but in performance characteristics, writes the edition.

The new American nuclear doctrine proclaims the concept of electoral nuclear strikes and the introduction of systems of reduced explosive power and high accuracy, potentially setting the stage for an escalation of a nuclear conflict, Arbatov warns. That is why, the expert believes, a new, comprehensive agreement is needed that would address the problems of developing high-precision non-nuclear systems.

Even during the preparation of the current treaty, experts from both sides pointed out that the treaty base between Russia and the United States should be expanded to include non-strategic nuclear weapons, missile defense and other sensitive issues.

Until now, she is in charge of arms reduction issues in the State Department with the rank of acting. Assistant Secretary of State Anna Friedt said back in 2014 that the United States, together with NATO, should in the future, when political conditions allow, develop and propose to Russia its position on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Non-strategic (tactical) weapons are characterized by low power, such weapons include aerial bombs, tactical missiles, shells, mines and other local range ammunition.

For Russia, the issue of non-strategic nuclear weapons is as fundamental as the issue of missile defense for the United States, Buzhinsky notes. “There are mutual taboos here, and none of them is ready to give in in areas where one of the parties has an advantage. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, we can only talk about further quantitative reduction. Discussion of the qualitative characteristics of weapons in the negotiation process is an old proposal, but in the current conditions it borders on fantasy,” he says.

Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry told RBC that the next START treaty should introduce restrictions on all types of nuclear weapons - not only strategic, but also tactical: “When people talk about what a nuclear arsenal is today, they mean about 5,000 warheads in service, which is already pretty bad. But we have a couple of thousand more nukes in stock in the US that can be used as well. And there are such shells not only in the United States, but also in Russia, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons.”

The expansion of the number of parties participating in the reduction of nuclear arsenals, according to Buzhinsky, is unlikely, since other nuclear powers - Great Britain, France, China - will logically require Moscow and Washington to first reduce the number of warheads to their level before entering into any agreements. .

The new agreement, according to Arbatov, should take into account topics that the drafters of START-3 bypassed. First of all, these are missile defense systems and the development of high-precision long-range non-nuclear systems. “Three years is enough for diplomats to prepare a new agreement on the basis of an existing one: START-3 was agreed upon in a year, START-1 was signed in 1991 after three years of work practically from scratch,” Arbatov sums up.