Guest Post: We Have a New START

by Cheryl Rofer

Apparently that is what the administration is calling the new arms control treaty with Russia, and the acronym is appropriate. Arms control was badly neglected during the Bush administration, despite the negotiation of the Moscow Treaty, which brought the number of deployed strategic weapons down to 2,200 for each side. That treaty was only three pages long. New START hasn’t been released to the public yet, but it will likely be in the tens of pages, with a protocol (probably longer) and much longer technical annexes.

Trust, but Verify

That’s a Russian saying, Ronald Reagan was quick to concede when he appropriated it. Verification is what those annexes are about, in particular how to count the number of nuclear weapons without actually counting warheads. Each missile of a certain type will be assumed to carry so many warheads, so many to each bomber and each submarine, with limits placed on the number of missiles, bombers and submarines. The details can go down to the power of flashlights provided to inspectors of missile silos. Some of this is still being worked out, and changes will be made; that’s why the details are in the annexes, which will have requirements for modifications written into the treaty itself or the protocol.

Although President George W. Bush said that friends don’t have to count each others’ nukes, the Russians have continued to feel otherwise. So the lack of verification provisions in the Moscow Treaty, and the dodging and weaving on the part of the United States as the end approached for the original START provisions used to verify the 2,200 limit, were taken by the Russians to mean that the United States was abandoning its responsibilities in this area.

Trust but verify isn’t a bad precept all around; we know what they’re doing, we know the limits to what we know, and we know that they know the same things about us. All that makes our relations more predictable and less volatile in an area that needs predictability.

Treaty Highlights

The White House has released a very short fact sheet (pdf) on the treaty. The primary objective of negotiations was to renew the verification capabilities of the original START treaty. Both sides wanted some changes to the verification procedures, to streamline them and make them relevant to today’s context. This seems to have been done, although the fact sheet gives no details.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev agreed that New START should further decrease the warhead limits established by the Moscow Treaty, and this has been done.

Key words: deployed strategic. Those words describe the warheads to be counted, the same category of warhead as in the START and Moscow Treaties. These are the warheads that are deliverable and ready to deliver over very long distances. They are not the tactical nuclear weapons, of which the United States has a couple hundred in Europe - and Russia has probably a lot more around its territory. They are not the disassembled pits that are stored at the Pantex plant in Texas, which could be reassembled into warheads relatively quickly. They are not the warheads that are constantly undergoing refurbishment. Roughly, we can figure that the total numbers of warheads held by each country will be three times the number of deployed strategic warheads. From the fact sheet, the limits are:

• 1,550 warheads. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs count toward this limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.
• A combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

• A separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.

The warhead limit is thus 74% lower than the limit set by the 1991 START Treaty and 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit set by the Moscow Treaty. The limit in the last bullet is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the START Treaty. Not bad for a secondary goal.

But the best outcome may be what got us to this New START . The negotiations themselves are part of moving forward for the two nations. They give both a view into the other’s thinking, and they allow the negotiators to form personal relationships, or at least to become aware of the other’s limitations and strengths. Both sides view these negotiations as the beginning of a continuing interaction.

If the Republican members of the Senate continue as the Party of NO, the treaty cannot be ratified; it needs a two-thirds majority, or sixty-seven votes. But Richard Lugar (R – IN) seems to have signed on, and there is a small indication that Duma members may lobby the Senate.

And I just can’t resist mentioning that women headed up the United States’ negotiating team. Did a really good job, too.

Cheryl Rofer currently blogs at Phronesisaical, after a career that included research and practical experience in the nuclear fuel cycle, fossil fuel, lasers and environmental cleanup, including collaborations in Estonia and Kazakhstan.

Comments

[Tosk59]

Numbers are softer than it seems... Also, what do you think re the time frames involved?

http://www.ph2dot1.com/2010/03/yawn.html

[CaseyL]

It's a shame, because it's an important treaty, but there's no way it'll be ratified. Lugar will be the only GOP vote in favor.

And... the Duma? Lobbying US Congress? Who thought that would be a good idea? There are a fair number of GOP supporters who are unaware/don't believe the USSR collapsed.

[Cheryl Rofer]

Tosk59: The numbers were never the primary focus of these negotiations. There are some questions about what the numbers in the (very short) fact sheet actually mean. One of those is

each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments counts as one warhead toward this limit.

Ellen Tauscher was asked about this today, and pretty obviously ducked.

As to the time frames, Russia is pretty close to these numbers already, and the US should be able to make it easily, although there are some difficulties I wrote about recently. With any luck, there will be new negotiations to get to seriously low numbers in the near future.

CaseyL: If you click through, you'll see that it's a couple of members of the Duma saying that. I took it as a statement of intent on their part to do what is needed to ratify the treaty and found the mental picture amusing.

[liberal japonicus]

Maybe, with the Citizens United decision, they will be able to channel some money to senators who need persuading... :^)

[Brett Bellmore]

"Although President George W. Bush said that friends don’t have to count each others’ nukes, the Russians have continued to feel otherwise."

George W. Bush was stupid enough to think the Russians were our friends. The Russians weren't equally stupid about us.

"Maybe, with the Citizens United decision, they will be able to channel some money to senators who need persuading... :^)"

The CU decision rather explicitly only applies to money spent on speech and published matter, not donations, and specifically denied making any finding concerning foreign entities. So I'd say that would be a big, fat, "Nope!". The Duma will have to channel it's funds to Senators the normal, illegal ways Senators usually get such funds.

[Tosk59]

Cheryl,
The time frame issue isn't re how long it will take to get to the new limits. Given the way things are counted it could be achieved VERY shortly. My question is, given that fact why would you set in place an achievement time line of 7 years?

It's easy enough to say both sides will move on to a new agreement, however the record is not robust re new agreements being started/done long before the existing ones are reaching their expiration. If that pattern holds, then the can has been kicked very far down the road!

I still posit that the immediate elimination of the UK/French nuclear weapons (assisted by some behind the scenes, very heavy "leaning on" by the US) would do *far*, *far* more to energize the worldwide road to zero than does marginal reductions by the U.S. and Russia. This has zero downside (except a loss of prestige, and isn't that the crux of why others are trying to get nukes, so they "can fight above their weight"?); they can fall under the U.S. umbrella like the rest of Europe; it would actually show that zero was something that 'nuclear-haves' will actually do rather than pay lip service to; etc., etc. This single thing would do more to change the actual dynamic than incremental decreases by the 'big two', nice speeches, etc.

>>>> As to the time frames, Russia is pretty close to these numbers already, and the US should be able to make it easily, although there are some difficulties I wrote about recently. With any luck, there will be new negotiations to get to seriously low numbers in the near future. >>>

[Cheryl Rofer]

Tosk59: The French and British (especially the French) aren't going to give up their nukes any time soon. The US can't control that

I have been thinking over your comments and several other things and hope to have more to say later on what I think Obama's strategy is.

This is inherently a long game, and Obama has set several things in motion.

[Tosk59]

Cheryl,
Look forward to it... The issue I have is that I can only judge on facts and what actually happens. Being inherently distrustful of politicians, am loath to give credit for possible "intentions" and what *might* be their strategy. Once you start doing this it gets to be "faith-based" (as it were.)

>>>I have been thinking over your comments and several other things and hope to have more to say later on what I think Obama's strategy is.>>>

[Cheryl Rofer]

For the skeptics on the Duma and Senate getting together.