Reduction of nuclear weapons. Russian-American Nuclear Weapons Reduction Treaties

Disarmament Week is held annually from October 24 to October 30, as provided for in the Final Document of the special session General Assembly 1978.

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

The only multilateral negotiating forum of the international community to develop agreements on disarmament issues - Conference on Disarmament(Conference on Disarmament). Created in January 1979. As of 2007, there are 65 member states.

Since decisions of the Conference on Disarmament are taken strictly by consensus, the body has had difficulty agreeing on a major program of work since 1997 due to a lack of agreement among participants on disarmament issues.

Nuclear weapon

Nuclear weapons began to be produced in 1945. Since then, more than 128 thousand charges have been manufactured. The arms race peaked in 1986, when the total global nuclear arsenal reached 70,481 warheads. At the end " cold war"The process of reduction began. In 1995, the total number of charges was 43,200, in 2000 - 35,535.

As of January 1, 2007, Russia’s strategic nuclear forces included 741 strategic delivery vehicles capable of carrying 3,084 nuclear warheads.

The most important arms reduction treaties

Soviet-American Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty). Signed on May 26, 1972. 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 where intercontinental launchers are concentrated ballistic missiles(in 1974, the USSR and the USA signed an additional protocol, limiting the number of anti-missile systems to one for each side). Ineffective since June 14, 2002, when the United States unilaterally withdrew from it.

Soviet-American Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I Treaty). Signed on May 26, 1972. It limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers of the USSR and the USA to the level reached at the time of signing the document, and also provided for the adoption of new ballistic missiles placed on submarines, strictly in the quantity in which obsolete ground-based ballistic missiles had previously been decommissioned.

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

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

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

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 recorded the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine). The USSR and the USA, within seven years, pledged to reduce their own nuclear arsenals to 6 thousand warheads on each side (however, in reality, according to the rules for counting warheads carried 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 the fulfillment of their obligations: the Russian side had 1,136 strategic delivery vehicles and 5,518 warheads, the American side had 1,237 strategic delivery vehicles and 5,948 warheads.

Russian-American Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2). Signed on January 3, 1993. It included a ban on the use of ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and provided for a reduction in the number of nuclear warheads to 3,500 on each side by January 2003. It did not come into force because in response to the US withdrawal from the Russian ABM Treaty on June 14, 2002, it withdrew from START-2. Replaced by the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Capabilities (SOR Treaty).

Russian-American Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Potentials (SRT Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty). Signed on May 24, 2002. Limits the number of nuclear warheads on combat duty to 1700-2200 for 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 member states (this does 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, it has been possible to reduce the total number of nuclear weapons from 55 thousand to 22 thousand.

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

Conventional weapons

Main documents:

1980 - The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCWW) prohibits certain types of conventional weapons considered to cause excessive injury or have indiscriminate effects.

In 1995, a revision of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (also known as the Inhumane Weapons Convention) resulted in Amended Protocol 2, which imposes tighter restrictions on certain uses, types (self-deactivating and detectable) and transfers of anti-personnel mines.

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

At the same time, a group of states considered Taken measures insufficient and developed a document for a complete ban on all anti-personnel mines - the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines - which was opened for signature in 1997. As of 2007, 155 states have joined the convention.

The application of the conventions has resulted in 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 mine-cleared, and at least 41 of the 55 producing states have stopped producing this type of weapon. States that are not members of either convention 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 of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Other Similar Gases and Bacteriological Agents in War” was signed. The Protocol represented an important step in creating an international legal regime to limit the use of bacteriological weapons in the 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, imposing a comprehensive ban on these types of weapons. Came into force in 1975. As of April 2007, it was signed by 155 states.

In 1993, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was adopted, imposing a comprehensive ban on this type weapons. Came into force in 1997. As of August 2007, it was signed by 182 states. It is the first multilateral treaty to ban an entire class of weapons of mass destruction and provide for a mechanism for international verification of the destruction of this type of weapons.

As of August 2007, countries participating in the CWC have destroyed 33 percent of their chemical weapons stockpiles (the process must be completed by April 29, 2012). States parties to the CWC hold 98 percent of the world's stockpiles of chemical warfare agents.

In the Russian Federation, in order to fulfill its obligations under the CWC, the Federal Target Program “Destruction of Chemical Weapons Stockpiles in the Russian Federation” was approved in 2001. The program began in 1995 and ended in 2012. 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 start of the Program, there were about 40 thousand tons of chemical warfare agents in the Russian Federation. Upon completion of the second stage of execution international obligations according to the CWC - April 29, 2007 - 8 thousand tons of chemical warfare agents were destroyed in the Russian Federation (20 percent of the available ones). By the end of December 2009, when it is determined to complete the third stage of fulfilling international obligations to destroy chemical weapons, Russia will destroy 45 percent of all chemical weapons stockpiles, i.e. - 18.5 thousand tons.

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

Today, like half a century ago, this agency, subordinate to the Pentagon, is responsible for maintaining global technological superiority armed forces USA. DARPA's concerns also include the development of new technologies for use in the armed forces.

In February 2013, agency specialists began actively preparing for nuclear war. A project was launched to protect against radiation damage, including using techniques that directly affect human DNA. We are talking about new treatment methods, devices and systems that can mitigate the effects of radiation. The main goal of the agency's project is to develop technologies that will radically reduce susceptibility human body to high doses of radiation. For those who will be treated with 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) decrease in level negative consequences and prevention of death and the development of cancer complications; c) modeling the effects of radiation on the human body through research at the molecular and system-wide levels.

The agency took up the 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 nuclear power plant disaster, or a local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.

This project, of course, did not arise out of nowhere. It is known that Barack Obama positions himself as a peacemaker. Like Truman, he did not drop atomic bombs on foreign countries. And in general, he constantly talks about reducing nuclear arsenals - not only Russian, but also his own, American ones.

This peacemaking of his went so far that very influential gentlemen turned to him with a written petition, in which they tearfully asked not to reduce the nuclear weapons of the long-suffering homeland of 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 commander of the Marine Corps General Carl Mundy and others. International affairs analyst Kirill Belyaninov (Kommersant) believes that such an appeal was confirmation that the White House is indeed working on plans to reduce nuclear arsenals.

According to a certain secret report, among the authors of which are individuals from the State Department, the Pentagon, the Council national security, 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 the country’s arsenal today “far exceeds the number necessary to ensure nuclear deterrence,” but in modern conditions the arsenal is quite sufficient 1-1.1 thousand warheads. But a group of influential politicians, who, of course, know this 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 “American nuclear triad, which guarantees strategic stability,” can restrain the aspirations of Iran and North Korea, and only it, and nothing else.

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

However, the Obama administration intends to continue negotiations with Moscow on reducing nuclear weapons stockpiles.

The concerns of eighteen people are 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 the American politicians and military men who signed the letter to their president were afraid of Ahmadinejad’s recent words that Iran is a “nuclear power.” Or are 1,550 warheads not enough to defeat North Korea?

The reduction in nuclear weapons stockpiles, which Obama will most likely implement this time, is by no means a “workout” Nobel Prize peace. The US President is faced with the fact of the collapse of the national economy: a huge public debt is complemented by a large budget deficit, the issue of which is being resolved through sequestration, cuts, layoffs, cuts to military programs and tax increases that are extremely unpopular among any class of the population. Reducing nuclear stockpiles is a way to save money: after all, maintaining arsenals costs a lot of money.

Tom Vanden Broek (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 estimates that by the end of the current fiscal year (September 30) it will have to cut spending by $46 billion. Former minister Defense Leon Panetta said the cuts would make America a minor military power.

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

When it comes to maintenance, states with large warehouses will suffer, as they will be closed in the coming months due to upcoming budget cuts. Pennsylvania, for example, has two major maintenance depots that modernize complex weapons systems, including the Patriot, for example. Texas and Alabama will be hit hard. The closure of the depot here will stop the repair of weapons, communications devices and vehicles. The reduction in the flow of orders will affect 3,000 companies. Another 1,100 companies will face the threat of bankruptcy.

There is no up-to-date data on the expected losses of nuclear service contractors. But there is no doubt that there will be such. Obama will look for any reserves in order to reduce budget expenditures.

As for the calls to Russia, everything is clear: America alone is somehow not comfortable reducing atomic weapons. That’s why we started talking about negotiations with the Russians. Moreover, Obama swung at a major reduction: either by a third, or by half. However, these are only rumors, albeit coming from the USA.

Vladimir Kozin (“Red Star”) recalls that regarding information about further reductions in strategic offensive arms, White House spokesman Jay Carney said that he does not expect new announcements on this matter in the next presidential address to Congress. Indeed, in his message on February 13 american president only indicated Washington’s readiness to involve Russia in the reduction of “nuclear weapons”, without specifying any quantitative parameters. However, the fact remains: reductions are planned. Another thing is in what way and by what types.

V. Kozin believes that the United States “still intends to follow the path of selective reduction of nuclear weapons, focusing only on further reduction of strategic offensive arms. 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 delivering a “lightning strike” at any point globe..." According to the analyst, the United States is "trying to hide behind various kinds of 'new proposals and ideas' in the field of arms control its far-reaching plans to deploy forward-based weapons 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 created over several decades.”

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

It is useless to accuse Americans of deceit or double standards: politics is politics. Sergei Karaganov, dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, chairman of the editorial board of the journal “Russia in Global Affairs,” says that “the idea of ​​freeing the world from nuclear weapons is slowly fading away.”

“Moreover,” he continues, “if you trace the dynamics of the views of such famous people, like Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn and William Perry, who played a role in launching the idea of ​​nuclear zero, you will find that these famous four, in a second article published about two years after their first article, were already talking about reducing and Even the destruction of nuclear weapons was a good goal, but it really required increasing the 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 this whole situation perfectly, our leadership - both Putin and Medvedev - without blinking an eye, announced that they also advocate complete nuclear disarmament. To say otherwise would be to admit bloodthirstiness. But at the same time, we are building up and modernizing our nuclear potential.”

The scientist’s confession is also interesting:

“I once 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 in World War III.”

According to Karaganov, Russians should thank Sakharov, Korolev, Kurchatov and their associates for the current sense of security.

Let's return to the USA. According to the 2010 nuclear doctrine, America retained the right to launch a nuclear strike first. True, it has narrowed the list of situations that lead to such use of the nuclear arsenal. In 2010, Obama announced a 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. The strategic document also stated: “... the United States is not prepared to pursue a policy according to which deterrence of a nuclear attack is the sole purpose of nuclear weapons.” This indicates the possible preventive use of nuclear weapons, albeit with the reservations given above.

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

Meanwhile, China announced a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons almost half a century ago. Then India took the same position. Even North Korea adheres to 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 the enemy create a nuclear disaster for himself? After all, the threat of assured retaliatory destruction remains a very powerful deterrent.

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

Therefore, the current proposed reduction of 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, the Foreign Policy magazine rightly notes, the less likely it is that they will fall into the hands of terrorists.

To create a perfectly clean logical picture, the White House lacks only one point. By declaring its right to be the first to use nuclear weapons, the United States is becoming like its artificially cultivated enemy, Al-Qaeda. The latter does not declare nuclear rights for obvious reasons. But, for even more understandable reasons, in case of “need” and given the appropriate opportunity, she will arrange an explosion first (we are not necessarily talking about a bomb: there is also a nuclear power plant). The right to the first, albeit “preventive”, nuclear strike puts America precisely in the ranks of those who threaten the world. Like al-Qaeda.

Reducing the number of nuclear warheads does not improve the security situation in the world. Experts from the International Swedish Peace Research Institute have found that the reduction in the number of nuclear weapons has led to a significant increase in the quality of the remaining arsenals. Observers were also concerned about the emergence of a new type of military conflict.

Despite the countries' declared desire for nuclear disarmament, the reduction in the number of weapons of mass destruction is happily offset by an increase in their quality.

These findings are contained in an annual report released Monday by the International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). According to the institute's experts, the arsenals of eight countries - the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel - today contain a total of about 19 thousand nuclear weapons, which is about one and a half thousand less compared to 2011.

At the same time, 4.4 thousand nuclear weapons are ready for use, half of which are in a state of high alert.

Quantitative and qualitative parameters of restrictions on strategic offensive weapons of Russia and the United States in the START-1 and START-3 treaties

Institute analysts see the main reasons for the reduction of nuclear warheads in the steps taken by Russia and the United States within the framework of the START treaty. Let us recall that the treaty provides that each of the parties reduces strategic offensive weapons in such a way that seven years after its entry into force and thereafter their total quantities do not exceed: 700 units for deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy missiles; 1550 units for warheads on them; 800 units for deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, SLBMs and TB.

According to official data as of April of this year, Russia had 1,492 deployed nuclear warheads, and Washington had 1,737. According to a certificate published six months ago, Washington had 1,800 operationally deployed warheads, and Moscow had 1,537. Thus, in about six months, Russia destroyed 45 warheads, and the United States - 63. However, the reduction in the number of warheads, SIPRI experts state, only led to the improvement of the remaining arsenals. The five officially recognized nuclear powers - China, France, Russia, Great Britain and the United States, the report notes, are either deploying new nuclear weapons delivery systems or have announced similar programs.

India and Pakistan continue to develop new nuclear weapons delivery systems. According to the Stockholm Institute, the first has from 80 to 110 nuclear warheads, in Pakistan their number can vary from 90 to 110, and about 80 more units are in Israel.

The latter, in particular, as the German media wrote the other day, intends to place nuclear warheads on submarines purchased in Germany.

“Despite the world's renewed interest in disarmament efforts, none of the nuclear-weapon states has yet shown more than a rhetorical willingness to give up their nuclear arsenals,” states one of the report's authors, Shannon Kyle.

However, both Russia and the United States, when signing the START treaty in 2010, did not hide their intentions to modernize their nuclear potential. In particular, this right was assigned to Moscow during the ratification of the document in the State Duma. Moreover, as Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov noted at the time, after the treaty comes into force de facto, Russia will not eliminate a single missile, since the country will not be able to reach the level of warheads specified in the treaty until 2018. installations, we will reach the level specified in the agreement only by 2028. As for warheads, we will reach the level of 1.55 thousand units by 2018. I say again that we will not cut a single unit,” he emphasized.

Another point that SIPRI experts draw attention to in their report is the emergence of a new type of military conflict in general. The experts made this conclusion based on latest events in the Middle East and North Africa.

The Arab Spring, the report notes, demonstrated the growing complexity of armed conflict. “The events of the past year are not isolated when it comes to trends modern conflict. In fact, they echo changes that have taken place during decades of armed conflict. All these changes suggest the emergence of a new type of conflict, which is increasingly complicating international intervention,” explained Neil Melvin, director of the institute’s program on armed conflict, in this regard.

According to the United States' interpretation, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty reduces the number of deployed warheads that are mounted on launch vehicles and ready for launch. General arsenal nuclear weapons Russia and the USA contains other types of weapons. In addition to deployed strategic nuclear weapons, both countries use tactical nuclear weapons, which are designed for use in ground-based military operations and have lower yields and shorter ranges.

The current total US nuclear weapons stockpile is approximately 11,000 warheads, including nearly 7,000 deployed strategic warheads; more than 1,000 tactical nuclear weapons and almost 3,000 strategic and tactical warheads that are not installed on delivery systems. (The US also has thousands of nuclear warhead components that can be assembled into full-fledged weapons).

Currently, the Russian nuclear arsenal includes approximately 5,000 deployed nuclear weapons, approximately 3,500 operational tactical nuclear weapons, and more than 11,000 strategic and tactical warheads in reserve. All this amounts to a total stockpile of 19,500 nuclear warheads. Unlike the United States, Russia only partially possesses these stockpiles because dismantling the warheads is very expensive. Also unlike the United States, Russia continues to produce a limited number of new nuclear warheads, largely because its warheads have a much shorter lifespan and must be replaced more frequently.

Strategic Nuclear Weapons Control Treaties

OSV-1

Beginning in November 1969, negotiations on the limitation of strategic offensive weapons led in 1972 to the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (ABM), which prohibits the creation of missile defense on the territory of the country. An Interim Agreement was also concluded, under which the parties undertake not to begin the construction of additional stationary launchers of ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The parties also undertake to limit the number of submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SBMS) and the number of modern ballistic missile submarines to the number in service and under construction on the date of signing the agreement. This agreement does not address the issue of strategic bombers and warheads and allows both countries to make their own decisions about increasing the number of weapons used by adding warheads to ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Under this treaty, the United States cannot have more than 1,054 silo-launched ICBMs and 656 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The Soviet Union was limited to 1,607 silo-launched ICBMs and 740 submarine-launched ones.

OSV-2

In November 1972, Washington and Moscow agreed to a treaty that was a continuation of SALT I. SALT II, ​​signed in June 1979, initially limited the number of Soviet and American launchers of ICBMs, submarine-launched submarines, and heavy bombers to 2,400.

Various restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces were also outlined. (In 1981, the treaty proposed reducing the number of launch vehicles to 2,250). The terms of this agreement required Soviet Union reduce the number of launch vehicles by 270 units. At the same time, the amount of US military capacity was below the established norm and could be increased.

President Jimmy Carter withdrew the Treaty from the Senate, where it had been awaiting ratification after Soviet troops entered Afghanistan in December 1979. This Treaty never came into force. However, since the parties did not declare their intention to refuse ratification of the Treaty, Washington and Moscow continued to generally comply with its provisions. However, on May 2, 1986, President Ronald Reagan said that future decisions about strategic nuclear weapons would be made based on the emerging threat rather than the terms of the SALT treaty.

START-1

The Strategic Weapons Reduction Treaty was first proposed in the early 1980s by President Reagan and finally signed in July 1991. The main provisions of the START I Treaty are to reduce the number of strategic delivery vehicles to 1,600 units and the number of warheads placed on these carriers to 6,000 units. The treaty obligated the destruction of the remaining media. Their destruction was confirmed through site inspections and regular exchange of information, as well as the use of technical means (for example, satellites). The entry into force of the treaty was delayed for several years due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and efforts to concentrate the nuclear weapons of Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan on Russian territory. Arms reductions under the terms of the START I treaty were carried out in 2001. This agreement is valid until 2009, unless the parties extend its validity.

START-2

In July 1992, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Boris Yeltsin agreed to amend the START I treaty. The New START Treaty, signed in January 1993, committed the parties to reducing strategic arsenals to a level of 3,000-3,500 warheads and prohibited the use of land-based missiles with multiple warheads. START 2 worked with warheads on the same principle as START 1, and like the previous treaty, it required the destruction of launch vehicles, but not warheads. Initially, January 2003 was set as the contract execution date. In 1997, the date was moved to December 2007 because Russia was unsure of its ability to meet the original deadline. The treaty never came into force because Russia linked its ratification to the approval of the New York protocols to the START II and ABM treaties, signed in 1997. In 2001, the Bush administration took a firm course towards deploying a large-scale missile defense system for the US territory and abandoning the ABM Treaty.

Structure of the START-3 Treaty

In March 1997, Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin agreed on the structure of the New START Treaty for subsequent negotiations, the terms of which included a reduction in strategic warheads to a level of 2000-2500 units. The essential point is that this treaty stipulated the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads to ensure the irreversibility of the arms reduction process, including the prerequisites for preventing a sharp increase in the number of warheads. Negotiations were supposed to begin after New START came into force, which never happened.

Moscow Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT).

On May 24, 2002, Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin signed a treaty requiring the United States and Russia to reduce their strategic arsenals to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads. Although the parties did not agree on rules for counting warheads, the Bush administration has made it clear that the United States will only reduce warheads deployed on launch vehicles and will not count warheads retired from active service and stored as reduced. Russia did not agree with this approach to the interpretation of the treaty and hopes for negotiations on the rules for counting reduced warheads. The treaty restrictions are the same as START III, but SORT does not require the destruction of launch vehicles, unlike START I and START II, ​​or the destruction of warheads, as prescribed in START III. This agreement must still be approved by the Senate and Duma.

Measures to control non-strategic nuclear weapons

Nuclear Forces Treaty medium range(Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty)

Signed on December 8, 1987, this Treaty requires the United States and Russia to accountably destroy all land-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers. Distinguished by its unprecedented verification regime, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty formed the basis for the verification component of the subsequent START I treaty on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty entered into force on June 1, 1988, and both sides completed their reductions by June 1, 1992, with a total of 2,692 missiles remaining. The Treaty became multilateral after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and today the parties to the Treaty are the United States, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are also parties to the agreements, but do not take part in meetings under the Treaty and inspections at facilities. The ban on medium-range missiles is unlimited.

Presidential Nuclear Security Initiatives

On September 27, 1991, President Bush announced the United States' intention to phase out nearly all US tactical nuclear weapons to allow Russia to do the same, thereby reducing the risk of nuclear proliferation if the Soviet Union collapsed. Bush specifically stated that the United States would destroy all artillery shells and short-range nuclear ballistic warheads and remove all non-strategic nuclear warheads from the surface of ships, submarines and land-based naval aircraft. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev returned the favor on October 5, promising to destroy all nuclear artillery, nuclear warheads for tactical missiles, and all nuclear land mines. He also promised to dismantle all Soviet tactical naval nuclear weapons. However, serious questions remain about the fulfillment of these promises on the Russian side, and there is great uncertainty about the current state of Russian tactical nuclear forces.