DOCSLIB.ORG

START Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

START TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION ON FURTHER REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS (START I) Signed: 31 July 1991 carry long-range nuclear ALCMs (defined as having Entered into Force: 5 December 1994 maximum range of 600km or more), up to a total of Duration: 15 year duration with option to extend for 180 bombers, counts as eight warheads toward the unlimited five year periods, if all parties agree. 6,000 warhead limit, even though existing Russian Parties: United States, Russian Federation, Belarus, heavy bomber types can carry between six and 16 Kazakhstan and Ukraine. ALCMs. Each Russian heavy bomber above the level of 180 has its actual number of ALCMs counted to- Treaty Text ward the 6,000 warhead limit. Similarly, each US long-range nuclear ALCM-carrying heavy bomber, Treaty Obligations: The treaty limits the total num- up to a total of 150 bombers, counts as 10 warheads ber of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles for United toward the 6,000 warhead limit, and each bomber in States and Russia to 1,600 each, the total number of excess of 150 has the actual number of ALCMs it can accountable warheads to 6,000 each, total number of carry counted toward the warhead limit. Bombers not warheads mounted on ballistic missiles (ICBMs and equipped to carry long-range nuclear ALCMs are SLBMs) to 4,900 each, total number of warheads counted as one warhead. mounted on mobile ICBMs to 1,100 each, and the Verification and Compliance: START I contains total ballistic missile throw-weight for each party to extensive provisions for verification, including the 3,600 metric tons (t). Additionally, START I permits use of National Technical Means, missile test teleme- Russia to have no more than 154 so-called "heavy" try tape exchanges, periodic data exchanges, monitor- ICBMs (defined as having launch weight greater than ing activities, and on-site inspections. 106t or a throw-weight greater than 4,350kg), spe- cifically the R-36M-series [NATO designation SS-18 'Satan,' START designation RS-20] ICBMs, and no Developments: more than 1,540 warheads mounted on these missiles. 2009: On 13 January, Secretary of State Clinton The treaty also bans the construction of new types of stated during her confirmation hearing that the U.S. heavy ICBMs and SLBMs, although it permits mod- was committed to working with Russia to extend ernization programs and, in exceptional cases, new essential monitoring and verification provisions of silo construction. the START treaty and towards an agreement for fur- START I also bans the testing of missiles with a ther reductions. greater number of warheads than declared in the trea- On 6 February, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister ty, and bans any new ballistic missiles with more Ivanov stated at the Munich Security Conference that than 10 warheads. Parties to the treaty may also re- Moscow was committed to continuing the START duce the number of warheads attributed to a specific negotiations process but maintained concerns regard- missile. However, no more than three existing missile ing uploading procedures and the U.S. planned mis- types may have the number of warheads reduced, and sile defense system in Europe. At the same confer- the total reduction may not exceed 1,250 warheads. ence, U.S. Vice President Biden stated that Russia New missile types or heavy ICBMs may not be and the U.S. should cooperate “to renew the verifica- downloaded. tion procedures in the START treaty.” While the treaty counts each ICBM and SLBM reen- On 7 March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and try vehicle as a single warhead, counting rules for her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, noted that as warheads attributed to heavy bombers are more com- part of their effort to rebuild bilateral relations they plicated. Each Russian heavy bomber equipped to START-1 Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes Center for Nonproliferation Studies Last Updated: 7/27/2009 START would try to reach an agreement on a new strategic March and May 2008 under the provisions of the arms reduction treaty by the end of 2009. START I treaty. On 1 April, at the G-20 meeting in London, Presi- On 11 September, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov dents Obama and Medvedev emphasized the need for stated Russia was still awaiting concrete proposals lower levels of strategic offensive arms, including from the U.S., a statement confirming Russian delivery vehicles and warheads, than those deter- sources contending that the U.S. had not supplied mined by the SORT agreement, and including verifi- necessary working papers to move the negotiation cation measures “drawn from the experience of the process forward. Parties in implementing the START Treaty.” Both On 29 September, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov leaders underlined their plan to conclude the agree- stated that the bilateral negotiations on the future of ment before the START I expiration date in Decem- START were "not so far heading anywhere." ber 2009. 2007: In March, U.S. and Russia commenced bilat- The U.S. and Russian negotiating teams, headed by eral consultations at the level of the deputy minister U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller to explore a post-START agreement, including a pos- and Ambassador Anatoly Antonov, director of the sible extension of certain verification elements of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Security and Disarma- treaty. ment Department, held their first “very productive” meeting in Rome on 24 April. The first round of ne- In July, statements were made at an informal meeting gotiations followed in Moscow 18-20 May. between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kennebunkport, Maine, Both the second and the third round of negotiations expressing support for the replacement of START I, took place in Geneva 1-4 and 23-24 June. On 6 July, which expires at the end of 2009. While there were during a bilateral metering in Moscow, Presidents no direct talks pertaining to the START I treaty dur- Obama and Medvedev signed a Joint Understanding ing the meeting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to guide the negotiations, committing their countries and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov com- to ranges of 1500-1675 for strategic warheads and mented that both countries were committed to reduc- 500-1100 for strategic delivery vehicles, and a treaty ing strategic arms levels to “the lowest possible level including effective verification measures drawn from consistent with their national security requirements.” the experience gained under START I. Supporters of the START treaty process expressed At the same 6-7 July summit, the two Presidents un- hope that the dialogue was to encourage a disarma- derlined their plans to continue the discussions re- ment discussion in the future. garding cooperative approaches in response to mis- sile proliferation. They noted that U.S. and Russian 2001: On 4 January, the Russian Defense Ministry experts were “intensifying dialogue on establishing accused the United States of violating it’s START I the Joint Data Exchange Center, which is to become obligations of disarmament in regards to the U.S. the basis for a multilateral missile-launch notification LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM. The United States regime.” considered destroying the first stage of the Peace- keeper to be sufficient under START I guidelines. The fourth round of negotiations took place in Ge- However, the Russian Defense Ministry contended neva 22-24 July. that all stages of the missile must be destroyed under 2008: On 7 April, after a bilateral meeting in Sochi, START I. In response, the Pentagon claimed that the Russia, Putin stated that Russia was to continue second and third stages of the Peacekeeper are used working with the U.S. to maintain all the useful and for space launch vehicles, which are permitted under necessary parts of the START treaty. START I. On 9 April, the United States announced that the On 24 August the United States announced the de- Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program struction of the last Minuteman III silo at Grand completed the elimination of SS-24 “scalpel” ICBM, Forks, North Dakota. including their supporting components, in accordance to START I obligations. On 30 October, Ukraine completed its compliance On 29 May, Russia announced that it had dismantled obligation under the START I Treaty by destroying 36 outdated Topol mobile ballistic missile systems in its last SS-24 ICBM silo. 2007 and twelve in two consecutive operations in START-2 Inventory of International Nonproliferation Organizations and Regimes Center for Nonproliferation Studies Last Updated: 7/27/2009 START On 13 November President Putin announced that in United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and late October the last Ukrainian nuclear warhead had Ukraine signed several agreements that will help to been destroyed in Russia. realize the multilateral obligations of START I. On 5 December the United States and Russia an- 1993: On 18 November the Ukrainian Parliament nounced that both parties had fulfilled START I re- ratified START I and the Lisbon Protocol. However, quirements. In particular, Russia announced that it given Ukraine’s serious reservations about the Trea- had reduced its deployed strategic delivery vehicles ties, doubts arose concerning Ukraine’s commitment to 1136 and its accountable warheads to 5518. This to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. accomplishment marked the largest arms control re- duction in history. On 2 July Kazakhstan ratified START I and subse- quently acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon 1997: In congruence with START I obligations, on state on 14 February 1994. 22 December the United States announced that the last Minuteman II silo was destroyed at Whiteman On 23 April, President Clinton announced an accel- Air Force Base.
Recommended publications
  • Kazakhstan Missile Chronology

    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology

    Kazakhstan Missile Chronology Last update: May 2010 As of May 2010, this chronology is no longer being updated. For current developments, please see the Kazakhstan Missile Overview. This annotated chronology is based on the data sources that follow each entry. Public sources often provide conflicting information on classified military programs. In some cases we are unable to resolve these discrepancies, in others we have deliberately refrained from doing so to highlight the potential influence of false or misleading information as it appeared over time. In many cases, we are unable to independently verify claims. Hence in reviewing this chronology, readers should take into account the credibility of the sources employed here. Inclusion in this chronology does not necessarily indicate that a particular development is of direct or indirect proliferation significance. Some entries provide international or domestic context for technological development and national policymaking. Moreover, some entries may refer to developments with positive consequences for nonproliferation. 2009-1947 March 2009 On 4 March 2009, Kazakhstan signed a contract to purchase S-300 air defense missile systems from Russia. According to Ministry of Defense officials, Kazakhstan plans to purchase 10 batteries of S-300PS by 2011. Kazakhstan's Air Defense Commander Aleksandr Sorokin mentioned, however, that the 10 batteries would still not be enough to shield all the most vital" facilities designated earlier by a presidential decree. The export version of S- 300PS (NATO designation SA-10C Grumble) has a maximum range of 75 km and can hit targets moving at up to 1200 m/s at a minimum altitude of 25 meters.
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1993, No.23

    The Ukrainian Weekly 1993, No.23

    www.ukrweekly.com INSIDE: • Ukraine's search for security by Dr. Roman Solchanyk — page 2. • Chornobyl victim needs bone marrow transplant ~ page 4 • Teaching English in Ukraine program is under way - page 1 1 Publishfd by the Ukrainian National Association inc., a fraternal non-prof it association rainianWee Vol. LXI No. 23 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JUNE 6, 1993 50 cents New York commemorates Tensions mount over Black Sea Fleet by Marta Kolomayets Sea Fleet until 1995. 60th anniversary of Famine Kyyiv Press Bureau More than half the fleet — 203 ships — has raised the ensign of St. Andrew, by Andrij Wynnyckyj inaccurate reports carried in the press," KYYIV — Ukrainian President the flag of the Russian Imperial Navy. ranging from those of New York Times Leonid Kravchuk has asked for a summit NEW YORK — On June 1, the New None of the fleet's Warships, however, reporter Walter Duranty written in the meeting with Russian leader Boris have raised the ensign. On Friday, May York area's Ukrainian Americans com­ 1930s, to recent Soviet denials and Yeltsin to try to resolve mounting ten­ memorated the 60th anniversary of the Western attempts to smear famine sions surrounding control of the Black (Continued on page 13) tragic Soviet-induced famine of І932- researchers. Sea Fleet. 1933 with a "Day of Remembrance," "Now the facts are on the table," Mr. In response, Russian Foreign Minister consisting of an afternoon symposium Oilman said. "The archives have been Andrei Kozyrev is scheduled to arrive in Parliament begins held at the Ukrainian Institute of opened in Moscow and in Kyyiv, and the Ukraine on Friday morning, June 4, to America, and an evening requiem for the Ukrainian Holocaust has been revealed arrange the meeting between the two debate on START victims held at St.
  • Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues

    Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues

    Order Code IB98038 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues Updated March 13, 2002 Amy F. Woolf Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Nuclear Weapons After the Demise of the Soviet Union Location of Nuclear Weapons in the Former Soviet Union Continuing Concerns about Command, Control, Safety, and Security Russia’s Nuclear Command and Control System Safety and Security of Stored Nuclear Warheads Former Soviet Nuclear Facilities and Materials Cooperative Programs For Nuclear Threat Reduction The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program Program Objectives and Funding Implementing the Programs International Science and Technology Centers Material Protection, Control, and Accounting Programs Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Nuclear Cities Initiative Bilateral Meetings The U.S.-Russian Commission on Economic and Technological Cooperation (The Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission) The Strategic Stability Working Group (SSWG) Safeguards, Transparency, and Irreversibility Talks Arms Control Proposals Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons Agreement on the Disposition of Weapons-grade Plutonium Sharing Early Warning Data Alert Rates for Strategic Nuclear Weapons CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS, REPORTS, AND DOCUMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL READING IB98038 03-13-02 Nuclear Weapons in Russia: Safety, Security, and Control Issues SUMMARY When the Soviet Union collapsed in late Reports of Russian nuclear materials for 1991, it reportedly possessed more than sale on the black market, when combined with 27,000 nuclear weapons, and these weapons evidence of weaknesses in the security systems were deployed on the territories of several of have raised concerns about the possible theft the former Soviet republics.
  • HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES EDITOR Lubomyr Hajda, Harvard University

    HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES EDITOR Lubomyr Hajda, Harvard University

    HARVARD UKRAINIAN STUDIES EDITOR Lubomyr Hajda, Harvard University EDITORIAL BOARD Michael S. Flier, George G. Grabowicz, Edward L. Keenan, and Roman Szporluk, Harvard University; Frank E. Sysyn, University of Alberta FOUNDING EDITORS Omeljan Pritsak and Ihor Sevcenko, Harvard University BOOK REVIEW EDITOR Larry Wolff EDITORIAL ASSISTANT Daría Yurchuk DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS Robert A. DeLossa ADVISORY BOARD Zvi Ankori, Tel Aviv University—John A. Armstrong, University of Wisconsin—Yaroslav Bilinsky, University of Delaware—Bohdan R. Bociurkiw, Carleton University, Ottawa—Axinia Djurova, University of Sofia—Olexa Horbatsch, University of Frankfurt—Halil inalcık, University of Chi- cago—Jaroslav D. Isajevych, Institute of Ukrainian Studies, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, L'viv— Edward Kasinec, New York Public Library—Magdalena László-Kujiuk, University of Bucharest— Walter Leitsch, University of Vienna—L. R. Lewitter, Cambridge University—G. Luciani, University of Bordeaux—George S. N. Luckyj, University of Toronto—M. Łesiów, Marie Curie-Sktodowska University, Lublin—Paul R. Magocsi, University of Toronto—Dimitri Obolensky, Oxford Univer- sity—RiccardoPicchio, Yale University—MarcRaeff, Columbia University—HansRothe, University of Bonn—Bohdan Rubchak, University of Illinois at Chicago Circle—Władysław A. Serczyk, University of Warsaw at Białystok—George Y. Shevelov, Columbia University—Günther Stökl, University of Cologne—A. de Vincenz, University of Göttingen—Vaclav Żidlicky, Charles Univer- sity, Prague. COMMITTEE ON UKRAINIAN STUDIES, Harvard University Stanisław Barańczak Patricia Chaput Timothy Colton Michael S. Flier George G. Grabowicz Edward L. Keenan Jeffrey D. Sachs Roman Szporluk (Chairman) Subscription rates per volume (two double issues) are $28.00 U.S. in the United States and Canada, $32.00 in other countries. The price of one double issue is $ 18.00 ($20.00 overseas).
  • The Breach: Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum

    The Breach: Ukraine's Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum

    Issue Brief #3 Nuclear Proliferation International History Project The Breach: Ukraine’s Territorial Integrity and the Budapest Memorandum Mariana Budjeryn Russia’s annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine places an uncomfortable focus on the worth of the security assurances pledged to Ukraine by the nuclear powers in exchange for its denuclearization. In 1994, the three depository states of the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)—Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom—extended positive and negative security assurances to Ukraine. The depository states underlined their commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by signing the so-called “Budapest Memorandum.”1 Using new archival records, this examination of Ukraine’s search for security guarantees in the early 1990s reveals that, ironically, the threat of border revisionism by Russia was the single gravest concern of Ukraine’s leadership when surrendering the nuclear arsenal. The failure of the Budapest Memorandum to deter one of Ukraine’s security guarantors from military aggression has important implications both for Ukraine’s long-term security and for the value of security assurances for future international nonproliferation and disarmament efforts. Russia’s breach of the Memorandum invites strong scrutiny of other security commitments and opens an enormous rhetorical opportunity for proliferators to lobby for a nuclear deterrent. UKRAINE’S NUCLEAR PREDICAMENT In 1991, Ukraine inherited the world’s third largest more cautious approach to its nuclear inheritance, nuclear arsenal as a result of the collapse of the concerned that Russia’s monopoly on nuclear arms Soviet Union.2 By mid-1996, all nuclear munitions in the post-Soviet space would be conducive to its had been transferred from Ukraine to Russia resurgence as a dominating force in the region.
  • Gundersen, Was Born in 1915, in Revesand, a Small Fishing Village on the Southeast Coast of Norway

    Gundersen, Was Born in 1915, in Revesand, a Small Fishing Village on the Southeast Coast of Norway

    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Department JON GUNDERSEN Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Initial interview date: April 17, 2012 Copyright 2013 A ST TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born and raised in New ork George Washington University% Stanford University% University of Oslo International School US Army, (ietnam )196,-1969. Comments on (ietnam War Work in Norway 0uantico, (irginia 1969-1911 Sky 2arshal 3rogram Operations Foreign Travel Entered the Foreign Service 1913 E6amination State Department7 8iaison Officer, Soviet E6change Group 1913 Soviet outh E6hibit Operations Accompanying Soviet tour groups Oslo, Norway7 Consular Officer 1913-1915 Ambassador Tom Byrne Ambassador William Anders Communist 3arty members (isas Relations with Soviets Relations Soviet submarines Sweden Germany Nansen Environment 1 8ocal staff 8abor movement Anti-US elements Economy State Department7 Watch Officer, Operations Center 1915-191, Jerry Bremer Operations Environment Stanford University7 Soviet studies/Arms Control 191,-1919 Studies Environment Hoover Institute 3rofessor Barton Bernstein Soviet Union future Soviet ethnic and nationality groups State Department7 Foreign Service Institute )FSI.% Russian 1919-19,0 language training 2oscow, Soviet Union7 3ress and 3ublications Officer 19,0-19,1 2urray Feshbach Narodnoe Khozyaistva (3eoples Almanac) Operations Surveillance and entrapment Environment Ethnicity Embassy reporting Dissidents Ambassador 2alcolm Toon Ambassador Jack 2atlock Ambassador Tom Watson
  • 10. Ballistic Missile Defence and Nuclear Arms Control

    10. Ballistic Missile Defence and Nuclear Arms Control

    10. Ballistic missile defence and nuclear arms control SHANNON N. KILE I. Introduction In 2001 the international controversy over the United States’ missile defence plans and the future of the 1972 Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) came to a head. On 13 December, President George W. Bush announced that the USA would withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Bush’s announcement was widely expected and did not undermine commitments made by Russia and the USA the previous month to further reduce their nuclear arsenals. Against the background of improving political relations, Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin had pledged to make significant new cuts in US and Russian strategic nuclear forces. As the year ended, however, there was disagreement between Russia and the USA over whether these reductions would be made within the framework of an arms control treaty or as parallel, non-legally binding initiatives. This chapter reviews the principal developments in missile defence and nuclear arms control in 2001. Section II describes the US administration’s decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and assesses the reaction of Russia and other states. It also examines changes in the US programme to develop and deploy a missile defence system designed to protect the United States and its allies from a limited ballistic missile attack. Section III examines the Russian and US commitments to make further nuclear force reductions. It also notes the completion of the reductions in strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) and accountable warheads mandated by the 1991 Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START I Treaty).
  • The Ukrainian Weekly 1993

    The Ukrainian Weekly 1993

    lished by the Ufcrainian National Association Inc., a fraternal non-profit association j гаІИН V Vol. LXi mNo. 13 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, MARCH 28, 1993 50 cents Khasbulatov arrives in Kyyiv; Ukraine reacts to crisis in Russia by Marta Kolomayets "Events currently taking place in the visit's motives are questioned Kyyiv Press Bureau Russian Federation generate serious by Marta Kolomayets Other deputies who support demo­ uneasiness among the leadership of Kyyiv Press Bureau cratic reforms agreed that Mr. Khasbu- KYYIV — Despite destabilizing Ukraine. Analyzing this new turn in the latov's trip was politically propelled as events in Moscow over the weekend of poUtical battle taking place in Russia, KYYIV — The Friday, March 19, he monitored Ukraine's reaction to March 20-21, all remained quiet in U- we conclude that the conflicts between visit of Russian Parliament Chairman recent events in Moscow and weighed kraine, as the majority of democratical­ the various state powers should not halt Ruslan Khasbulatov to Kyyiv provoked the support he has among the deputies ly oriented parties and coalitions voiced the course of democratic reforms and the interests of numerous Ukrainian in the Ukrainian Parliament. their support for Russian President should not result in dramatic consequen­ Boris Yeltsin. parliamentarians who speculated as to Even Oleksander Moroz, the leader ces," the press release said. why this controversial figure had ar­ of the SociaUst Party of Ukraine, was In an official statement issued by his Mr. Kravchuk called for economic rived in Ukraine for an official visit just wary in offering his wholehearted cooperation between Ukraine and days after the conclusion of a volatile office on Sunday afternoon, March 21, support to Mr.
  • Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground

    Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground

    Extending Russia Competing from Advantageous Ground James Dobbins, Raphael S. Cohen, Nathan Chandler, Bryan Frederick, Edward Geist, Paul DeLuca, Forrest E. Morgan, Howard J. Shatz, Brent Williams C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR3063 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0021-5 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Pete Soriano/Adobe Stock Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of the RAND Corporation research project Extending Russia: Competing from Advantageous Ground, sponsored by the Army Quadrennial Defense Review Office, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-8, Headquarters, Department of the Army.
  • The Development of Multilateral Relations (1989-2001)

    The Development of Multilateral Relations (1989-2001)

    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2001-03 Ukraine and NATO: the development of multilateral relations (1989-2001). Lymarenko, Igor I. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/10829 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS UKRAINE AND NATO: THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTILATERAL RELATIONS (1989—2001) by Igor I. Lymarenko March 2001 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Thomas C. Bruneau Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 20010521 165 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704- 0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED March 2001 Master's Thesis \. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Ukraine and NATO: The Development of Multilateral Relations (1989— 2001) 6. AUTHOR(S) Igor I. Lymarenko 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME (S) AND ADDRESS (ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 VUMBER 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME (S) AND ADDRESS 10. SPONSORING / MONITORING (ES) AGENCY REPORT NUMBER N/A 11.
  • *Chapter 1 7/25/00 8:33 AM Page 3

    *Chapter 1 7/25/00 8:33 AM Page 3

    *chapter 1 7/25/00 8:33 AM Page 3 CHAPTER ONE Nuclear Arms Control at a Crossroads uclear arms control is at a crossroads. The old regime has been assaulted Nby the degradation of Russia’s nuclear command and control and early warning network; a standstill in the development of U.S.-Russian coopera- tion on the securing and safety of nuclear weapons and fissile material stock- piles; China’s ongoing development of strategic nuclear forces; new threats of nuclear proliferation from South Asia and North Korea; and a gathering oppo- sition in Russia and the United States to a continuation of negotiations on strategic arms reductions that led to the START I and START II agreements. The Danger of Accidental, Unauthorized, Mistaken Nuclear Launch There is growing apprehension among experts that Russia’s command, con- trol, and intelligence system, including its network of radar installations for warning of a missile attack, is deteriorating in ways that could jeopardize the ability of the country’s central authority to control nuclear weapons. This is deeply worrisome because U.S. and Russian command and control systems could interact in dangerous and unstable ways, given that both the United States and Russia maintain and regularly exercise a capability to launch on warning thousands of nuclear warheads after a missile attack is detected but before the incoming warheads arrive. The United States could launch approximately 2,700 strategic warheads within minutes; Russia 2,100. Even after the full implementation of the START I and START II Treaties, the United States would still be able to launch more than 1,600 warheads and Russia at least several hundred within a few minutes of an order to do so (see the tables at the end of chapter 7).
  • A Future Arms Control Agenda Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 118, 1999 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

    A Future Arms Control Agenda Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 118, 1999 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

    A Future Arms Control Agenda Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 118, 1999 Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI is an independent international institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of arms control and disarmament. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden’s 150 years of unbroken peace. The Institute is financed mainly by the Swedish Parliament. The staff and the Governing Board are international. The Institute also has an Advisory Committee as an international consultative body. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. Governing Board Ambassador Rolf Ekéus, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Willem F. van Eekelen (Netherlands) Dr Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) Sir Marrack Goulding (United Kingdom) Professor Helga Haftendorn (Germany) Dr Catherine Kelleher (United States) Professor Ronald G. Sutherland (Canada) Dr Abdullah Toukan (Jordan) The Director Director Dr Adam Daniel Rotfeld (Poland) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Signalistgatan 9, SE-169 70 Solna, Sweden Cable: SIPRI Telephone: 46 8/655 97 00 Telefax: 46 8/655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet URL: http://www.sipri.se A Future Arms Control Agenda Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 118, 1999 Edited by Ian Anthony and Adam Daniel Rotfeld OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2001 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,