START I

Last updated

START
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
Договор о сокращении стратегических наступательных вооружений
George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev sign the START 1991.jpg
Presidents George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev sign START, 31 July 1991
Type Strategic nuclear disarmament
Drafted29 June 1982 June 1991
Signed31 July 1991
Location Moscow, Soviet Union
Effective5 December 1994
ConditionRatification of both parties
Expiration5 December 2009
Signatories
Parties
LanguagesRussian, English

START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the reduction and the limitation of strategic offensive arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on 5 December 1994. [1] The treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads and a total of 1,600 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and bombers.

Contents

START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by US President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on START II.

The treaty expired on 5 December 2009.

On 8 April 2010, the replacement New START Treaty was signed in Prague by US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Following its ratification by the US Senate and the Federal Assembly of Russia, the treaty went into force on 5 February 2011, extending deep reductions of American and Soviet or Russian strategic nuclear weapons through February 2026. [2] [3]

Proposal

Soviet SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile Dnepr rocket lift-off 1.jpg
Soviet SS-18 intercontinental ballistic missile
US LGM-118 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile Peacekeeper missile.jpg
US LGM-118 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile

The START proposal was first announced by US President Ronald Reagan in a commencement address at his alma mater, Eureka College, on 9 May 1982, [4] and presented by Reagan in Geneva on 29 June 1982. He proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III. [5]

The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18 and additional limitations on the total "throw weight" of the missiles.

The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, as well as other strategic systems.

The US then had a commanding lead in strategic bombers. The aging B-52 force was a credible strategic threat but was equipped with only AGM-86 cruise missiles beginning in 1982 because of Soviet air defense improvements in the early 1980s. The US had begun to introduce the new B-1B Lancer quasi-stealth bomber as well and was secretly developing the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project, which would eventually result in the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber.

The Soviet force was of little threat to the US, on the other hand, as it was tasked almost entirely with attacking US convoys in the Atlantic and land targets on the Eurasian landmass. Although the Soviets had 1,200 medium and heavy bombers, only 150 of them (Tupolev Tu-95s and Myasishchev M-4s) could reach North America (the latter only by in-flight refueling). They also faced difficulty penetrating US airspace, which was smaller and less defended. Having too few bombers available compared to US bomber numbers was evened out by the US forces being required to penetrate the Soviet airspace, which is much larger and more defended.

That changed in 1984, when new Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers appeared and were equipped with the first Soviet AS-15 cruise missiles. By limiting the phasing in, it was proposed that the US would be left with a strategic advantage for a time.

As Time magazine put it, "Under Reagan's ceilings, the US would have to make considerably less of an adjustment in its strategic forces than would the Soviet Union. That feature of the proposal will almost certainly prompt the Soviets to charge that it is unfair and one-sided. No doubt some American arms-control advocates will agree, accusing the Administration of making the Kremlin an offer it cannot possibly accept—a deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners' secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the US can get on with the business of rearmament." However, Time pointed out, "The Soviets' monstrous ICBMs have given them a nearly 3-to-1 advantage over the US in 'throw weight'—the cumulative power to 'throw' megatons of death and destruction at the other nation."

Costs

Three institutes ran studies in regards to the estimated costs that the US government would have to pay to implement START I: the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC), and the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). The CBO estimates assumed that the full-implementation cost would consist of a one-time cost of $410 to 1,830 million and that the continuing annual costs would be $100 to 390 million. [6]

The SFRC had estimates of $200 to 1,000 million for one-time costs and that total inspection costs over the 15 years of the treaty would be $1,250 to 2,050 million. [7] [ page needed ]

Finally, the IDA estimated only the verification costs, which it claimed to be around $760 million. [8]

In addition to the costs of implementing the treaty, the US also aided the former Soviet republics with the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (Nunn-Lugar Program), which added $591 million to the costs of implementing the START I program in the former Soviet Union, which would almost double the cost of the program for the US. [9] [ page needed ]

After the treaty's implementation, the former Soviet Union's stock of nuclear weapons fell from 12,000 to 3,500. The US would also save money since it would not have to be concerned with the upkeep and innovations of its nuclear forces. The CBO estimated that would amount to a total saving of $46 billion in the first five years of the treaty and around $130 billion until 2010, which would pay for the cost of the implementation of the treaty about twenty times over. [7] [ page needed ]

The other risk associated with START was the failure of compliance on the side of Russia. The US Senate Defence Committee expressed concerns that Russia could covertly produce missiles, produce false numbers regarding the numbers of warheads, and monitor cruise missiles.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff assessment of those situations determined the risk of a significant treaty violation within acceptable limits. Another risk would be the ability of Russia to perform espionage during the inspection of US bases and military facilities. The risk was also determined to be an acceptable factor by the assessment. [9] [ page needed ]

Considering the potential savings from the implementation of START I and its relatively-low risk factor, Reagan and the US government deemed it a reasonable plan of action towards the goal of disarmament.

Negotiations

Negotiations for START I began in May 1982, but continued negotiation of the START process was delayed several times because US agreement terms were considered nonnegotiable by pre-Gorbachev Soviet rulers. Reagan's introduction of the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program in 1983 was viewed as a threat by the Soviets, who withdrew from setting a timetable for further negotiations. In January 1985, however, US Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko discussed a formula for a three-part negotiation strategy that included intermediate-range forces, strategic defense, and missile defense. During the Reykjavík Summit between Reagan and Gorbachev in October 1986, negotiations towards the implementation of the START Program were accelerated and turned towards the reduction of strategic weapons after the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in December 1987. [10] [ page needed ]

However, a dramatic nuclear arms race proceeded in the 1980s. It ended in 1991 with nuclear parity preservation with 10,000 strategic warheads on both sides.

Verification tools

The verification regimes in arms control treaties contain many tools to hold parties accountable for their actions and violations of their treaty agreements. [2] The START Treaty verification provisions were the most complicated and demanding of any agreement at the time by providing twelve different types of inspection. Data exchanges and declarations between parties became required and included exact quantities, technical characteristics, locations, movements, and the status of all offensive nuclear threats. The national technical means of verification (NTM) provision protected satellites and other information-gathering systems controlled by the verifying side, as they helped to verify adherence to international treaties. The international technical means of verification provision protected the multilateral technical systems specified in other treaties. Co-operative measures were established to facilitate verification by the NTM and included displaying items in plain sight and not hiding them from detection. The new on-site inspections (OSI) and Perimeter and Portal Continuous Monitoring (PPCM) provisions helped to maintain the treaty's integrity by providing a regulatory system handled by a representative from the verifying side at all times. [11] In addition, access to telemetry from ballistic missile flight tests was required, including exchanges of tapes and a ban on encryption and encapsulation from both parties. [12] [ page needed ]

Signing

Negotiations that led to the signing of the treaty began in May 1982. In November 1983, the Soviet Union "discontinued" communication with the US, which had deployed intermediate-range missiles in Europe. In January 1985, US Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko negotiated a three-part plan, including strategic weapons, intermediate missiles, and missile defense. It received a lot of attention at the Reykjavik Summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev and ultimately led to the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in December 1987. [2] Talk of a comprehensive strategic arms reduction continued, and the START Treaty was officially signed by US President George H. W. Bush and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev on 31 July 1991. [13]

Implementation

B-52G Stratofortresses chopped into five pieces at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center B-52s chopped.jpg
B-52G Stratofortresses chopped into five pieces at the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center

There were 375 B-52s flown to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, in Arizona.[ when? ] The bombers were stripped of all usable parts and chopped into five pieces by a 13,000-pound steel blade dropped from a crane. The guillotine sliced four times on each plane, which severed the wings and left the fuselage in three pieces. The dissected B-52s remained in place for three months so that Russian satellites could confirm that the bombers had been destroyed, and they were then sold for scrap. [14]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, treaty obligations were passed to twelve Soviet successor states. [15] Of those, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan each eliminated its one nuclear-related sites, and on-site inspections were discontinued. Inspections continued in Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. [15] Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine became non-nuclear weapons states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons on 1 July 1968 and are committed to it under the 1992 Lisbon Protocol (Protocol to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms). [16] [17]

Efficacy

Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine have disposed of all their nuclear weapons or transferred them to Russia. The US and Russia have reduced the capacity of delivery vehicles to 1,600 each, with no more than 6,000 warheads.[ citation needed ]

A report by the US State Department, "Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments," was released on 28 July 2010 and stated that Russia was not in full compliance with the treaty when it expired on 5 December 2009. The report did not specifically identify Russia's compliance issues. [18]

One incident concerning Russia violating the START I Treaty occurred in 1994. It was announced by Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Director John Holum in a congressional testimony that Russia had converted its SS-19 ICBM into a space-launch vehicle without notifying the appropriate parties. [19] Russia justified the incident by claiming it did not have to follow all of START's reporting policies regarding missiles that had been recreated into space-launch vehicles. In addition to the SS-19, Russia reportedly used SS-25 missiles to assemble space-launch vehicles. The issue that the US had was that it did not have accurate numbers and locations of Russian ICBMs with those violations. The dispute was resolved in 1995. [9]

Expiration and renewal

Soviet SS-18 inspected by US Senator Richard Lugar before its destruction Ss18.jpg
Soviet SS-18 inspected by US Senator Richard Lugar before its destruction

START I expired on 5 December 2009, but both sides agreed to keep observing the terms of the treaty until a new agreement was reached. [20] There are proposals to renew and expand the treaty, supported by US President Barack Obama. Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute of the U.S. and Canada, said: "Obama supports sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals, and I believe that Russia and the U.S. may sign in the summer or fall of 2009 a new treaty that would replace START-1." He added that a new deal would happen only if Washington abandoned plans to place elements of a missile shield in Central Europe. He expressed willingness "to make new steps in the sphere of disarmament" but said that he was waiting for the US to abandon attempts to "surround Russia with a missile defense ring" in reference to the placement of ten interceptor missiles in Poland and accompanying radar in the Czech Republic.

On 17 March 2009, Medvedev signaled that Russia would begin "large-scale" rearmament and renewal of Russia's nuclear arsenal. He accused NATO of expanding near Russian borders and ordered the rearmament to commence in 2011 with an increased army, naval, and nuclear capabilities. Also, the head of Russia's strategic missile forces, Nikolai Solovtsov, told news agencies that Russia would start deploying its next-generation RS-24 missiles after the 5 December expiry of the START I. Russia hopes to form a new treaty. The increased tensions came despite the warming of relations between the US and Russia in the two years since Obama had taken office. [21]

On 4 May 2009, the US and Russia began renegotiating START and counting nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles in making a new agreement. While setting aside problematic issues between the two countries, both sides agreed to make further cuts in the number of warheads deployed to around 1,000 to 1,500 each. The US said that it is open to a Russian proposal to use radar in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe for the proposed missile system. The George W. Bush administration insisted that the Eastern Europe defense system was intended as a deterrent for Iran, but Russia feared that it could be used against itself. The flexibility by both sides to make compromises now will lead to a new phase of arms reduction in the future. [22]

A "Joint understanding for a follow-on agreement to START-1" was signed by Obama and Medvedev in Moscow on 6 July 2009 to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each side to 1,500–1,675 on 500–1,100 delivery systems. A new treaty was to be signed before START-1 expired in December 2009, with reductions to be achieved within seven years. [23] After many months of negotiations, [24] [25] Obama and Medvedev signed the successor treaty, Measures to Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, in Prague, Czech Republic, on 8 April 2010.

New START Treaty

The New START Treaty imposed even more limitations on the United States and Russia by reducing them to significantly-less strategic arms within seven years of its entering full force. Organized into three tiers, the new treaty focuses on the treaty itself, a protocol containing additional rights and obligations regarding the treaty provisions, and technical annexes. [26]

The limits were based on rigorous analysis conducted by Department of Defense planners in support of the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review. These aggregate limits consist of 1,550 nuclear warheads, which include warheads on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), warheads on deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM), and even any deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments. That is 74% fewer than the limit set in the 1991 Treaty and 30% fewer than the limit of the 2002 Treaty of Moscow. Both parties will also be limited to 800 deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers equipped with nuclear armaments. There is also a separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments, which is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit imposed in the previous treaty. Although the new restrictions have been set, the new treaty does not contain any limitations regarding the testing, developing, or deploying current or planned US missile defense programs and low-range conventional strike capabilities. [26]

The duration of the new treaty is ten years and can be extended for no more than five years at a time. It includes a standard withdrawal clause like most other arms control agreements. Subsequent treaties have superseded the treaty. [26]

Memorandum of Understanding data

Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev sign SALT II treaty, 18 June 1979, in Vienna. Carter Brezhnev sign SALT II.jpg
Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev sign SALT II treaty, 18 June 1979, in Vienna.
Russian Federation
DateDeployed ICBMs and Their Associated Launchers, Deployed SLBMs and Their Associated Launchers, and Deployed Heavy BombersWarheads Attributed to Deployed ICBMs, Deployed SLBMs, and Deployed Heavy BombersWarheads Attributed to Deployed ICBMs and Deployed SLBMsThrow-weight of Deployed ICBMs and Deployed SLBMs (Mt)
1 July 2009 [27] 8093,8973,2892,297.0
1 January 2009 [28] 8143,9093,2392,301.8
1 January 2008 [29] 9524,1473,5152,373.5
1 September 1990 (USSR) [30] 2,50010,2719,4166,626.3
United States of America
DateDeployed ICBMs and Their Associated Launchers, Deployed SLBMs and Their Associated Launchers, and Deployed Heavy BombersWarheads Attributed to Deployed ICBMs, Deployed SLBMs, and Deployed Heavy BombersWarheads Attributed to Deployed ICBMs and Deployed SLBMsThrow-weight of Deployed ICBMs and Deployed SLBMs (Mt)
1 July 2009 [27] 1,188426834511,857.3
1 January 2009 [28] 1,198398932721,717.3
1 January 2008 [29] 1,225446836281,826.1
1 September 1990 [30] 2,24610,5638,2002,361.3

See also

References and notes

  1. [ dead link ] "Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I): Executive Summary". The Office of Treaty Compliance. Archived from the original on 6 January 2011. Retrieved 5 December 2009.
  2. 1 2 3 "Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Strategic Offensive Reductions (START I) | Treaties & Regimes | NTI".
  3. "New START Treaty". United States Department of State. Retrieved 17 August 2021.
  4. Eureka College Commencement Speech, 1982
  5. "Time to START, Says Reagan - TIME". 11 December 2007. Archived from the original on 11 December 2007.
  6. U.S. Costs of Verification and Compliance Under Pending Arms Treaties, U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, September 1990.
  7. 1 2 The START Treaty, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 18 September 1992.
  8. Arms Control Reporter, 1994, pp. 701.D.5-15.
  9. 1 2 3 Allan S. Krass, The United States and Arms Control: The Challenge of Leadership, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT 1997
  10. KM Kartchner, Negotiating START: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks and the Quest for Strategic Stability
  11. Woolf, Amy F. "Monitoring and Verification in Arms Control." Congressional Research Service, 23 December 2011, fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41201.pdf.
  12. Ifft, Edward (2014). Verifying the INF and START Treaties. American Institute of Physics Publishing.
  13. Freedman, Lawrence D. "Strategic Arms Reduction Talks". Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/Strategic-Arms-Reduction-Talks#ref261940.
  14. "CNN. Special: COLD WAR. "Uncle Sam's salvage yard: A Cold War icon heads for the scrap heap" By Andy Walton, CNN Interactive". CNN . Archived from the original on 23 March 2008.
  15. 1 2 Budjeryn, Mariana; Steiner, Steven E. (4 March 2019). "Forgotten Parties to the INF". Wilson Center. Retrieved 28 April 2021.
  16. Lisbon Protocol, signed by the five START Parties 23 May 1992.
  17. "CIA Fact Book".[ permanent dead link ]
  18. Gertz, Bill, "Russia Violated '91 START Till End, U.S. Report Finds", Washington Times , 28 July 2010, p. 1.
  19. A Revitalized ACDA in the Post-Cold War World, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 23 June 1994
  20. "US rejects Russian missile shield concerns". BBC News. 29 December 2009.
  21. "Medvedev orders large-scale Russian rearmament". Archived from the original on 23 March 2009. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
  22. Barry, Ellen (5 May 2009). "U.S. Negotiator Signals Flexibility Toward Moscow Over New Round of Arms Talks". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
  23. "US and Russia agree nuclear cuts". 6 July 2009 via news.bbc.co.uk.
  24. Baker, Peter; Barry, Ellen (24 March 2010). "Russia and U.S. Report Breakthrough on Arms". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
  25. Early March 2010 Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had proposed to both Russia and the US to sign the treaty in Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine Ukraine awaiting reply to offer of Kyiv as venue for Russia-U.S. arms cuts deal signing, Kyiv Post (16 March 2010)
  26. 1 2 3 Columbia International Affairs Online, 2010, http://www.ciaonet.org/record/18773?search=1
  27. 1 2 "Technical Difficulties" (PDF). 2009-2017.state.gov.
  28. 1 2 "Technical Difficulties" (PDF). 2009-2017.state.gov.
  29. 1 2 "Russia - START Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms - JRL 4-1-08". 1 April 2008. Archived from the original on 3 May 2012.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  30. 1 2 "START I". nuke.fas.org.

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty</span> 1972 arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, also known as the ABM Treaty or ABMT, was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against ballistic missile-delivered nuclear weapons. It was intended to reduce pressures to build more nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence. Under the terms of the treaty, each party was limited to two ABM complexes, each of which was to be limited to 100 anti-ballistic missiles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear disarmament</span> Act of eliminating nuclear weapons

Nuclear disarmament is the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. Its end state can also be a nuclear-weapons-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated. The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament.

Arms control is a term for international restrictions upon the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation and usage of small arms, conventional weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. Historically, arms control may apply to melee weapons before the invention of firearm. Arms control is typically exercised through the use of diplomacy which seeks to impose such limitations upon consenting participants through international treaties and agreements, although it may also comprise efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting country.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strategic Arms Limitation Talks</span> Two conferences between the United States and Soviet Union involving arms control

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) were two rounds of bilateral conferences and corresponding international treaties involving the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War superpowers dealt with arms control in two rounds of talks and agreements: SALT I and SALT II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGM-118 Peacekeeper</span> Intercontinental ballistic missile

The LGM-118 Peacekeeper, originally known as the MX for "Missile, Experimental", was a MIRV-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) produced and deployed by the United States from 1985 to 2005. The missile could carry up to twelve Mark 21 reentry vehicles, each armed with a 300-kiloton W87 warhead. Initial plans called for building and deploying 100 MX ICBMs, but budgetary concerns limited the final procurement; only 50 entered service. Disarmament treaties signed after the Peacekeeper's development led to its withdrawal from service in 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty</span> US-Soviet/Russian treaty (1987–2019)

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev signed the treaty on 8 December 1987. The US Senate approved the treaty on 27 May 1988, and Reagan and Gorbachev ratified it on 1 June 1988.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear arms race</span> Part of the Post-WWII era and the Cold War

The nuclear arms race was an arms race competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War. During this same period, in addition to the American and Soviet nuclear stockpiles, other countries developed nuclear weapons, though no other country engaged in warhead production on nearly the same scale as the two superpowers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harold Brown (Secretary of Defense)</span> American nuclear physicist and U.S. Secretary of Defense

Harold Brown was an American nuclear physicist who served as United States Secretary of Defense from 1977 to 1981, under President Jimmy Carter. Previously, in the John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson administrations, he held the posts of Director of Defense Research and Engineering (1961–1965) and United States Secretary of the Air Force (1965–1969).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Russia and weapons of mass destruction</span>

The Russian Federation is known to possess or have possessed three types of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and chemical weapons. It is one of the five nuclear-weapon states recognized under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States and weapons of mass destruction</span>

The United States is known to have possessed three types of weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The U.S. is the only country to have used nuclear weapons on another country, when it detonated two atomic bombs over two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. It had secretly developed the earliest form of the atomic weapon during the 1940s under the title "Manhattan Project". The United States pioneered the development of both the nuclear fission and hydrogen bombs. It was the world's first and only nuclear power for four years, from 1945 until 1949, when the Soviet Union produced its own nuclear weapon. The United States has the second-largest number of nuclear weapons in the world, after the Russian Federation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">START II</span> 1993 nuclear arms reduction treaty between the US and Russia

START II was a bilateral treaty between the United States and Russia on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed by US President George H. W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on 3 January 1993, banning the use of multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Hence, it is often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty</span> 2002 nuclear disarmament treaty between the U.S. and Russia

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), also known as the Treaty of Moscow, was a strategic arms reduction treaty between the United States and Russia that was in force from June 2003 until February 2011 when it was superseded by the New START treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nunn–Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction</span> US initiative to reduce risk stemming from former USSR republics nuclear weapons

As the collapse of the Soviet Union appeared imminent, the United States and their NATO allies grew concerned of the risk of nuclear weapons held in the Soviet republics falling into enemy hands. The Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program was initiated by the Nunn–Lugar Act, which was authored and cosponsored by Sens. Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN). The purpose of the CTR Program was originally "to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and their associated infrastructure in former Soviet Union states." As the peace dividend grew old, an alternative 2009 explanation of the program was "to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction in states of the former Soviet Union and beyond". The CTR program funds have been disbursed since 1997 by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).

START III was a proposed bilateral arms control treaty between the United States and Russia that was meant to reduce the deployed nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries drastically and to continue the weapons reduction efforts that had taken place in the START I and START II negotiations. The framework for negotiations of the treaty began with talks in Helsinki between US President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1997. However, negotiations broke down, and the treaty was never signed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">NATO Double-Track Decision</span> Armament resolution by NATO

The NATO Double-Track Decision was the decision by NATO from December 12, 1979, to offer the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact a mutual limitation of medium-range ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles amidst the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In case of refusal, NATO planned to deploy more medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe after the Euromissile Crisis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear triad</span> Set of three types of nuclear-strike weapons

A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers with nuclear bombs and missiles. Countries build nuclear triads to eliminate an enemy's ability to destroy a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack, which preserves their own ability to launch a second strike and therefore increases their nuclear deterrence.

Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS), formerly called Prompt Global Strike (PGS), is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver a precision-guided conventional weapon strike anywhere in the world within one hour, in a similar manner to a nuclear ICBM. Such a weapon would allow the United States to respond far more swiftly to rapidly emerging threats than is possible with conventional forces. A CPS system could also be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing the use of nuclear weapons against up to 30% of targets. The CPS program encompasses numerous established and emerging technologies, including conventional surface-launched missiles and air- and submarine-launched hypersonic missiles, although no specific CPS system has yet been finalized as of 2018.

This timeline of nuclear weapons development is a chronological catalog of the evolution of nuclear weapons rooting from the development of the science surrounding nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. In addition to the scientific advancements, this timeline also includes several political events relating to the development of nuclear weapons. The availability of intelligence on recent advancements in nuclear weapons of several major countries is limited because of the classification of technical knowledge of nuclear weapons development.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New START</span> 2010 nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation

New START is a nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation with the formal name of Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. It was signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague, and after ratification it entered into force on 5 February 2011.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moscow Summit (1988)</span> 1988 Summit Between the USSR & USA

The Moscow Summit was a summit meeting between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. It was held on May 29, 1988 – June 3, 1988. Reagan and Gorbachev finalized the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) after the U.S. Senate's ratification of the treaty in May 1988. Reagan and Gorbachev continued to discuss bilateral issues like Central America, Southern Africa, the Middle East and the pending withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Reagan and Gorbachev continued their discussions on human rights. The parties signed seven agreements on lesser issues such as student exchanges and fishing rights. A significant result was the updating of Soviet history books, which necessitated cancelling some history classes in Soviet secondary schools. In the end, Reagan expressed satisfaction with the summit.