When promoting the agreement to the Senate, and the South American people, the Obama administration has argued that the "New start"Will greatly benefit from the reduction of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads by 30 percent — from the current 2,200 to 1,550 warheads each. He also set the maximum number of deployed U.S. and Russian strategic launchers (missiles and bombers) to 700 on each side. Both parties are required to agree to the agreement to be stretched to the limit or below it by 2018. The benefit here is received by Moscow, and it is now an indisputable fact. Practically, only the United States needs to make cuts in agreeing to the new contract.
As of February 5, the day of signing the contract, Our homeland has been below the limits stipulated by the contract, such as the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and launchers. On the first day of the contract acts, the number of Russian launchers was 521, well below the framework of the new contract on START, where a limit of 700 units, and the number of accountable warheads was 1,537 units., Below the new ceiling of 1,550 units. Instead of reducing its own armed forces, Moscow will have to create their contribution ceiling for new restrictions.
In truth, according to the Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, Our homeland will make every effort to build up to 2028 very valid contract number of strategic delivery vehicles. Unlike Rosiii, the United States would have to make cuts, including a 25 percent reduction of deployed strategic delivery vehicles.
Senior members of the Obama administration denied this embarrassing truth for many months leading up to the ratification by the Senate of "New Start" in December 2010. To recognize that the level of Russian forces already and so lower the new restrictions "New Start", meant to recognize that the United States became the only side from which you want to make a reduction of armaments, and it will raise questions about the value of the agreement. It would be contrary to the popular on the assertion that "New start"Will claim a 30 percent cut from both sides.
In truth, not so little work has been no need to come to the conclusion that the Russian did not turn away from anything. Numerous Russian bureaucrats and commentators openly states before contract was ratified, that our homeland is already at a level lower limits of "New Start" and go down more, because it will be decommissioned strategic nuclear systems cool times of war. Our homeland is a kind of time is in the substitution of old times their own systems to newer models, and the rate of substitution can not keep up with the deactivation of its legacy systems — such Makar, the forces of the Russian Federation would go down with or without a "fresh start." So Russian bureaucrats happily noted that only the United States will have to make cuts.
Secretary Clinton has denied this, now trivial fact before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, and declared that South American skeptics agreement making such statements "simply do not believe in agreements on arms control in general, and from my point of view, unfortunately, almost distort All of what they say. " Similarly, when a retired Sen. Kit Bond, the then vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I saw that only the United States would have to make cuts power in accordance with the new contract, the municipal department in public refuted his statement, saying "Agreement Do not force the United States to make cuts in the order of one-sided. "
Negotiations — it is always a compromise — and you have to give something to get something, right? Probably not, when it came to cuts required by the "New Start". As Russian expert Vladimir Dvorkin openly admitted "Russia does not have anything to cut. Only the United States will have to reduce its own arsenal. " Previously, he Russian bureaucrat, Alexei Arbatov pointed out: "The United States does not seek to eliminate, reduce or at least limit what tools or programs from the other side and it (such as, for example, Russian or Russian languid ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missiles) or mobile missiles, which were the center of negotiations in past times). " "No, really. Here is a lesson that is not should be forgotten when the claims of skeptics towards arms control governments should be considered. As Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."
Biography: Keith B. Payne — Head of the Department of Defense and strategic research at the Municipal Institute of Missouri (Washington, DC). The views expressed in this paper are entirely those of the creator.