EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack Obama Signs Nuclear Treaty with Russia
The US president, Barack Obama, and Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian leader, today signed an arms treaty that will slash their respective nuclear arsenals by a third.
US President Barack Obama with his Czech counterpart Vaclav Klaus (C) and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at Prague Castle. Obama has met with Medvedev before the two sign a treaty slashing their countries' nuclear arsenals. (AFP/Jewel Samad) The two men shook hands to applause
after signing what Obama called a historic agreement in the opulent
setting of Prague castle in the Czech Republic. Obama said the new agreement made the US and the world more secure and helped stopped the drift in US-Russia relations.
"Together we've stopped that drift," Obama said, adding that the agreement was a "milestone for US-Russia relations".
He acknowledged, however, that the new agreement was "just one step on a longer journey" and said it has set the stage for further cuts. There was also a stern message for Iran as Obama said the world would not tolerate actions from countries that flouted the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and threatened collective security. Medvedev echoed Obama's concerns, saying that the world could not turn a blind eye to Iran, which he said had not responded to "many constructive proposals". He hinted that Russia would be open to further sanctions against Tehran.
The new treaty will cut American and Russian strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 over seven years, about a third less than the 2,200 currently allowed.
Obama returned to Prague one year after he outlined his vision before an enthusiastic crowd for a world without nuclear weapons. The speech helped him win the Nobel peace prize, but Obama has acknowledged that eliminating nuclear weapons is unlikely to be achieved during his lifetime.
The agreement to reduce nuclear warheads by a third succeeds the 1991 strategic arms reduction treaty (Start), which expired in December. It will have to be ratified by the US Senate - where conservative Republicans can be expected to give it a rough ride - and the Russian parliament.
In addition to the warhead limit, the US and Russia must cut their total land, sea and air-based launchers to 800 each, and no more than 700 actually deployed within seven years. While that will leave plenty of nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over, it marks a big drop from the total of 19,000 strategic warheads both sides deployed during the cold war.
Obama wants to move for even deeper cuts but faces Russian reluctance because of American plans to build a missile defence system in Europe to counter a possible Iranian threat. Russia argues that antiballistic missile systems could neutralise its smaller arsenal.
Even as Obama pushes for deep cuts in nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported that the Pentagon is developing a weapon to plug the gap left by nuclear warheads: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. US military officials say the intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as prompt global strike weapons, are a necessary new form of deterrence against terrorist networks.
Obama will have to balance his desire for deep cuts against the more immediate goal of keeping Russia on side to ratchet up the pressure on Iran and its suspected nuclear weapons programme. The US is seeking another round of sanctions against Tehran and Obama is also courting support from China, which recently signalled its willingness to adopt a tougher line towards Iran.
Obama's trip to Prague is part of an intensive round of nuclear diplomacy. On Tuesday, the US released the results of a comprehensive nuclear strategy review in which the US committed itself for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations - a caveat that excludes North Korea and Iran.
Next week, Obama welcomes to Washington the leaders of 46 countries, including the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, for a summit meeting on nuclear security.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...



7 Comments so far
Show AllGood. Reduction in one of these weapons is progress. Ban the Bomb.
The caveat mentioned is different than other reporting, the above caveat would also include, India , Pakistan and israel.
I believe the USA's developement of new nuclear weapons at Los Alamos Labs would also qualify the USA as being a non-compliant target.
Without radification this treaty is non existent.
I do not see Russia radifying it with ABMs on it's doorstep.
Nor the Senate radifying (70 votes) anything Obomber signs.
Why is U.S. foreign policy "good" news accompanied by a picture of a smiling President Obama, and "bad" news accompanied by a picture of a scowling Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Particularly in the area of nuclear proliferation, it's all the same foreign policy. Gee, I wonder if there's a media bias?
Where was the following story on CD?
MARCH 17, 2010, 9:27 P.M. ET
Clinton to Discuss Nuclear Treaty on Moscow Trip
By JAY SOLOMON
SHANNON, Ireland—Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will seek to overcome the final obstacles impeding the completion of a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia during her two-day trip in Moscow that will include a meeting with President Dmitry Medvedev, said senior U.S. officials.
... the meeting between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Medvedev could provide the high-level leadership required to push forward a final resolution to the talks.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704059004575128321101751624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Of course I am for getting rid of one third of our 9,400 nuclear weapons, leaving a mere 6,100 or so. I am for getting rid of one third of Russia's 12,000 weapons, leaving approvimately 8,000 or so. This is a start. Please note that either country is still quite capable of blowing up the entire world many times over. Warlike, insane and corrupt people have potential access to these weapons.
But why is Iran's potential and largely phantasmagoric weapon even being brought up? India, Pakistan, Israel, France, China, UK and North Korea all have many actual weapons. This good step toward disarmament should not be accepted as giving us rights to attack Iran. Or anyone.
In addition, there are a lot of weasel words in this article:
"the US committed itself for the first time not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states provided that they are party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations - a caveat that excludes North Korea and Iran."
Who gets to say who is in compliance? The same folks that talked about weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds? The same people who consistently refuse to honor UN weapons inspectors' findings? By putting in those words, it opens the door to saying the following:
1. I tried to get an agreement to reduce weapons. What a good person am I!
2. Nasty old Senate wouldn't ratify it. But I am still a good person.
3. That sneaky Iran is in non-compliance. I don't care what the inspectors say. Remember, I am a good person and you can trust me.
4. Sanctions that really hurt the civilian population, drones, helicopters and even a nuke just must be used. I am still a good person, so it hurts me more than it hurts them.
Joe
I hope no countries go along with this latest effort to demonize Iran and bring it to its knees by harming its population with strangulating sanctions and unprovoked attacks. There is little or no basis for such moves. If there is honest concern about nukes (which I doubt), inspection is they way to go.
What is in it for China, or any country, or for the average citizen of the US? Iran appears to have large amounts of tempting unexplored mineral resources and natural gas. It irks us, and probably the UK, that despite having overthrown Mossadegh, we are again in the position where our companies cannot get their paws on the Iranians' stuff. Besides being yet another war crime, attacking Iran will result in its riches being taken over by our corporations and banks, who never play fair or share with the hoi polloi like us. We will again pay for this grab with our money and children.
There is nothing here that cannot be solved peacefully. Perhaps the Iranian leaders are unreasonable in some respects, but they are pikers compared with the aggressive militarism of the US. Their military capabilities are very very small. Please world leaders at the summit, in the name of sanity, just say no.
Joe
I think this is half-assed. Nuclear power is too dangerous to be used for anything good. Nuclear wars are murder-suicide.
I'll be happy when all nukes are gone. Other nations have them only because the US does.
1/3 is nowhere near enough.