14.07.2014 Views

Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future

Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future

Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

taken place or are in the process of occurring as Russia<br />

<strong>and</strong> the United States continue their decades’ long<br />

practice of fielding fewer but more capable <strong>and</strong> versatile<br />

nuclear systems. The new 1,550 limit for deployed<br />

nuclear warheads on no more than 700 deployed<br />

strategic nuclear delivery vehicles is lower than any<br />

previous treaty, but each side possesses thous<strong>and</strong>s of<br />

additional warheads in storage, undergoing maintenance,<br />

or in the form of shorter-range nuclear systems.<br />

The 7-year implementation timeline gives Russia <strong>and</strong><br />

the United States ample time to gradually continue reducing<br />

their totals while modernizing their remaining<br />

arsenals. Furthermore, the provisions give Russia <strong>and</strong><br />

the United States considerable flexibility to determine<br />

how to structure their nuclear arsenals within these<br />

aggregate limits. Both sides can continue to keep a<br />

strategic triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, <strong>and</strong> strategic bombers,<br />

distributing the warheads among these three legs<br />

as they prefer. The United States <strong>and</strong> Russia are even<br />

allowed to keep an additional 100 non-deployed ICBM<br />

<strong>and</strong> SLBM launchers <strong>and</strong> heavy bombers equipped<br />

for nuclear armaments, a provision designed to deal<br />

with the problem of the U.S. “phantom” systems—<br />

those missile launchers <strong>and</strong> strategic bombers that are<br />

no longer usable but still counted under the original<br />

START, because they had not been eliminated according<br />

to its procedures.<br />

The treaty’s proposed verification regime would<br />

be less intrusive <strong>and</strong> costly than the elaborate requirements<br />

of the 1991 START Treaty, yet it still includes<br />

on-site inspections of nuclear weapons facilities, m<strong>and</strong>ated<br />

exhibitions of delivery vehicles, obligatory exchanges<br />

of data, <strong>and</strong> advanced notifications of some<br />

activities related to <strong>Russian</strong> <strong>and</strong> American nuclear<br />

weapons policies. Other provisions would facilitate<br />

393

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!