Contracts on the reduction of nuclear weapons. Disarmament in the modern world: contracts, convention, results. Presidential Nuclear Security Initiatives

The final indicators are achieved by the United States not only thanks to real arms reductions, but also due to the refurbishment of part of the BRPL-II BRPs and heavy bombers B-52N, indicated in the statement of the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Russian department currently clarifies that it cannot confirm the bringing of these strategic weapons into an unsuitable state provided for by the Treaty.

How many charges are left

- 527 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed BRPL and deployed heavy bombers;

- 1444 units of warheads at deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed BRPL and nuclear warheads, counted for deployed heavy bombers;

- 779 units for the deployed and unnecessary ICBR launchers, deployed and non-verminated launchers of BRPL, deployed and unexpected heavy bombers.

The United States, according to the State Department as of September 1 last year, has numbered:

- 660 units for deployed ICBMs, deployed BRPL and deployed heavy bombers;

- 1393 units of warheads at deployed ICBMs, warheads on deployed BRPL and nuclear warheads, counted behind unfolded heavy bombers;

- 800 units for the deployed and non-verminated commissioning of ICBMs, deployed and non-verified launchers of BRPL, deployed and uneven heavy bombers.

Invitation to negotiations

Representative of the State Department Heather Neyert in a statement on the implementation of the START treaty noted that "the execution of the new START expands the security of the United States and their allies, makes strategic relations US and Russia are more stable,<...> Critically important during when trust in the relationship decreased, and the threat of misunderstanding and erroneous calculations increased. " The United States, as Neuert said, will continue to fully fulfill a new START. Foreign Ministry in his statement also confirmed the commitment of the contract.

However, politicians and experts pay attention to the fact that the future of the contract it's time to start discussing. "We must now decide what to do with the contract,<...> He seems to end soon. We must think about how to prolong it, what to do there, "said Russian President Vladimir Putin on January 30 of this year at a meeting with trusted persons. Direct response from President Donald Trump did not follow this question.

The acting START expires in 2021, by agreement of the parties, as indicated in the text, it can be extended for five years. If the contract is not extended or instead will not be concluded new document, US and Russia will lose a unique tool for mutual control, American experts pay attention. According to the State Department, from the beginning of the Agreement, the parties exchanged 14.6 thousand documents on the location and movement of weapons, conducted 252 field inspections, 14 meetings under the Commission on the Agreement.

In order to extend the effect of START-3 for another five years, as it implies the text of the agreement, Moscow and Washington, it is enough to exchange diplomatic notes. Chairman of the PIR-Center Council, Lieutenant General of Evgeny Buzhinsky, said RBC, because of the current political disagreements between Russia and the United States, agree on a fundamentally new agreement to the parties will be extremely difficult, therefore the extension of START-3 for five years looks a much more possible event for the development of events .

The preparation of a new agreement is realistic and even a desirable option in the presence of political will in Moscow and Washington, but if it is not, the parties will go to the extension of the current version, assures the head of the international security center IMEMO RAS Alexei Arbatov.

What to negotiate

Russia and the United States reduced the strategic weapons of three decades, however, the fulfillment of the conditions under the START treaty, most likely put the point in the process of cutting nuclear arsenals, writes the newspaper The New. York Times. Specified in the United States Nuclear Force reviews adopted on February 2 Priorities for the development of nuclear weapons and the creation of new low-power nuclear charges will lead to a new nuclear arms race, but the countries compete will now be not by their number, but by tactical and technical characteristics, writes the publication.

The new American nuclear doctrine proclaims the concept of electoral nuclear strikes and the introduction of reduced explosive power systems and high accuracy, which potentially prepares the ground for the escalation of nuclear conflict, warns Arbatov. That is why, the expert believes, a new, comprehensive agreement, which would have turned to the problems of the development of high-precision non-nuclear systems.

In the preparation of the current treaty, experts on both sides pointed out that the contractual base of Russia and the United States should be expanded on non-strategic nuclear weapons, missile defense and other sensitive issues.

Until now, the smoking arms reduction issues in the State Department in the rank of I.O. Assistant Secretary of State Anna Fridt said back in 2014 that the United States together with NATO should be in perspective when political conditions are allowed to develop and propose to Russia their position on non-strategic nuclear weapons. Non-strategic (tactical) weapons have a small capacity, such arms include aviation bombs, tactical rockets, shells, mines and other ammunition of the local radius of action.

For Russia, the issue of non-strategic nuclear weapons It is the same principled as the theme of anti-missile defense for the United States, notes Buzhsky. "There is a mutual taboo, and to give up in spheres where one of the parties have an advantage, none of them is ready. Therefore, in the foreseeable future, it can only be about further quantitative reduction. Discussion of the qualitative characteristics of weapons in the negotiation process - the proposal is no longer, but in current conditions it borders with fantastics, "he says.

Former US Defense Minister William Perry told RBC that in the next Treaty of START should introduce restrictions for all types of nuclear weapons - not only strategic, but also tactical: "When people talk about what nuclear arsenal is today - they mean About 5,000 warheads in service, which is already so pretty bad. But in US there are still a couple of thousand nuclear shells in warehouses, which can also be used. And there are such projectiles not only in the United States, but also in Russia, the so-called tactical nuclear weapon. "

The expansion of the parties participating in the reduction of nuclear arsenals, according to Buzhinsky, is unlikely, since other nuclear powers are the United Kingdom, France, the PRC - in a logical way will require from Moscow and Washington to first reduce the number of warheads to their level before entering any agreements .

The new agreement, according to Arbatov, should take into account the topics that the compilers of START-3 went around the party. First of all, these are the systems about and the development of high-precision non-nuclear equipment systems. "Three years for the preparation of a new agreement on the basis of already available diplomats are quite enough: START-3 was agreed for the year, the START-1 contract was signed in 1991 after three years of work almost from scratch," the Arbatov summarizes.

Disarmament Week (Disarmament Week) is held annually from October 24 to October 30, which is provided for in the final document of the Special Session of the 1978 General Assembly.

Disarmament - a set of measures designed to stop building funds, their restriction, reduction and liquidation. The total international legal framework of disarmament is contained in the UN Charter, which relates "principles defining disarmament and regulation of armaments", among the "general principles of cooperation in maintaining peace and security".

The only multilateral negotiation forum of the international community to develop agreements on disarmament issues - Conference on Disarmament (Conference on Disarmament). Created in January 1979. According to 2007, there are 65 participating States.

Since the decisions on disarmament conference are accepted strictly on the basis of consensus, since 1997, the body has experienced difficulties in coordinating the main program of work due to the lack of consent of participants in disarmament issues.

Nuclear weapon

Nuclear weapons began to produce in 1945. Since then, more than 128 thousand charges were made. The peak of the arms race came in 1986, when the cumulative global nuclear arsenal reached 70481 charges. At the end " cold War"The reduction process began. In 1995, the total number of charges was 43200, in 2000 - 35535.

According to January 1, 2007, as part of strategic nuclear power Russia was 741 strategic carrier capable of carrying 3084 nuclear charges.

Major arms reduction agreements

Soviet-American Agreement on the restriction of missile defense systems (Pro Agreement). Signed on May 26, 1972. Restricted the number of anti-missile systems of the USSR and the United States to two each side - around the capital and in the area of \u200b\u200bconcentration of launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles (In 1974, the USSR and the United States signed an additional protocol, which limited the number of anti-missile systems to one side). It does not have the strength from June 14, 2002, when the United States unilaterally came out of it.

Soviet-American agreement on the restriction of strategic arms (AUC-1). Signed on May 26, 1972. Restricted the number of ballistic missiles and launchers of the USSR and the USA at the level made by the time of signing the document, and also provided for the adoption of new ballistic missiles placed on submarines, strictly in the quantity in which there were previously written off the obsolete ballistic missiles of ground-based base.

Soviet-American agreement on the restriction of strategic arms (AUC-2 Agreement). Signed on June 18, 1979. Restricted the number of launchers and introduced a restriction on the placement of nuclear weapons in space.

Soviet-American treaty on the elimination of medium and low-range missiles (agreement on RSMD). Signed on December 7, 1987. The parties pledged not to produce, do not experience and unsubscribe ballistic and winged rockets Ground-based medium (from 1000 to 5,500 kilometers) and less (from 500 to 1000 kilometers) range. In addition, the parties have been able to destroy all launchers and ground-based rockets with a radius of action from 500 to 5,500 kilometers for three years. It was the first in history case of reaching agreement on the real reduction of weapons.

By June 1991, the contract was fully implemented: the USSR destroyed 1846 missile systems, USA - 846. At the same time, the technological equipment was eliminated for their production, as well as operational bases and sites of specialists (only 117 Soviet facilities and 32 - American).

Soviet-American agreement on the limitation of strategic offensive arms (START-1). Signed on July 30-31, 1991 (in 1992, an additional protocol was signed, fixed the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine). The USSR and the United States have pledged to reduce their own nuclear arsenals to 6 thousand warheads (at the same time, in reality on the rules of warheads on heavy bombers, the USSR could have about 6.5 thousand warheads, USA - up to 8 , 5 thousand).

On December 6, 2001 of the Russian Federation and the United States declared the fulfillment of obligations: the Russian side has 1136 strategic carriers and 5518 by the waters, American - 1237 strategic carriers and 5948 by the Secretary.

Russian-American Agreement on Reducing Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2). Signed on January 3, 1993. It assumed a ban on the use of ballistic missiles with separating head units and provided for a reduction in January 2003 by the number of nuclear warheads up to 3,500 units at each side. In force, it did not entered, since in response to the yield of June 14, 2002, the United States from the Treaty on the Russian Federation came out of the START-2. Replaced agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive potentials (SNP Treaty).

The Russian-American Agreement on Reducing Strategic Offensive Potentials (SNP Treaty, also known as the Moscow Treaty). Signed on May 24, 2002. Limits the number of nuclear warheads on battle duty, up to 1700-2200 each party. It remains in force until December 31, 2012 and can be extended by agreement of the parties.

Multilateral agreement on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (NPT). Open for signature on July 1, 1968 and has more than 170 member states (they do not include, in particular, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). It establishes that the state with nuclear weapons is considered that which produced and exploded such a weapon until January 1, 1967 (that is, the USSR, USA, United Kingdom, France, China).

Since the signing of the NPT, it was possible to achieve a decrease in the total number of nuclear charges from 55 thousand to 22 thousand.

Multilateral agreement on comprehensive nuclear testing (CTBT). Open for signature on September 24, 1996 and employs 177 member states.

Ordinary types of arms

Basic documents:

1980 - The Convention on Specific Types of Conventional Weapons (Cokvo) prohibits certain types of conventional weapons, which are considered to be appreciated by excessive damage or having an indiscriminate effect.

In 1995, as a result of the revision of the Convention on the specific types of ordinary weapons (also known as the Convention on Inhuman Weapons), protocol-2 appeared with amendments, introducing a more rigid restriction on certain methods of application, types (self-acting and detectable) and transmission of anti-personnel mines.

1990 - Agreement on conventional armed forces in Europe (CFA) limits the number different species conventional weapons in the region extending from Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains.

At the same time, the Group of States considered the measures taken insufficiently and developed a document on all anti-personnel mines - the Convention on the Prohibition of Use, the accumulation, production and transmission of anti-personnel mines, open to signing in 1997. According to 2007, 155 states joined the Convention.

The application of the conventions led to the destruction of reserves, demining areas in some states and a decrease in the number of new victims. At least 93 states are now officially purified from mines and at least 41 of 55 manufacturers' states ceased to issue this type of weapons. States that are not members of any of the conventions announced a one-sided moratorium on the use and transmission of anti-personnel mines.

Chemical and biological weapons

Basic documents:

In 1925, the Geneva Protocol was signed "On the prohibition of applications in the war of suffusion, poisonous and other similar gases and bacteriological means". The protocol was an important step in creating an international legal regime limiting the use of bacteriological weapons in the war, but left for brackets to develop, production and storage. By 2005, members of the Protocol were 134 states.

In 1972, the Convention on Biological and Toxin Weapons (CBTO) was adopted, which had a comprehensive ban on these types of weapons. In 1975 he entered into force. As of April 2007, 155 states were signed.

In 1993, the Chemical Weapon Convention (CKO) was adopted, who had a comprehensive ban on this type of weapons. In 1997 entered into force. According to data for August 2007, he signed 182 states. Is the first multilateral treaty prohibiting the whole class of weapons mass destruction and providing for the mechanism of international verification of the destruction of this type of weapons.

As of August 2007, 33 percent of chemical weapons reserves were destroyed by participating countries (the process must be completed until April 29, 2012). There are 98 percent of the world's combat reserving substances in the hands of States parties.

In the Russian Federation, in order to fulfill obligations under the CHO in 2001, the federal target program "Destruction of chemical weapons in the Russian Federation" was approved. The beginning of the implementation of the program - 1995, the end - 2012. It provides for the destruction of all stocks of combat poisoning substances in the Russian Federation and the conversion or elimination of relevant production facilities.

At the time of the start of the implementation of the program in the Russian Federation there were about 40 thousand tons of combat poisoning substances. Upon completion of the second stage of the implementation of international obligations under the KKO - April 29, 2007 - 8 thousand tons of combat poisoning substances were destroyed in the Russian Federation (20 percent of the available). By the end of December 2009, when it was determined to complete the third stage of the implementation of international obligations to destroy the kimoruya, Russia will destroy 45 percent of all reserves of chemical weapons, i.e. - 18.5 thousand tons.

On May 26, 1972, Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed agreements on the restriction of strategic armaments (ASS). In connection with the anniversary of this event, Le Figaro offers you an overview of the main Russian-American bilateral agreements.

Disarmament or restriction of strategic armaments? The policy of nuclear intimidation during the Cold War originated the mad arms race of two superpowers, which could lead to a catastrophe. That is why 45 years ago, the United States and the USSR signed the first agreement on the reduction of strategic arms.

Treaty 1: First Bilateral Arms Reduction Agreement

On May 26, 1972, US President Richard Nixon and Secretary General of the Central Committee of the CPSU Leonid Brezhnev signed an agreement on the restriction of strategic arms. The signing took place in front of the TV chamber in the Vladimir Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow. This event was the result of the negotiations began in November 1969.

The contract limited the number of ballistic missiles and launchers, their location and composition. Supplement to the contract of 1974 reduced the number of areas deployed by each side of the regions. However, one of the points of the Treaty allowed the parties to terminate the treaty unilaterally. That was what the United States was made in 2001 to start the deployment of the pro on its territory after 2004-2005. The date of the final exit of the United States from this Agreement has arrived on June 13, 2002.

The agreement of 1972 includes a temporary agreement for a period of 20 years, which prohibits the production of launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles of ground-based bases and limits the launchers of ballistic missiles on submarines. Also, according to this agreement, the parties undertake to continue active and comprehensive negotiations.

This "historical" agreement was to especially help in restoring the equilibrium of the deterrence. And this does not concern the production of offensive arms and restrictions on the number of warheads and strategic bombers. The drum forces of both countries are still very high. First of all, this agreement allows both countries to temper the costs, while maintaining the ability of mass lesion. This prompted André Frossard to write in the newspaper on May 29, 1972: "Being able to arrange about the 27th ends of the world - I don't know exactly - gives them a sufficient sense of safety and allows them to save us from many additional ways to destroy. For this we need to thank their kind heart. "

Agreement 2: Weakening of tension between the two countries

After 6 years of negotiations, a new treaty between the USSR and the United States on the restriction of strategic offensive armaments was signed by the American President Jimmy Carter and the Secretary General of the CPSU Central Committee Leonid Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. This complex document includes 19 articles, 43 pages of definitions, 3 pages with transfers of the reserves of military arsenals of the two countries, 3 pages of the protocol, which will enter into force in 1981 and, finally, the Declaration of Principles that will form the basis of the negotiations on ADS-3 .

The contract limited the number of strategic nuclear weapons of both countries. After signing the contract, Jimmy Carter said in his speech: "These negotiations, which are continuously for ten years, cause the feeling that nuclear competition if it is not limited common rules and restrictions can only lead to a catastrophe ". At the same time, the American president clarified that "this contract does not take away the need for both countries to support them military power" But this contract was not ratified by the United States due to the invasion of the USSR to Afghanistan.

Agreement on the elimination of medium and low rockets

On December 8, 1987, in Washington, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan signed an indefinite agreement on the elimination of medium and low-range missiles (RSMD), which entered into force in May 1988. This "historical" agreement first provided for the elimination of arms. It was about the rockets of medium and low range with a radius of action from 500 to 5.5 thousand km. They were from 3 to 4% of the total arsenal. In accordance with the contract, the parties, within three years from the date of its entry into force, had to destroy all the rockets of the middle and low distance. The contract also provided for the procedures for mutual checks "in the field".

During the signing of the Rihan agreement, he stressed: "For the first time in history, we have crossed the discussions of arms control to discuss their reduction." Both presidents particularly insisted on the reduction of 50% of their strategic arsenals. They focused on the future START Treaty, whose signing was originally scheduled for the spring of 1988.

START-1: the beginning of this disarmament

On July 31, 1991, US President George Bush and his Soviet colleague Mikhail Gorbachev signed an agreement in Moscow to reduce strategic offensive arms. This agreement was the first present reduction in the strategic arsenals of two superpowers. According to his conditions, countries should have been in three stages (for seven years) by quarter or third to reduce the number of the most dangerous types of weapons: intercontinental ballistic missiles and underwater basing missiles.

The number of warheads should have been reduced to 7 thousand for the USSR and 9 thousand for the United States. The privileged position in the new arsenal was assigned to bombers: the number of bombs should increase from 2.5 to 4 thousand in the United States and from 450 to 2.2 thousand at the USSR. In addition, various control measures were envisaged in the contract, and it was finally entered into force in 1994. According to Gorbachev, he became a blow to the "fear infrastructure".

START-2: radical cuts

On January 3, 1993, President of Russia Boris Yeltsin and his American colleague George Bush signed the START-2 contract in Moscow. He became a big event, since it provided for a reduction in nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. After the entry into force in 2003, American reserves were to decrease from 9 thousand 986 warheads up to 3.5 thousand, and Russian - from 10 thousand 237 to 3 thousand 027. That is, to the level of 1974 for Russia and 1960 for America .

Another important point was registered in the contract: the elimination of missiles with separating warheads. Russia refused OT. high-precision weaponswhich constituted the basis for its consideration forces, while the United States was removed half the rockets installed on submarines (practically not detects). START-2 was ratified by the United States in 1996 and Russia in 2000.

Boris Yeltsin saw a source of hope in it, and George Bush considered him a symbol of the "end of the Cold War" and "the best future free of fear for our parents and children." Be that as it may, reality remains not so idyllic: both countries can still destroy the entire planet several times.

SNP: a point in the cold war

On May 24, 2002, Presidents George Bush Jr. and Vladimir Putin signed an agreement in the Kremlin to reduce strategic offensive potentials (SNP). It was about decreasing arsenals for two thirds in ten years.

Nevertheless, this is a small bilateral agreement (five short articles) did not differ and did not contain verification measures. His role from the point of view of the image of the parties was more important than its filling: not the first time they said about the reduction. Be that as it may, it still became a turning point, the end of the military-strategic parity: not possessing the necessary economic opportunities, Russia refused to claim the status of the superpower. In addition, the contract opened the door to the "New Era", because he was accompanied by a statement about the "new strategic partnership". The United States made a bet on ordinary armed forces and understood the uselessness of most of their nuclear arsenal. Bush noted that the signing of the SNP allows you to get rid of the "Heritage of the Cold War" and hostility between the two countries.

START-3: National Interest Protection

On April 8, 2010, US President Barack Obama and his Russian colleague Dmitry Medvedev signed another agreement on reducing strategic offensive arms (START-3) in the Spanish living room of Prague Castle. It was designed to fill the legal vacuum, which arose after the expiration of the START-1 period in December 2009. A new ceiling of nuclear arsenals of two countries was installed on it: a reduction in nuclear warheads up to 1.55 thousand units, intercontinental ballistic missiles, ballistic rockets of submarines and heavy bombers - up to 700 units.

In addition, the agreement provides for checking the numbers by a joint group of inspectors seven years after its entry into force. It is worth noting that the installed planks are not too different from those that were listed in 2002. It also does not refer to tactical nuclear weapons, thousands of deactivated warheads in warehouses and bombs of strategic aviation. The American Senate ratified it in 2010.

START-3 became the last Russian-American agreement in the field of control over nuclear weapons. A few days after the entry into office in January 2017, the US President Donald Trump said that he would offer Vladimir Putin withdrawing sanctions from Russia (were put into response to the annexation of the Crimea) in exchange for the reduction of nuclear weapons. According to the latest American State Department, the United States has 1 thousand 367 warheads (bombers and rockets), while the Russian arsenal reaches 1 thousand 096.

Subscribe to us

Based on the fact that the Russian Federation is the successor of the USSR, it is a full participant in the USSR ratified by international treaties.

At the end of July 1991, the START-1 contract is signed in Moscow. It can be safely argued that in its coverage, the degree of detail, the complexity of solved problems in it is the first and last contract of this kind. Subject of the Treaty: ICBM, BRPL, PU ICBM, PU BRPL, TB, as well as ICBM Boeers, BRPL and Nuclear Weapons TB. The parties agreed to reduce their strategic weapons to the level of 1600 deployed carriers and 6000 warheads on them. At the same time, the number of our heavy ICBMs should be reduced half. Restrictions were introduced on unnecessary tools. For the first time, the limit on the total thrust weight of ballistic missiles was established. It should not exceed 3600 tons.

The coordination of the procedure for the testing of START, especially the arms of TB was very complex. Do not stop in detail on this issue, it should be emphasized that ultimately a conditional counseling was taken here - heavy bombarder It was counted as one unit into the number of carriers, and all nuclear bombs and missiles of a small range on it - as one nuclear warhead. As for the KVB, they counted as follows: for the USSR within 180 TB - for 8 warheads on each bombarder, for the United States within 150 TB - 10 warheads, and in excess of these specified quantities for each TB, the number of KVBs were counted for each TB which it is really equipped with.

Arms reductions should be implemented in stages for 7 years from the date of the entry into force. Immediately it should be noted that the contract came into force after three and a half years after its signing in December 1994, for such a long delay there were reasons (there is no possibility to stop on them, unfortunately, opportunities). In December 2001, the parties completed reducing their weapons to the agreed levels provided for by the START-1 Treaty. Arms reductions were carried out by eliminating or re-equipment for detailed procedures. Lukashuk, I.I. International law. General: studies. For students jurid. Fact and universities; Publishing house 3rd, recreation. and add. / I.I. Lukashuk. - M.: Volters Clever, 2005. - 432 p.

Control over compliance with obligations under the START-1 Agreement includes the use of NTSC; 14 different types of inspections; Continuous observation at mobile ICBM production facilities; ensuring access to telemetry information transmitted from the side of ballistic missiles in their starts, including the exchange of magnetic tapes with recorded telemetry information; Confidence measures contributing to the effectiveness of control. To facilitate the implementation of the objectives and provisions of the START-1 Agreement, a joint commission for compliance and inspections (SKSI) is established and understood.

It must be said that in the future, important changes occurred in the negotiation process.

Even before the entry into force of the Treaty of START-1, the agreement was signed (in January 1993) on the further reduction and restriction of the START, which received the name of the START-2 Agreement. This contract for ninety percent, if not more, is based on the provisions of the START-1 Treaty, and therefore it was prepared for a maximum time, approximately for six months. Tolstoy, B.ji. Course of International Law: Textbook / B.ji. Thick. - M.: Volkers Clever, 2009. - 1056 with

The START-2 Treaty provided for the reduction of the START of the parties to the level of 3000-3500 warheads, with a paragraph of 1700-1750 warheads on BRPL. The advantage of this treaty can be considered an agreement on the real session of weapons at all TB. At the same time, his features, and many experts considered the shortcomings, were the requirements of the elimination of ICBM with RGCH, as well as the complete elimination of all our heavy ICBMs. The possibility of reorientation (without any mandatory procedures) to 100 TB on the implementation of non-nuclear tasks was envisaged. Essentially, they were withdrawn from the county. Essentially all restrictions on the possibility of lowering the number of warheads on ballistic missiles.

All this, as it was believed, gave the obvious advantages of the United States and as a result predetermined very sharp discussions in the ratification of this contract in the State Duma. In the end, The State Duma Ratched the START-2 Treaty, and the US Congress was not fully brought to the end of this procedure (the Protocol was not ratified to the START-2 Agreement, signed on September 26, 1997 in New York, to extend arms reduction terms). With the exit of the United States from the Treaty on the issue of the issue of the implementation of the START-2 Agreement, it was finally removed. Foreign Ministry of Russia June 14th of this year He made an official statement that in the future we do not consider themselves the obligatory obligation to comply with this Treaty.

With the arrival in the United States, the administration of the J. Bush-Jr. administration has emerged a sharp change in the relations of the American side to developing arms control agreements. A line was proclaimed to exercise arms reductions unilaterally, without the development of legally binding documents, without appropriate control. It is clear that such an approach, if he were adopted, would lead to the destruction of the negotiation process. This could not be allowed.

In such conditions, an agreement on reducing the strategic offensive potentials of Russia and the United States has emerged, which was prepared in record time and signed on May 24 of this year in Moscow. This contract immediately caused sharp debates. Supporters of the contract see the abbreviations provided in it to the level of 1700-2200 expanded warheads as a step aimed at further strengthening strategic stability. They consider the achievement and that it is legally binding. Opponents of the Treaty of the SNP emphasize that it is essentially only a document of intent. It does not define the subject of agreement, there is no rules for the test of nuclear warheads, reducing procedures, control regulations. The reduction in a new agreement should be completed in 2012. At the same time, it remains in force START-1, whose validity period expires 3 years earlier - in 2009 and it is not clear how a new agreement will function during these three years?

Of course, all these questions are valid. But it is impossible to ignore that the decline in the level of warheads in the deployed media from 6000 units. (under the START-1 Agreement) to 1700-2200, this is a step that helps strengthen safety and stability.

By the end of the 1990s. process nuclear disarmament Between countries significantly slowed down. The main reason is the weakness of the Russian economy, which could not support the quantitative parameters of the strategic forces at the same level as Soviet. In 2002, an agreement was concluded on the reduction of strategic offensive potentials (the SNP Treaty), which entered into force on June 1, 2003. The contract consists of 5 articles, strategic carriers are not mentioned in it. According to the Agreement, the parties pledged by December 31, 2012 to bring the number of strategic nuclear warheads to 1700-2200 units. However, there is no clear concept in the contract, which is understood as the term "strategic nuclear warhead", and therefore it is not clear how to count them. Signing the SNP Treaty, the parties did not agree, which they are going to cut, and therefore the control measures does not provide for the contract. After the signing of this contract, the long-term period of stagnation in the disarmament sphere was completed, and now in 2009-2010. Certain positive trends began to manifest. Tolstoy, B.ji. Course of International Law: Textbook / B.ji. Thick. - M.: Volkers Clever, 2009. - 1056 with

On April 5, 2009 in Prague (Czech Republic), the US President was announced with the initiative about the future without nuclear weapons and possible ways to achieve it. During his speech, Barack Obama not only noted the existing challenges to the non-proliferation regime of nuclear weapons, including the presence of thousands of nuclear weapons, ongoing nuclear weapons tests, a black market for nuclear secrets and nuclear materials, the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists, etc., but And identified the trajectory to which it is necessary to adhere to building peace without nuclear weapons. First, it is a decrease in the role of nuclear weapons in strategies national Security states. Starting work in this direction is necessary with a reduction in strategic arms. In order to introduce a global ban on conducting nuclear tests, the Obama administration will immediately and actively seek the US Treaty ratification of a comprehensive nuclear testing contract (CTBT) and encourages other countries to connect to this process. To overlap the channels for which the elements needed to create nuclear bombs, it is necessary to seek the conclusion of a new treaty, which controlled the production of splitting materials intended for use in state arsenals of nuclear weapons.

Secondly, to strengthen the NPT, it is necessary to adopt a number of principles:

• 1. Urgently, it is necessary to find additional resources to enhance the powers of international inspections;
• 2. It is necessary to determine the real and immediate consequences for countries that violate the rules or trying to leave the NPT without good reason.

Violators of the North Day must be punished. On April 6, 2010, a new US nuclear doctrine was adopted, which allows the United States to apply nuclear weapons regarding a number of states, in particular those who do not fulfill obligations by the NPT. And these countries are named specifically - North Korea and Iran;

3. It is necessary to create a new basis for civilian nuclear cooperation, including the International Bank of Nuclear Fuel, so that all countries that abandoned nuclear weapons have access to peaceful energy without increasing the risk of distribution. Paramyuzov, O.G. Nuclear safety in the conditions of modern international law and order / O.G. Paramyuzov. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House S.- Petersburg. University, 2006. - 388 p.

At the same time, the US President said that his administration would strive to interact with Iran on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. The United States supports Iran's right to peaceful nuclear activities, provided that strict inspections from the IAEA. However, so far these checks are carried out in full, Iran's activities are a threat to Iran's neighbors, for the United States, as well as American allies. As long as the threat from Iran will persist, the United States will continue to implement plans to create effective system Anti-missile defense (pro). If the Iranian nuclear threat is eliminated, the United States will terminate the implementation of the Pro program; 5. It is strongly necessary to jointly ensure that the terrorists never be able to purchase nuclear weapons. In this regard, B. Obama announced new international efforts aimed at ensuring the protection of all vulnerable nuclear materials Worldwide for four years. All countries should develop partnerships to ensure reliable protection of these potentially hazardous materials and increase their efforts to destroy the black market, identifying and intercepting materials in the path of their following, using financial instruments to eliminate the channels of this dangerous trade. Start need from a global nuclear security summit.

USA as the only one nuclear powerThe applied nuclear weapon does not have a moral right to inactivate, in view of which the US President clearly and with conviction proclaimed America's commitment to peace and security in the world without nuclear weapons. At the same time, the US President emphasized that he understood well that this goal would not be achieved quickly, perhaps this would not happen while he was alive, but the world's world community would need patience and perseverance in resolving this complex issue.

For its part of the Russian Federation, he always supported and interacted with the authors of initiatives aimed at achieving universal and complete disarmament (Governing Initiative, Evans-Kawaguti Commission, and others, which are based on proposals aimed at strengthening the NPT, solving global security problems on multilateral basis). Russia considers the complete elimination of nuclear weapons as the ultimate goal of the gradual, phased process of universal and complete disarmament. This goal can only be achieved on the basis of an integrated approach with favorable international conditions. When maintaining strategic stability and compliance with the principle of equal security for all states without exception, taking into account the existing continuous relationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms, which was told by the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev at the 64th session of the UN GA. On February 5, 2010, a new military doctrine of the Russian Federation was approved by the Decree of the Russian Federation, in which it was directly enshrined that the creation and deployment of strategic missile defense systems, undermining global stability and violating the current ratio of forces in the rocket and nuclear sphere, as well as an increase in the number of states possessing nuclear weapons are the main external military hazards for Russia.

The Russian Federation also believes that to strengthen international security it is necessary to formulate specific parameters in which further advancement on the path of nuclear disarmament is possible. We are talking about such conditions as the settlement of regional conflicts, eliminating incentives, pushing states to acquire or preserve nuclear weapons, controlled termination of conventional weapons and attempts to "compensate" the reduction in nuclear systems, reliable provision of the viability of key disarmament and non-proliferation tools, preventing weapons In space. The Russian Initiative on the concentration of nuclear weapons within the national territories of nuclear states does not lose relevance and the Russian Initiative. Its implementation would lead to the maximum expansion of areas where nuclear weapons are completely absent. Russia believes that in the foreseeable future, all states with nuclear weapons, including nuclear states, must be smoothly joined by the Russian-American efforts to reduce strategic nuclear arsenals.

foundations outside the day.

An important step in the process of nuclear disarmament should be the speedy entry into force of the CTBT. Russia welcomes the changed position of the United States in relation to this agreement and persistently calls on all states, and first of all those on which the entry into force of this contract is depends on, sign and ratify it without delay. Compliance with the voluntary moratorium on nuclear testsFor all the importance of this measure, cannot replace legal obligations in this area. An important step towards strengthening the non-proliferation regime of nuclear weapons should be a speedy launch at the conference on disarmament of negotiations on the development of a contract for the prohibition of the splitting material for the purposes of nuclear weapons (DzPRM). Sidorova E. A. International legal regime for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and legal problems of its strengthening. Diss. K.Yu. n. -M., 2010.

In the foreground, the tasks of preventing nuclear materials and the relevant technologies in the hands of non-state actors, primarily the terrorists remain. It is necessary to build multilateral cooperation in this matter based on the UN Security Council resolution 1540 of April 28, 2004.

In view of the fact that in the world, the need for energy is rapidly increasing, to satisfy the peaceful atom, Russia believes that the movement towards the "global zero" is impossible without building modernly sustainable dissemination of the architecture of international cooperation in the peaceful nuclear sphere based on tough test tools of non-proliferation Communications on the NPT 1968, as well as multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. The Russian Federation considers it an important task to achieve an increase in the effectiveness of the IAEA warranty system and the universalization of the Additional Protocol on the guarantees, which should be required to verify compliance with adopted obligations by the NPT and the Universal Standard in the field of nuclear export control. Today, Russian * initiatives on the development of the global infrastructure of nuclear energy and the creation are fulfilled in full swing. international Centers According to the provision of nuclear fuel cycle services. A serious step forward was the approval by the Council of the Governing IAEA of the Russian proposal to create under the auspices of the IAEA warranty reserve of low-enriched uranium.

On March 29, 2010, at the session of the UN Commission on Disarmament, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation for the UN V.I. Churkin, who outlined in detail the official position of Russia in relation to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and on May 4, 2010, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S.A. acted at the next review conference Ryabkov, who has freshenly freshen the work done by Russia within the NPT. In particular, it was noted that the Russian Federation leads consistent work to reduce its nuclear arsenal. Obligations on such disarmament agreements are fully implemented as the contract of 1987 on the liquidation of medium and less rockets and the 1991 agreement on the reduction of strategic offensive arms. The Russian Federation considers the necessary systematically moving forward along the path of real nuclear disarmament, as required by Art. VI NPT. Aware of the special responsibility as a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia in the spirit of goodwill continues deep, irreversible and checked reductions in strategic offensive arms. One of the important steps on this path was the signing on April 8, 2010 of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States on measures to further reduce and restrict strategic

offensive arms.

The provisions of the new contract provides that each of the parties reduces and limits its START in such a way that after seven years after its entry into force and in the future their total quantities did not exceed: 700 units for deployed ICBMs, BRPL and TB; 1550 units for warheads on deployed ICBM, BRPL and TB; 800 units for deployed and non-verminated launchers (PU) of ICBM and BRPL, as well as TB (Article I and II of the Treaty). This level fixes the contract in the legal field of the deployed and uniform PU, as well as TB, which makes it possible to limit the "return potential" of the parties (the possibility of a sharp increase in the number of deployed warheads in the crisis situation) and creates an additional stimulus to eliminate or re-equipment the reduced START. At the same time, the contract provides that each of the parties has the right to independently determine the composition and structure of its START.

Thus, the Russian Federation once again clearly demonstrated its desire for large-scale reductions in START. Now it is necessary to ensure a speedy ratification of the contract and its entry into force, as well as to guarantee the consistent and steady fulfillment of all obligations laid down in the contract. Paramyuzov, O.G. Nuclear safety in the conditions of modern international law and order / O.G. Paramyuzov. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House S.- Petersburg. University, 2006. - 388 p.

According to specialists in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, as soon as the SNA-3 treaty will enter into force, non-strategic nuclear weapons (NyaO) and missile defense (Pro) should be a further subject of negotiations of the parties. It seems that in the separation of them, further promotion on the path of abbreviations START will be extremely difficult.

There is no international legal mechanism for NBA requiring their control and abbreviation. Carried out in the early 1990s. Nyao reductions were carried out by the USSR / Russian Federation and the United States on voluntary principles unilaterally. There are no official data on the number of non-strategic nuclear fuel charges. According to estimates of non-governmental experts, the United States has about 1,300 nuclear warheads of this class, and Russia is about 3,000. The danger of further preservation of NBA is explained by the fact that, firstly, the stocks of NBA will contribute a certain destabilizing factor in Russian-American relations and inhibit any cardinal changes in disarmament; secondly, the stocks of NBA will impede the involvement of other nuclear states into the process of a controlled reduction in nuclear weapons; And, thirdly, the lack of control over NBA will be the source of doubts from non-nuclear countries in the commitment of the United States and Russia with its obligations over the NPT. Sidorova E. A. International legal regime for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and legal problems of its strengthening. Diss. K.Yu. n. -M., 2010.

However, the establishment of control over NBA is impossible without complete withdrawal from Europe due to the fact that the deployed NBA in Europe is considered by the Russian military as strategic, since it is in sufficient proximity to the borders of the Russian Federation. Therefore, Russia will seek to link his willingness to consider the issues of NBA with the consent of NATO countries and the EU to make a Russian proposal for the development of the European Security Treaty. In addition, there are technical difficulties in establishing controls that are due to the fact that it must be installed directly above nuclear ammunition, and not by means of delivery.

The implementation of further steps to reduce nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to the question of the pro. The unilateral actions of the United States on the creation of the system of the pro cause Russia's concerns regarding its influence on the survival rate of Russian strategic forces. When signing the START-3 Treaty, Russia made a statement regarding missile defense, in which it was noted that a new agreement could be effective and viable only in the absence of a qualitative and significant quantitative increase in the possibilities of US missile defense systems, which may ultimately lead To the emergence of threats for Russian strategic forces. The fact is that the replacement of the United States adopted by the previous administration of plans to deploy elements in the Czech Republic and Poland took offense of the issue only for a while, since the new four-storey adapted plan for building a USA in Europe provides for deploying to 2020. Systems capable of intercepting and ICB . Therefore, today it makes sense to take advantage of the current positive situation to resume efforts to strengthen the confidence-building measures and the development of cooperation in the field of pro. The first step in this direction, in the opinion of the Russian Federation, could be the work on the joint assessment of the possibilities of the third "countries in the field of creating ballistic missiles in order to develop a common point of view of the emerging threats. This, in particular, would contribute to the opening of the Center for the Exchange of Early Warning Systems (CDA). On June 4, 2000, the Russian Federation and the United States signed an appropriate memorandum regarding the creation of a joint data center, which was to start acting from the moment of signing to 2010, but the work on the creation of a data center was encountered with organizational problems, and as a result of the data center and did not start working in spite At the importance of cooperation and formation of relations between Russia and the United States.

Interaction between Russia and the United States to find comprehensive solutions of the above problems will create real conditions for the further phase of the reduction in nuclear weapons.

The serious concerns of the global community in connection with the existing challenges associated with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and the need for international actions to prevent them were reflected in the UN Security Council Resolution 1887, adopted unanimously on September 24, 2009. The resolution contains two main outputs: first, modern challenges In the field of nuclear weapons, they can and should be solved on the basis of the NPT, which passed the test of time and was established as the only universal basis for interaction in this sensitive sphere; Secondly, seriously anxiety causes the danger of nuclear materials in the hands of terrorists, and therefore it is necessary to strengthen the international "safety grid", which allows you to stop such risks on distant approaches.

April 12-13, 2010 in the city of Washington (USA), a nuclear safety summit was held, in which representatives of 47 countries were attended, including Russia. The purpose of the meeting is a discussion of ways to increase physical nuclear protection and prevent the danger of nuclear terrorism. At the summit, it became known that Canada refused to refuse the significant reserves of highly enriched uranium. From all reserves of uranium, Chile and Mexico refused. The president of Ukraine V. Yanukovych expressed the same intention that all reserves of highly enriched uranium will be exported to the Russian Federation until 2012. President D. Medvedev announced the closure of the armory plutonium reactor in Zheleznogorsk.

During the Summit of the US Secretary of State X. Clinton and the Russian Foreign Minister S. Lavrov signed the Protocol to the bilateral intergovernmental agreement 2000 on the disposal of plutonium declared as plutonium, which is not more necessary for defense purposes, treating it and cooperation in this area. This agreement was signed by the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation and the US Department of State on August 29 and September 1, 2000 in accordance with Art. XIII Agreement, it should have been applied temporarily from the date of its signature and to enter into force on the date of receipt of the last written notice on the parties to the parties of its domestic procedures necessary for its entry into force. Unfortunately, the agreement was not implemented for some technical reasons. Signed X. Clinton and S. Lavrov Protocol must eliminate these technical interference, as a result of which the practical implementation of the agreement will be possible. The Agreement itself is concretizing the joint statement of the President of the Russian Federation and the President of the United States on the principles of the treatment and disposal of plutonium, stated as plutonium, which is not more necessary for defense purposes of September 2, 1998

In accordance with the principles of disposal of such plutonium coordinated in the statement, the agreement provides its disposal of existing nuclear reactors, reactors as nuclear fuel, which may appear in the future, as well as by immobilization with highly radioactive waste or by any other mutually agreed methods (Article III of the Agreement). The agreement does not provide for any restrictions on the type of mixed uranium fuel. In accordance with Art. II agreements each of the parties should utilize at least 34 metric tons of utilized plutonium. The implementation of this Agreement will also clearly demonstrate the commitment of the Russian Federation and the United States further development The nuclear disarmament process, since in addition to the actual limitation and reduction of nuclear strategic offensive arms, it is necessary to do something in relation to plutonium, which is released as a result of this process, which is an important contribution to the implementation of Art. VI NPT.

The Washington Summit was completed by the signing of a joint declaration, which agreed further actions to disarmament. The following summit is scheduled for 2012, which will be held in South Korea.

Iran was not invited to a nuclear security summit in Washington and as an alternative to April 17-18, 2010, Tehran held a conference on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, which was held under the motto - "Nuclear Energy to all, nuclear weapons - no one." The conference was attended by representatives from more than 50 countries, including the Russian Federation, which outlined their national approaches and priorities in the field of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and nuclear disarmament. In addition, representatives of the expert community and specialized non-governmental organizations acted with reports.

At the end of the conference, a document was adopted, which sets out the main provisions of the under discussions. It was, in particular, it was said about the need for nuclear disarmament as the main priority of human society, as well as the complete destruction of this inhuman weapon for a certain period of time; implementation of obligations on disarmament assumed nuclear states Based on the NPT and Final Documents of Conferences on the Consideration of the NPT 1995 and 2000, the full implementation of the program "13 steps on disarmament"; Conclusions of the Universal Convention and Compliance with the non-discriminatory and legal approach to the problem of a complete ban on the distribution, production, transmission, accumulation, the use or threat to the use of nuclear weapons to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, taking into account the experience of the conclusion of two conventions: Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production and the accumulation of reserves of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and their destruction of 1972 and the Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, accumulation and application of chemical weapons and its destruction of 1993, as well as providing security guarantees to non-nuclear countries to achieve universal disarmament; implementing further programs to create areas of nuclear weapons in various regions of the world, especially in the Middle East; Compliance with the principles of immutability, openness and veracity in the implementation of international control over the implementation of bilateral and multilateral agreements on the reduction of nuclear weapons.

The document also emphasized the right of states on the peaceful use of nuclear energy and the need to develop international cooperation in this field on the basis of obligations formulated in Art. IV NPT; There is a serious concern about the weakening of the non-proliferation regime of nuclear weapons due to the use of double and discriminatory standards on the part of some nuclear powers and, especially, cooperation between these nuclear countries with non-parties and ignoring the fact that they have a nuclear arsenal.

Taking into account the importance of this conference and the results achieved on it, Iran proposed to send the final document forum to the UN Secretary-General, as well as other international bodies and organizations. Taking into account the attention of the participants in the conference to the topic discussed on it, as well as to monitor the implementation of the tasks set by the Conference, in accordance with the wishes of the majority of its participants, it was decided to hold the second meeting of the Conference on Disarmament and International Security in the second half of April 2011. in Tehran.

Thus, on the basis of the above initiatives and real steps carried out by nuclear countries, it can be assumed that the construction of a nuclear-free world is not utopia. Promotion to it is possible, subject to the adoption of effective, systematic, consistent legal measures in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. If the world community does not seek to strive for the world without weapons, then he will forever and remain out of reach. Paramovogov OG Nuclear safety in the conditions of modern international law and order / O.G. Paramyuzov. - St. Petersburg: Publishing House S.- Petersburg. University, 2006.

Today, like half a century ago, this agency subordinate to the Pentagon is responsible for the preservation of global technological superiority. armed Forces USA. Darpa's concerns include developing new technologies for use in the armed forces.

In February 2013, the agency's specialists began to actively prepare for a nuclear war. Wasproject launched on protection against radiation damage, including with the help of techniques affecting directly on human DNA. We are talking about new methods of treatment, devices and systems, allowing to mitigate the effects of irradiation. The main goal of the Agency project is to develop technologies that radically reduce the susceptibility of the human body to high doses of radiation. Those who are pretending with newest technologies, High chances of survival.

Today, the efforts of scientists are sent in three areas: a) prevention and treatment after exposure to radiation; b) reducing the level of negative consequences and the prevention of death and development of oncological complications; c) modeling the effects of radiation on the human body by studying on molecular and system-wide levels.

The agency has taken a new project because the world has increased the level of nuclear threats did not decrease. Today, any country may face the threat of nuclear terrorism, catastrophes at nuclear power plants or local conflict with the use of nuclear weapons.

This project, of course, did not appear on scratch. It is known that Barack Obama positions itself as a peacekeeper. Atomic bombs, like Truman, he discharged to foreign states. And generally constantly talking about the abbreviations of nuclear arsenals - not only Russian, but also relatives, American.

Its his peacekeeping reached the point that very influential Mr. turned to him with a written petition, in which he was gladly asked not to reduce the nuclear weapons of the long-term homeland of Republicans and Democrats.

Appeal to the president signed 18 people: Ex-director of the CIA James Woolsi, Ex-Representative of the United States in the UN John Bolton, the former commander marine infantry General Karl Mandy and others. Analyst-International Cyril Belyaninov ("Kommersant" ) It believes that such an appeal has become a confirmation that the White House is really working on reducing nuclear arsenals.

According to a particular report, among whose authors are the personalities from the State Department, Pentagon, the National Security Council, the United Committee of the Chiefs of Headquarters, the Department of Summary and the US Strategic Command (in a word, a full military secret set), the number of nuclear warheads in service the country today "Much exceeds the amount needed to ensure nuclear deterrence", in the modern conditions, there is quite enough arsenal in 1-1.1 thousand warheads. But a group of influential politicians, which these data, of course, are known, still requires Obama to abandon the "rash step".

What were 18 mrovens afraid?

The authors of the petition are confident that "the collaboration between Pyongyan and Tehran" is capable of leading to "catastrophic changes". And to keep the aspirations of Iran and North Korea can "American Nuclear Triad, guaranteeing strategic stability", and only she, and nothing more.

The signed documents believe that the threshold established by the new START Treaty is critical: By 2018, the Russian Federation and the United States should leave no more than 1550 warheads on battle duty.

Nevertheless, the Obama administration intends to continue negotiations with Moscow about reducing nuclear weapons.

Anxiety of eighteen people is based rather on the interests of the US military, rather than on a real setting. What "catastrophic changes" can cause Iran in the world? It is ridiculous to allow the Lord American politicians and the military who signed the letter to their president were frightened by the recent words of Ahmadinejad that Iran is a "nuclear power". Or 1550 warheads not enough to defeat the DPRK?

Reducing the reserves of nuclear weapons, which this time will certainly enforce Obama, is by no means "working out" Nobel Prize World. The President of the United States stands before the collapse of the National Economy: A huge public debt complements also a major budget deficit, the question with which is solved by the sequestration, abbreviations, dismissal, the cuts of military programs and is extremely unpopular from any class of tax increases. Reducing nuclear reserves is the road to savings: after all, the maintenance of Arsenals costs a lot of money.

Tom Venden Brooke ("USA TODAY" ) Reminds that the US military budget will decrease by 500 billion $ for 10 years by a sequestration - the so-called "automatic reduction". The Pentagon assumes that by the end of the current fiscal year (September 30), he will have to "trim" costs of $ 46 billion. Former Defense Minister Leon Pattita stated that the abbreviations would make a secondary military power from America.

Cuts will be offered and military contractors. For example, the economic losses of Texas will be expressed in a gigantic amount of $ 2.4 billion. A whole army of civil servants - 30,000 people - will lose work. Their personal financial losses in earnings will amount to $ 180 million.

As for the maintenance, then the states where large warehouses are injured: they will be closed in the coming months due to future budget cuts. Pennsylvania, for example, has two main maintenance depots, where the modernization of integrated armaments systems is carried out, including, for example, Patriot. Texas and Alabama will seriously suffer. Closure Here, the depot will stop the repair of weapons, communication devices and vehicles. Reducing the order stream will touch 3.000 companies. Another 1.100 companies will be before the threat of bankruptcy.

There are no newest data on alleged contractors directly on nuclear service. But the fact that those will be subject to doubt. Obama will look for any reserves in order to reduce budget expenditures.

As for the appeals to Russia, everything is clear here: to reduce the atomic weapon alone America is somehow not with hand. So therefore I went about negotiations with the Russians. And Obama swung on a reduction to a major: not on a third, not that twice. However, these are only rumors, let them come from the United States.

Vladimir Kozin ("Red Star")reminds Regarding information about further abbreviations of START, the official representative of the White House of Jay Carney said that he does not expect new ads on this issue in the next presidential message to the congress. Indeed, in his message on February 13, the American president only marked Washington's readiness to involve Russia to reduce "nuclear weapons" without specifying any quantitative parameters. Nevertheless, the fact remains a fact: the reduction is planned. Another thing is that way and for what kinds.

V. Kozin believes that the United States "still intend to follow the path of selective reduction in nuclear weapons, making emphasis only to further reduce the START. But at the same time, they completely exclude from the negotiation process such important types of arms of a non-nuclear nature as anti-missile systems, anticipate weapons and high-precision means of applying a "lightning strike" anywhere in the globe ... "According to Analytics, USA" Trying to cover up the "new proposals and ideas" in the field of arms control their far-reaching plans for deploying advanced basements in The form of draw and pro, destabilizing the global military-political situation and undermining the fragile military-strategic parity between Moscow and Washington, which was created within a few decades. "

That is, nuclear weapons will be reduced by selectively, and in parallel the EUROPRO system will be created, and the first will serve as a distracting maneuver for the second. And at the same time, it is likely that money releases for this very second. With a budget sequestre, this is a very topical topic.

Blaming Americans in the villains or double standards is useless: politics is a policy. Sergey Karaganov, Dean of the Faculty of World Economy and World Policy HSE, Founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Chairman of the Editorial Board of Russia in Global Policy,he speaks that the "idea of \u200b\u200bthe liberation of the world from nuclear weapons quietly fades."

"Moreover, he continues," if you trace the dynamics of views of such famous peopleAs Henry Kissinger, George Schulz, Sam Nann and William Perry, who played a certain role in the launch of the idea of \u200b\u200ba nuclear zero, then it can be found that this famous four in the second article, published by two years after their first article, has already been talking about reducing and Even the destruction of nuclear weapons as a good goal, but really demanded an increase in efficiency and strengthen the existing military nuclear complex of the United States. They realized that the United States of America would not be able to ensure their safety without nuclear weapons. Perfectly realizing all this situation, our leadership - and Putin, and Medvedev, - without blinking the eye, announced that they also advocate for a complete nuclear disarmament. To say otherwise, would mean to confess bloodthirstiness. But at the same place, we are increasing and modernizing our nuclear potential. "

"Once I was engaged in the history of the arms race, and since then I sincerely think that nuclear weapons are something sent to us by the Most Highness in order to save humanity. Because, otherwise, if there were no nuclear weapons, the deepest ideological and military-political confrontation in the history of mankind, the Cold War would end with the Third World War. "

Thanks for the current sense of security The Russians should, says Karaganov, Sakharov, Korolev, Kurchatov and their associates.

Let's return to the United States. According to the 2010 Nuclear Doctrine, America has retained the right to apply a nuclear strike first. True, the list of situations that lead to such use of the nuclear arsenal. In 2010, Obama declared a refusal to apply nuclear weapons against states that do not own such weapons - under one condition: these countries must comply with non-proliferation regime. Also in the strategic document, it was stated: "... US is not ready to pursue a policy, according to which the containment of a nuclear strike is the only goal of nuclear weapons." This indicates the possible preventive application of nuclear weapons, albeit with the reservations given above.

And during the Cold War, and after its conditional graduation, the United States and NATO did not rule out the option involving the use of nuclear weapons against their opponents - and its first. The 2010 doctrine narrowed the list, but the right to use did not change.

Meanwhile, China is almost half a century agoannounced On the policy of non-use of nuclear weapons first. Then the same position occupied India. Even North Korea - and that adheres to a similar position. One of the main objections to the adoption of the non-use doctrine is the first, writes the American magazine " Foreign policy", It is built on the fact that the enemy can" enter dishonest "and hit first. However, there is no answer about the simple question about the answer. Why does the enemy arrange a nuclear catastrophe yourself? After all, the threat of guaranteed response extermination remains a very strong deterrent means.

You can, of course, call Obama's policies logical. The same doctrine of 2010 was accepted during the growing alarms about terrorism. Well, if nuclear bombs fall into the hands of terrorists? US President in 2010said : "The concept is recognized that the greatest threat to the United States and global security is no longer a nuclear war between states, but nuclear terrorism carried out by extremists and the process of nuclear distribution ..."

Therefore, the current estimated reduction in nuclear arsenals is logically combined with the "Taming" of what was named 3 years ago "The Greatest Threat to the United States and Global Security". The smaller the nuclear weapons, rightly notice in the magazine "Foreign Policy", the less and the likelihood of hitting it in the hands of terrorists.

To create a perfectly pure logical picture White house Not enough only one item. Stopping its right to apply nuclear weapons first, the United States is likened to their artificially used enemy - Al-Qaida. The latter on nuclear rights does not declare for obvious reasons. But, by even more understandable reasons, in the case of "needs" and with the appropriate opportunity, it will arrange an explosion of the first (it is not necessary for a bomb: there are nuclear power plants). Right to first, albeit "preventive", nuclear strike Puts America just in the ranks of those who threaten the world. Like Al-Qaida.