US to keep all stored nukes
Published: 05 May, 2009, 16:15
Edited: 27 November, 2009, 06:27
TAGS: Arms, Military, Nuclear, Russia, USA
Washington is prepared to cut strategic nuclear warheads and their means of delivery under the new strategic arms reduction treaty – but not the nuclear warheads kept in storage, a US State Department official says.
”In the president's instructions after London it was clear that the focus of the negotiations will be strategic offensive armaments and that it includes delivery vehicles and warheads,” US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said in an interview with Interfax news agency.
Though Gottemoeller, who is the US chief negotiator in talks with Russia on a new strategic arms reduction treaty, added that the US is not prepared to cut warheads removed from delivery means and kept in storage.
”I think we have to consider it as something for the future,” she concluded.
The news will be a disappointment to the Kremlin, which had been assuming that the US was ready to make a cut in nuclear weapons kept in storage as well.
RT’s Alyona Minkovski says the reason behind the latest information may partially be the panic in the US about Pakistan.
Pakistan’s President Zardari is visiting the US this week for talks with President Obama. Washington is concerned that nuclear weapons could get into the wrong hands.
Meanwhile, Gottemoeller said that Washington should still “be willing to explore” Russia's offer of the use of the Gabala radar base in Azerbaijan instead of a proposed anti-missile system in Eastern Europe.
Rose Gottemoeller said it's something the US should look at again and Russia confirmed the offer is still on the table.
While the Assistant Secretary of State was giving her personal opinion, her words could be a positive sign as far as Russia is concerned. The previous Bush administration was against Moscow’s proposal.
The projected US anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic has drawn heavy criticism from Moscow and led to protests in the two countries.
Russia considers the US plans a direct threat to its security while the US insists the shield is only targeted against possible threats from so-called rogue states such as Iran.
For the time being the anti-missile defense shield project has been postponed by the Obama administration.
Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev has hailed the readiness of the new U.S. administration to discuss the issue of missile defense in Eastern Europe.
“The deployment of radars and anti-missile defense systems in Europe wouldn't strengthen anything – it would just bring new tensions. We have stated many times that we should move towards a global defense system, and we have the means to do this – including existing sites in Russia, and in other states,” Medvedev said. “At least I’m pleased that our American colleagues are ready to discuss this, and that they’re not simply saying: we'll put our radars here – and come what may.”
05.05.2009, 14:50
US army non-hostile deaths in Iraq exceed combatAs the U.S. prepares to pull its troops out of Iraqi cities next month, American soldiers are still being killed in Iraq - but not in action. |
05.05.2009, 19:01
7 comments
Rice fails to answer boy’s question about torturesCan an American fourth-grader’s question puzzle a former State Secretary? A recent Condoleezza Rice meeting with ten-year-old students in Washington showed she couldn’t answer even a well-censored one. |
We all need to consider the fact that the United Stated and the Russian Federation each have enough nuclear weapons and delivery missiles to destroy the world many times over. We don't need treaties for either side to start getting rid or excess nuclear weapons. The capability to destroy the world just one time should be quite enough on each side. Then, after both countries unilaterally get rid of excess nukes, and only then, they may want to talk about further reductions. Deception will not serve the interest of either country. Russia has so much territory today that it is not in their best interest to attempt to extend their borders. Russia is already extremely rich in natural resources. What Russia needs is good quality of life for their citizens, increased population to settle the vast lands within their borders and exploring/mining the county's vast resources. Honesty is in the best interest of the USA and Russia. It is essential that Russia and America get along, our people are a lot alike.
Seems the cold war isn't over for everyone. I hope Russia is starting to see the pattern, or that it will recognize it soon. US tactics are simple. Create an unnecessary capability that is threatening to Russia. Missiles in Turkey, Cruise missiles in Europe, ABM sites in Europe, and then when Russia reacts then it is clear that the Russians are the bad guys and are being unreasonable. They can then negotiate what they didn't really need in the first place and get other concessions at the same time because of their good will in giving up whatever they gave up. The missiles in Turkey led to the Cuban missile crisis and appeared internationally to be a victory by Kennedy. Kennedy was seen as a wonderful president... perhaps if he had revealed to the US public that the bomber gap and the missile gaps were both illusions and that the US had a lead in both areas that the US might have saved trillions of dollars continuing with their weapons programs to get a first strike capability and the Soviets might have saved trillions catching up, which they did in the 1980s. Cruise missiles in Europe cost the Soviets a mature and effective system called SS-20 Sabre with the INF treaty. It even cost them the SS-23 which wasn't even in the IRBM definition of the weapons banned by the INF treaty but they banned it anyway. And the ABM system in Europe to protect the US from Iranian missiles that can't even reach Europe let alone the US. The ABM system was based on missiles that destroy targets outside the atmosphere at the height of their trajectory. They would be completely ineffective against missiles targeting any part of Europe. It seems what they want for that concession is to drag Russia into Afghanistan....
I find it interesting that the US is keeping all its nukes in storage rather than dismantling them. Soviet and Russian nuclear weapons are reprocessed into fuel for civilian power stations in the US but US warheads are stored. It seems that the Russians should adopt the same policy as the US and store their warheads too so that they will have a reserve of processed Uranium they can use in their own power stations as cheap fuel and US consumers can pay more for their electricity instead of getting it cheap from Russia. (It is cheaper to process weapons grade Uranium into fuel rods than to process raw Uranium into fuel rods.)