What was new on START Web site?
September, 2001
September 25, 2001
In an effort to avoid a partisan debate after the terrorist attacks last week, Senate Democrats have agreed to withdraw a budget provision that would have restricted certain kinds of spending on missile defense:
- Bin Laden «Strengthens» NMD, - in Russian, (by Alexei Arbatov, Vek, September 21-28, 2001)
- Democrats in Senate Budge on Missile Defense Money, (by James Dao, The New York Times, September 19, 2001)
- Levin Agrees to Cut Missile Test Curbs From Defense Bill, (by Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post, Wednesday, September 19, 2001; Page A03)
- US must reappraise weaponry, (by Joseph Cirincione, Boston Globe, September 18, 2001)
Experts do not ruled out US use of nuclear weapons against any state which introduces biological, chemical or nuclear devices in the coming conflict:
- Is the Nuclear Punishment Possible, - in Russian, (by Artur Blinov, Vremya MN, September 20, 2001)
- Such a Tiny Nuclear Punishment Strike, - in Russian, (by Yelena Starovoytova, Vremya MN, September 20, 2001)
- Nuclear Fall for Afghanistan, - in Russian, (by Alexandr Agamov, Utro.Ru, September 19, 2001)
- American N-strikes Not Ruled Out, (Daily Mail, September 18, 2001)
Nuclear weapons and biological weapons pose a serious threat to the US even if the hostile force cannot deliver them with missiles. What can be done to make the nation safer? Former defense secretary says biggest threat to U.S. is biological, nuclear terrorism, (by William J. Perry, San Jose Mercury News, September 19, 2001)
A new issue of INESAP Bulletin that came out recently is devoted to the seminar "Moving Beyond Missile Defense" held in Santa-Barbara (California, USA) in March 19-21, 2001. A report Russian Perceptions of US-Russian Security Relations and Responses to NMD by Eugene Miasnikov, the Editor of the START Web Site, is among the articles in the issue, which is available as a PDF file.
The first Tomahawk cruise missile launch by one of America's new Seawolf class submarines was successfully completed on the day of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. Missile test from sub a success, (by The Associated Press, Miami Herald, September 19, 2001).
September 18, 2001
US-Russian consultations on strategic stability, that have been postponed after terrorist attacks, resumed in Moscow on Monday. According to The Washington Post, the Bush administration was going to inform Russia that the likelihood of unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty has increased as a result of the attacks at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Washington's increased persistence on this matter may be also encouraged by Moscow's softened position on U.S. ABM withdrawal plans, as Russian officials' comments are interpreted by the media:
- Bolton Says NMD Still Needed, (by Reuters, AP, The Moscow Times, Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2001. Page 3)
- Consultants. Ivanov and Bolton Defined Taregets, - in Russian, (by Alexandr Shumilin, Izvestiya, September 18, 2001)
- Terrorism Is Not an Obstacle for NMD, - in Russian,(by Yevgeni Antonov, Vremya Novostey, September 18, 2001)
- No Argument Against NMD?, - in Russian, (by Yevgeni Vasil'yev, Vremya MN, September 18, 2001)
- Russian MFA Official Statement on U.S.-Russian consultations on strategic stability, - in Russian, September 17, 2001
- U.S. to Pursue Withdrawal From ABM Pact, (by Susan B. Glasser, The Washington Post, Monday, September 17, 2001; Page A28)
Contrary to what Russian officials presumed, the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon appear to have strengthened, not weakened, the prospects for Congressional support of President Bush's missile defense plan. Senate Democrats said yesterday they plan to try to drop proposed restrictions on missile defense tests from next year's Pentagon spending authorization in hopes of passing the measure without a divisive fight.
- Senate May Drop Missile Curb, (by Helen Devar, The Washington Post, Tuesday, September 18, 2001; Page A16
- The imperative of missile defense, (The Washington Times, September 17, 2001)
- Missile Defenses: Bush Set Against the Ceiling, in Russian, (by Stanislav Stremidlovsky, Wek, N 36, September 14-21, 2001) - an interview with Andrey A. Kokoshin, member of the State Duma
- Shield Plan Buoyed By A Bipartisan Mood, (by Adam Clymer, The New York Times, September 14, 2001)
- Safe World Illusion, in Russian, (by Dmitri Safronov, Izvestia, September 13, 2001)
- Russia Hopes WTC Attacks Force U.S. to Rethink Defense, (by Alan Cullison and Guy Chazan, The Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2001)
- Bush Aides Say Attacks Don't Recast Shield Debate, The New York Times, September 12, 2001)
As many observers question the assumptions holding together the Bush administration's security strategy, Democrats are calling for a national debate on these issues. Vice President Al Gore's former national security adviser offers an alternative vision to begin that debate: Return of the Nuclear Debate, (by Leon Fuerth, The Washington Quarterly, Autumn 2001) - in PDF format
Because of tragic events in New York and Washington Russian Defense Ministry curtailed original plans of strategic bomber exercises over the Pacific. Scheduled test launches of ICBMs were abandoned:
- Let's Not Make America Nervous, in Russian, (by Sergey Ishchenko, Trud, September 13, 2001)
- "Bears" Make Themselves at Home in Arctic, in Russian, (by Dmitry Safronov, Izvestia, September 12, 2001)
"The time has come for the United States to make good on its past pledges that it will use all military capabilities at its disposal to defend U.S. soil by delivering nuclear strikes against the instigators and perpetrators of the attacks against the nation's political capital and the nation's financial capital. ...To do less [than a tactical nuclear strike] would be rightly seen by the poisoned minds that orchestrated these attacks as cowardice on the part of the United States and the current administration." (Time to use the nuclear option, by Thomas Woodrow, The Washington Times, September 14, 2001).
September 12, 2001
Yesterday's terrorist attacks on the U.S. cities triggered the highest alert status of the U.S. military forces and in particular - their strategic forces. Russian strategic forces had to respond in the situation of uncertainty. According to Vremya Novostey sources, first two hours after the attack were the most dangerous: Nuclear Conflict Was Put Aside, - in Russian, (by Yuri Golotyuk, Vremya Novostey, N 166, September 12, 2001)On Friday, the Democratic-run Senate Armed Services Committee voted along party lines to cut $1.3 billion from Bush's request for $8.3 billion for missile defense in the fiscal year beginning Oct. The legislation also would limit the president's ability to conduct missile defense activities that would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia:
- Sen. Biden Attacks Missile Defense Plans as Costly, Risky, (by Steven Mufson, The Washington Post, Tuesday, September 11, 2001; Page A04)
- Democrats lash Bush 'lunacy' on missiles, (by Julian Borger, The Guardian, Tuesday September 11, 2001)
- Democrats Plan Attack on Missile Defense, (by Robin Wright, Los Angeles Times, September 10 2001)
- Battle on Missile-Defense Funds Heats Up, (by Brian Knowlton, International Herald Tribune, Monday, September 10, 2001)
- Rumsfeld Defends Missile Defense, (by Associated Press, Monday, September 10, 2001; 1:09 AM)
- Senate Panel Approves Missile Curbs, (by Vernon Loeb, The Washington Post, Saturday, September 8, 2001; Page A06)
- Senate Committee Cuts Money From Missile Defense Plan, (by Thom Shanker, The New York Times, September 8, 2001)
- Unsigned Check, in Russian, (by Yevgeny Bai, Izvestia, September 8, 2001)
- US Congress is Not Going to Violate the ABM Treaty, in Russian, (Lenta.Ru, September 7, 2001)
- Democrats to Pare Missile Funds, (by Vernon Loeb and Dan Morgan, The Washington Post, Thursday, September 6, 2001; Page A05)
In view of new talks scheduled for this week on Washington's planned missile defense scheme, both sides show signes of willingness to reach a compromise. Russia hints that it might consider changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, while US -- that they will not insist that Moscow agree to its new missile defense strategy by November:
- Russia Softens Its Position on U.S. ABM Withdrawal Plans, (by Reuters, The Moscow Times, Wednesday, Sep. 12, 2001. Page 3)
- New Russian Declaration on ABM Pact, (by The Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, September 11, 2001)
- Russian Aide Emphasizes Opposition to ABM Plan, (by Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, September 11, 2001)
- Russia Open to ABM Treaty Change, (by The Associated Press, The New York Times, September 10, 2001)
- Neither Side to Bend On Missile Defense, (by Ron Popeski, The Moscow Times, September 10, 2001)
- No Deadline for Accord With Russia, (by Robin Wright, Los Angeles Times, September 7, 2001)
- Kremlin Willing to Review Missile Accords, Aide Says, (by Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, September 7, 2001)
- No Deal Soon on Missile Defense Plan, Russia Says, (by Peter Baker, The Washington Post, Thursday, September 6, 2001; Page A01)
- Russia sees missile shield as inevitable, (by David R. Sands, The Washington Times, September 6, 2001)
"...Today Americans are not interested neither in modification of the 1972 ABM Treaty, nor in a new treaty, nor in any arms control agreements with Russia at all. They're just trying to win some time, and Russian side helps them in that by not having developed any position for negotiations. This will last for two-three months, then Americans will declare withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty justifying that by Russian intractability. And our rattling with retaliation threats won't help to win Europeany sympathy to our position. To break this trend we have to choose an energetic and offensive negotiation position..."(A Moment for Truth, in Russian, by Andrei Piontkovsky, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 4, 2001). See also: US President's Decision on Missile Defenses is a Real Threat to Strategic Stability, in Russian, (by V. Simakov, Obozrevatel-Observer, July-August, 2001)
US prepares for a "serious dialogue" with China, and to share details about the missile defense system:
- China's Nuclear Agenda, (by Bates Gill and James Mulvenon, The New York Times, September 7, 2001)
- Nuclear Tests Not Planned, Chinese Diplomat Says, (by Jane Perlez, The New York Times, September 6, 2001)
- If China Builds More Warheads, (by Rose Gottemoeller, The Washington Post, Thursday, September 6, 2001; Page A23)
- U.S. Restates Its Stand on Missiles in China, (by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, September 5, 2001)
- Beijing Open to Talks on U.S. Plan, (by Philip P. Pan, The Washington Post, Wednesday, September 5, 2001; Page A14)
- From Rivalry to Partnership, in Russian, (by Artur Blinov, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 5, 2001)
The debates on withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty continue in the US:
- Munchgausen Woul'd Not Manage..., - in Russian, (by Gennadi Gerasimov, Vremya MN, September 12, 2001)
- America the Absent, (by Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post, Thursday, September 6, 2001; Page A23)
- Missiles for Everyone, (The Washington Post, Wednesday, September 5, 2001; Page A18)
- His Magnificent Obsession, (by Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, September 5, 2001)
US Air Force is going to spend over half a billion dollars producing nuclear-missile guidance sets without gathering enough test data to prove their accuracy: Air Force Defends Spending Half A Billion On Iffy ICBMs, (by John M. Donnelly, Defense Week, September 10, 2001)
Russian taxation policy prevents a joint U.S.-Russian center aimed at averting false warnings of missile attacks from opening: Early Warning Delay, (The Moscow Times, September 7, 2001).
Last Friday Carnegie Endowment held a panel on problems and prospects of US-Russian nuclear cooperation. Siegfried Hecker, senior fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory, commented on his article, "An Integrated Strategy for Nuclear Cooperation with Russia." Transcript of the panel is available in audio format:
- U.S.-Russia Nuclear Programs Questioned, (by Walter Pincus, The Washington Post, Tuesday, September 11, 2001; Page A23)
- Siegfried Hecker on Nuclear Cooperation with Russia, (transcript of a panel held by Carnegie Non-Proliferation Project, Friday, September 07, 2001)
- Thoughts about an Integrated Strategy for Nuclear Cooperation with Russia, (by Siegfried S. Hecker, Non-Proliferation Review, Summer 2001, Volume 8, Number 2)
Votkinsk residents protest local authorities' unpopular decision to construct a solid-fuel rocket engines utilization complex:
- Administrative-Missile Strike on Votkinsk, in Russian, (by Sergey Fomichev, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 8, 2001)
- "Greens" Stir Udmurtia Up, in Russian, (by Valery Batuyev, Vremya MN, September 5, 2001)
The US wants to boycott a U.N. conference later this month on accelerating a global ban on nuclear test explosions: U.S. cool to nuclear test-ban conference, (by Jonathan S. Landay, Philadelphia Inquirer, Friday, September 7, 2001)
At the Russian START Forum: missile defense for Europe, prospects of China's strategic forces development, and other topics.
September 4, 2001
Commenting President Putin's interview with a Finnish newspaper, The New York Times notes, that Moscow may take a "calm" approach - a restrained reaction in response to U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty:
- Putin, Sizing Up Bush, Says the Retinue 'Makes the King', (by Patrick E. Tyler, The New York Times, September 3, 2001)
- Interview Granted by Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Finnish Newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, September 1, 2001
The Kremlin hinted that Russian President Vladimir Putin might not meet President Bush at his Texas ranch for a planned November summit on missile defense and other issues. Russia will go ahead with talks with the United States on arms issues despite Washington's stated intention to abandon the ABM Treaty, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said last week:
- Meeting At Ranch May Not Happen, - in Russian, (by Svetlana Babayeva, Izvestiya, September 1, 2001)
- Kremlin Raises Doubts About Texas Summit Plan, (by Sharon LaFraniere, The Washington Post, Saturday, September 1, 2001; Page A23)
- U.S. Arms Talks to Proceed, Says Russian Minister, (by Reuters, Thursday, August 30 9:01 AM ET)
- Demanding Is Not Harmful, - in Russian, (by Stanislav Nikolayev, Wek, N 34, August 31, 2001) - an interview with Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chair of the Defense Committee of the State Duma
"...In spite of really numerous technical, political, diplomatic and psychological obstacles, it is not idealistic but rightful and timely proposal to direct the efforts of NMD proponents in order to develop a joint defense system of the planet from space objects..." In the "Opinion" section - an article by Yuri Makhnenko, Senior Research Associate of ZAO "Bonum-1", Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Cosmonautics: An Umbrella For the Planet - in Russian, (September 3, 2001)
"...The US and Russia will avoid a collision only if they show greater flexibility...Moscow should agree to the new Alaska site, while Washington should limit the number of missile launchers and interceptors at the site to make clear its purpose is for testing only. Moscow could also allow the US to conduct a limited number of tests using mobile and ship-based radar. In return, Washington would promise not to walk away from the treaty for now...." (Putting nuclear weapons out of reach, by Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, Financial Time, August 30, 2001)
Other proposals to resolve the ABM Treaty deadlock are considered in:
- A Moment for the Truth, - in Russian, (by Andrei Piontkovski, Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 4, 2001)
- The ABM Treaty: End It or Amend It?, (by Stan Crock, Business Week, August 30, 2001)
- A Way Out of the Impasse?, - in Russian, (by Sergei Karaganov, Moskovskiye Novosti, N 35 (1102), August 28, 2001)
- Modify ABM Treaty To Allow Limited Missile Defense, (by Michael O'Hanlon, Baltimore Sun, August 28, 2001)
Unnamed officials suggest that the US may soften its opposition to China's weapons build-up. They say Washington may even agree to end the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. The idea would be to reassure Beijing that missile defence is not aimed at China:
- Missile defence and China, (Financial Times, September 3, 2001)
- US to court Chinese over missile programme, (by Andrew Buncombe, The Independent, September 3, 2001)
- Washington Will Agree With Nuclear Modernization of China, - in Russian, (by Arthur Blinov, Vremya MN, September 3, 2001)
- Bush Team Mitigates Overtures to China, (by Mike Allen, The Washington Post, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A16)
- U.S. to Tell China It Will Not Object to Missile Buildup, (by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, September 2, 2001)
China scored three successful hits recently with its submarine-launched Julang-21A missiles fired at targets 5,000 km away: Chinese subs score 3 missile hits in war games, (The Straits Times, September 1, 2001)
The Defense Department doesn't like what Prof. Postol has been saying about national missile defense: that it will not protect our country even from primitive incoming missiles. To stop him from saying these things, it has stamped "SECRET" on letters he sent to then-President Bill Clinton and now to Congress: The Pentagon And the Professor, (by Geoffrey Forden, The Washington Post, Wednesday, August 29, 2001; Page A21). See also recent interviews of Prof. Postol to mass media:
- Warheads may hit Canada, physicist says, (by Reuters, The Globe and Mail, August 30, 2001)
- Intercepted missiles could fall on Europe, (by Adrian Cho, New Scientist, August 29, 2001)
- Achilles' Heel in Missile Plan: Crude Weapons, (by William J. Broad, The New York Times, August 27, 2001)
- "So utopisch wie Star Wars", - in German (Die Welt, August 25, 2001)
Discussion on expediency of the NMD deployment is continued in:
- ABM: the moment of truth, (The Washington Times, September 2, 2001)
- The Reality of Missile Defense, (by The Associated Press, August 31, 2001)
- Bush Missile Defense Plan Eyed, (by George Gedda, Associated Press, Wednesday August 29 1:16 AM ET)
- Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone, (by Bruce Ackerman, The New York Times, August 29, 2001)
- Putin's Radars Aren't Rusty, (by William T. Lee, Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2001)
- A Treaty the World Has Outgrown, (by Thad Cochran, The New York Times, August 27, 2001)
A contractor for the Army began clearing land at Fort Greely last week for an anti-ballistic missile site: Clearing begins at Greely for missile site, (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Tuesday, August 28, 2001)
A coalition of environmental groups is taking legal action to delay preliminary work on President Bush's missile defence programme on the grounds that the defence department has not completed the necessary environmental impact statement for the sites involved:
- Environmental suit threatens Star Wars plan, (by Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Friday August 31, 2001)
- Pentagon Faces Suit On Missile Defense, (by Associated Press, The Washington Post, Wednesday, August 29, 2001; Page A03)
- Environmental Groups to File Suit Over Missile Defenses, (by James Dao, The New York Times, August 28, 2001)
- Studies Sought Before Missile Testing, (by John Heilprin, Los Angeles Times, August 28, 2001)
Discussion on efficiency of the Sea Based Forces compared to the Strategic Rocket Forces continues: "...all missile experts of the Navy, Strategic Rocket Forces and Strategic Aviation well know that strategic submarines have the largest potential and efficiency in a second strike of the strategic operation in comparison with the SRF and long range aviation due to their covertness, survivability, reliable control and high power of the strike..." (A Structure of the Triad, - in Russian, by Vladimir Zaborski, Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, August 24, 2001)
"...Russia is considered a threat today for the U.S., the world and even for itself not because of its military power, which disappeared... but because of its weakness. Since we have few places kept in order, why should we rely on irreproachability of nuclear installations?..." (Threatening Weakness, - in Russian, by Gennadi Gerasimov, Vremya MN, August 31, 2001)
The U.S. military blew up a Minuteman III missile silo, marking the last such silo destruction under START I treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union: Demolition of Missile Silo Ends an Era, (by Reuters, The Washington Post, Saturday, August 25, 2001; Page A05).
A National Press Institute in Moscow has published a new book by a well known Russian arms control expert Major General Vladimir Belous, Ret. "U.S. NMD: Dreams And Reality". The book considers the history of missile defenses development in the U.S. and prospects for NMD deployment.
In the recent issue of Yaderny Control, published by the PIR Center (May-June, 2001):
- NMD: Political Cobwebs, Technological Problems, and Summits, - in Russian, (by Yuri Fyodorov)
- Igor Sergeyev: "Destabilizing Processes May Intensify, if Nuclear Proliferation Is not Resisted", - in Russian
- The Bush Administration and Nonproliferation: Skeptics at the Helm, - in Russian, (by Matthew Bunn)
- Restructuring of the Minatom: Difficulties and Prospects, - in Russian, (by Dmitri Kovchegin)
Among publications of the recent issue (May-June 2001) of Yadernaya Bezopasnost' (all papers are in Russian):
- Nuclear Warheads Elimination and Its Impact on Human Health, (by Ivan Vasilenko)
- Missile Deadlock, (by Vladimir Maryukha)
- Russia Will Respond to the U.S. NMD with Everything It Can..., (by Vladimir Belous)
- START I: Ten Years After Its Signing
The United States made a statement that from 2002 it will participate in and make a contribution to the financing of only those kinds of activity of the Preparatory Commission of the CTBTO that are directly connected with the creation and operation of an international monitoring system, and refuses to take part in or make a financial contribution to all the other kinds of work of the Commission, including elaboration of a mechanism of on-site inspections. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs addressed an urgent call to the US administration to review its position on the CTBT (Official Statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, August 27, 2001)
A long-discussed U.S.-Russian plan to stop production of weapons-grade plutonium in Russia has been stalled by funding shortages, and the government said Monday that it wants the United States to agree to postpone its implementation:
- Poverty - Is an Enemy of Conversion. Russia Will Produce More Weapon Grade Plutonium, - in Russian, (by Yekaterina Kaz, Vremya Novostey, August 28, 2001)
- Russia Seeks Plutonium Deal Delay, (by Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press, Monday, August 27, 4:14 PM ET)
- Russia Decided To Reconsider the Schedule Of Termination of Plutonium Production, - in Russian, (Lenta.Ru, August 27, 2001)
- The Plutonium Nightmare, (The New York Times, August 27, 2001)
What Was New?
In 2001: January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August
In 2000: January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
In 1999: January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November | December
In 1998: January | February | March | April | May | June | July-September | October | November | December
In 1997: November | December
© Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT, 1999-2001Search the START Web Site