The INF Treaty (1987)
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is a 1987 agreement formally titled “The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.” The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles). As of June 1, 1991, The U.S. had destroyed 846 such weapons platforms and the Soviet Union had destroyed 1,846. Under the treaty both nations were allowed to inspect each other’s military installations to insure conformity to the treaty.
START I (1991), START II (1993) and START III (1997)
The START treaty was the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history. Its final itineration in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence.
The START acronym stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Three different treaties have used the name. Each agreement was the result of bilateral talks between the United States and The Soviet Union (and its successor, the Russian Federation). The first treaty was signed in 1991, though it did not enter into force until late 1994 due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. START I barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. The START I treaty expired in December of 2009.
START II banned the use of MIRVs (multiple reentry vehicles) on ICBMs. It is often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement. MIRVs are considered ‘strike first’ type weapons and therefore inherently destabilizing. This treaty became tied up in endless wrangling in the Russian Duma and the U.S. Senate. Russia finally ratified the treaty, though this approval was entirely contingent upon certain changes in the ABM treaty. When the United States pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002, one day later Russia pulled out of START II.
START III never really got off the ground, mostly due to problems with START II.
3 Comments
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/134435-reid-cites-gagas-meat-dress-lohans-rehab-in-start-treaty-push
“The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.
That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.”
President Obama’s New START creates an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), and gives it broad powers to promote the objectives of the treaty. These powers could include imposing additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. This is an unacceptable cession of our national sovereignty. President Ronald Reagan walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons because he asked us to give up our missile defenses in return. No true conservative could support this treaty as it stands. – s groves
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110114/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_start