LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
Department of State
Washington, November 20, 1991
The President,
The White House.
I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty Between the United States
of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction
and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (the Treaty) signed at Moscow
on July 3, 1991.
In addition to the main body of the text, the Treaty includes the
following documents, which are integral parts of the Treaty:
- the Annex on Agreed Statements ("Agreed Statements Annex");
- the Annex on Terms and Their Definitions ("Definitions Annex");
- the Protocol on Procedures Governing the Conversion or Elimination
of the Items Subject to the Treaty Between the United States of America
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Conversion or Elimination Protocol");
- the Protocol on Inspections and Continuous Monitoring Activities
Related to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms, with 12 annexes ("Inspection Protocol");
- the Protocol on Notifications Relating to the Treaty Between the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Notification
Protocol");
- the Protocol on ICBM and SLBM Throw-weight Relating to the Treaty
Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms
("Throw-weight Protocol");
- the Protocol on Telemetric Information Relating to the Treaty Between
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, ("Telemetry
Protocol");
- the Protocol on the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission Relating
to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms ("Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission Protocol");
and
- the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Data
Base Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms, with 10 annexes ("Memorandum of
Understanding").
Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, are documents that are
associated with, but not integral parts of, the Treaty. These documents
are of four types: separate executive agreements related to the Treaty;
letters embodying executive agreements on various aspects of the Treaty;
declarations regarding specific systems that do not fall within the scope
of the Treaty; and a variety of statements and correspondence concerning
aspects of the negotiation of the Treaty. Although not submitted for the
advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, these documents are
relevant to the consideration of the Treaty by the Senate.
INTRODUCTION
The Treaty's central limits require the Parties to reduce and limit
their strategic offensive arms so that specified limits are reached
at designated intervals over a seven-year period from entry into force
of the Treaty. The Treaty's central limits also restrict the aggregate
throw-weight of deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs. In addition, the
Treaty places restrictions on, among other items, non-deployed ICBMs
and non-deployed SLBMs, ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers
and former heavy bombers, ICBMs and SLBMs used for delivering objects
into space, ballistic missile submarines, and on certain types of facilities.
The Treaty contains other prohibitions and restrictions, including those
covering "heavy" ICBMs and SLBMs and their launchers, the
locations of various strategic offensive arms, reentry vehicles, certain
types of flight-testing, and the basing of strategic offensive arms
subject to the limitations of the Treaty outside of each Party's national
territory. The Treaty requires the Parties to broadcast telemetric information
during flight tests of ICBMs and SLBMs and generally to refrain from
any activity that could deny the other Party full access to such information.
The Treaty establishes a far-reaching inspection regime, including
on-site inspections, special access visits, continuous on-site monitoring
of certain facilities, and technical exhibitions. This regime is designed
to complement national technical means, the primary source for monitoring
compliance with the provisions of the Treaty. Cooperative measures,
such as the display of road-mobile and rail-mobile launchers of ICBMs,
are also required and are designed to further enhance the effectiveness
of our national technical means.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The goal of meaningful reductions in strategic offensive arms has
long been sought by the United States and has its roots in the very
beginning of the atomic age. For many years, this goal was elusive,
as the number and potency of such weapons continued to increase. Earlier
attempts at limiting such arms managed only temporarily to slow their
increase.
On June 29, 1982, the United States and the Soviet Union began the
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks in Geneva. The announced U.S. goal was
to achieve deep reductions in the most destabilizing systems of strategic
offensive arms. The U.S. sought a verifiable agreement that would enhance
stability and reduce the risk of war. With various interruptions, the
talks continued for the next nine years, supplemented by several ministerials
at Geneva, Washington, Houston, and Moscow, and Summit meetings in Geneva
in 1985, Reykjavik in 1986, Washington in 1990. On July 31, 1991, the
Treaty was signed at the Moscow Summit.
In addition to the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
and the Department of State, representatives of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Intelligence Community, the
Department of Energy, and the Department of Justice all played important
roles in its development.
Throughout the negotiating process, the United States consulted and
worked extensively with its NATO allies in preparation of its positions
in the negotiations. The Senate has also been regularly advised on U.S.
goals and objectives in strategic arms reduction and the progress of
the negotiations.
CENTRAL LIMITS
At the core of the Treaty is the obligation undertaken to reduce and
limit ICBMs, ICBM launchers, SLBMs, SLBM launchers, heavy bombers, ICBM
warheads, SLBM warheads, and heavy bomber armaments, such that, seven
years after entry into force of the Treaty, the aggregate numbers of
each of the Parties do not exceed:
1600 for deployed ICBMs and their associated launchers (including
154 for deployed heavy ICBMs and their associated launchers), deployed
SLBMs and their associated launchers, and deployed heavy bombers; and
6000 for warheads attributed to deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and
deployed heavy bombers; including 4900 for warheads attributed to deployed
ICBMs and deployed SLBMs, of which no more than 1100 can be attributed
to deployed ICBMs on mobile launchers of ICBMs, and no more than 1540
attributed to deployed heavy ICBMs.
The Treaty provides for the reductions to take place in three phases
-- 36, 60 and 84 months after entry into force of the Treaty -- with
separate aggregate limits for the first two phases, culminating in achievement
of the full limits by the end of the third phase. (As you stated on
September 27, 1991, however, the United States will accelerate its elimination
of ICBMs scheduled for deactivation once START is ratified). The central
limits also include a restriction on the aggregate throw-weight of deployed
ICBMs and deployed SLBMs, which is to become effective seven years after
entry into force of the Treaty.
LIMITS AND RESTRICTION ON NON-DEPLOYED AND OTHER ITEMS
In addition to the central limits on deployed items, the Treaty contains
numerous limits and restrictions on non-deployed items. For ICBMs and
SLBMs, the limits include numerical limits on non-deployed mobile ICBMs
and their launchers (including a sub-limit for non-deployed rail-mobile
ICBM launchers), non-deployed ICBMs at mobile ICBM base maintenance
facilities, non-deployed ICBMs and sets of ICBM emplacement equipment
at ICBM bases for silo launchers of ICBMs, and ICBMs and SLBMs located
at test ranges.
The Treaty includes numerical limits on non-deployed mobile ICBM launchers,
with a sub-limit on non-deployed rail-mobile launchers. The Treaty also
limits the number of non-deployed mobile launchers allowed at certain
maintenance and training facilities, and the number of test launchers,
silo training launchers, and mobile training launchers. There are also
numerical limits on: heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments,
former heavy bombers (a classification of heavy bomber that meets specific
requirements and that is not equipped for nuclear armaments or non-nuclear
air-to-surface armaments), and training heavy bombers; dedicated space
launch facilities for ICBMs and SLBMs used for delivering objects into
the upper atmosphere or space (and the ICBMs/SLBMs and their launchers
located at such facilities); transporter-loaders for road-mobile ICBMs
(transporter-loaders for rail-mobile ICBMs are banned); ballistic missile
submarines in dry dock locations within a certain distance of submarine
bases; ICBMs/SLBMs and their launchers on static display; heavy bombers
and former heavy bombers used as ground trainers; storage and repair
facilities for ICBMs or SLBMs; and on the duration of transits of certain
items from one location to another.
The Treaty also restricts where the Parties can locate non-deployed
missiles and launchers, and the proximity of certain facilities. These
locational restrictions build stability in two ways. First, by segregating
non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs from ICBM and SLBM launchers, the locational
restrictions further reduce the possibility of rapid or covert augmentation
of existing forces with non-deployed assets. Second, locational restrictions
facilitate verification by national technical means, particularly for
mobile ICBMs, by dividing the Parties' territory into permitted and
prohibited areas.
DEFINITIONS AND COUNTING RULES
The Definitions Annex of the Treaty is the Treaty glossary. It is
designed to facilitate Treaty implementation by giving precise meaning
to Treaty terms. Counting rules are closely related to definitions.
They enable the Parties to know with precision whether and when an item
is subject to the Treaty and how it is to be counted under the central
or other limits of the Treaty. In addition to covering deployed and
non-deployed items of the types discussed above, the counting rules
also deal with, among other things, newly-constructed strategic offensive
arms and ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers that are converted to launch
different types of ICBMs or SLBMs. To further the objectives of these
rules, the Treaty includes lists of existing types of systems, as of
the date of Treaty signature, including ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBMs for mobile
launchers of ICBMs, heavy bombers, and long-range nuclear ALCMs, as
well as similar information for new types. In addition, Treaty rules
provide for attributing numbers of warheads to new types of ballistic
missiles and heavy bombers. As in the INF Treaty, ballistic missiles
that are developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects
not located on the surface of the earth are not subject to the Treaty.
PROHIBITIONS
The Treaty sets forth numerous prohibitions pertaining to strategic
offensive arms. For example, the Parties agree not to: produce, flight
test, or deploy new types of heavy (defined to mean having a launch
weight greater than 106,000 kilograms or a throw-weight greater than
4350 kilograms) ICBMs, heavy SLBMs, mobile launchers of heavy ICBMs,
additional silo launchers of heavy ICBMs; increase the launch weight
or throw-weight of heavy ICBMs of an existing type; convert launchers
into launchers of heavy ICBMs; or reduce the number of warheads attributed
to a heavy ICBM of an existing type. Other prohibitions include deploying
ICBMs other than in silos, on road-mobile launchers, or on rail-mobile
launchers. There are also prohibitions on converting SLBMs into ICBMs
for mobile launchers, on locations for deployed silo launchers of ICBMs
and soft-site launchers, and on converting silos used as launch control
facilities into silo launchers of ICBMs.
The Parties agree not to produce, flight-test, or deploy an ICBM or
SLBM with more than ten reentry vehicles. The Parties also agree not
to produce, flight-test, or deploy an ICBM or SLBM with a number of
re-entry vehicles greater than the number of warheads attributed to
that type of missile. The Parties also agreed not to flight-test ICBMs
or SLBMs equipped with reentry vehicles from space launch facilities.
The Parties undertake not to produce, test, or deploy systems for rapid
reload and not to conduct rapid reload practices. Also, they agree not
to install SLBM launchers on submarines that were not originally constructed
as ballistic missile submarines.
The Parties are prohibited from producing, testing, or deploying:
ballistic missiles with a range in excess of 600 kilometers (or launchers
of such missiles) for installation on waterborne vehicles other than
submarines; launchers of ballistic or cruise missiles for emplacement
or tethering in various underwater locations; systems for placing nuclear
weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction into Earth
orbit; air-to-surface ballistic missiles; and long-range nuclear ALCMs
armed with two or more nuclear weapons. There are also restrictions
on flight tests on certain types of aircraft.
The Parties agree to limit the number of long-range nuclear ALCMs
with which existing or future heavy bombers will be equipped. The Treaty
contains agreed locational restrictions on various types of heavy bombers,
based upon the category of armaments for which each type of bomber is
equipped. The Parties also agree not to have underground facilities
accessible to ballistic missile submarines and not to base strategic
offensive arms subject to the limitations of the Treaty outside their
respective territories.
MOBILE LAUNCHERS OF ICBMS
The Treaty contains special provisions for mobile ICBM launchers.
Mobile ICBMs are a special problem because of the relative difficulty
in counting them once they are deployed. Generally, road-mobile ICBM
launchers and their associated missiles may only be based in certain
restricted areas (each of which may have a limited number of fixed structures)
that are located within specific deployment areas. Rail-mobile ICBM
launchers and their associated missiles can only be based in rail garrisons,
which themselves have restrictions on the number of entrances and exits,
parking sites, fixed structures and maintenance facilities. Deployed
mobile ICBM launchers and their associated missiles may leave restricted
areas or rail garrisons only for routine movements, relocations, or
dispersals, each of which (except for operational dispersals) is regulated
as to frequency and duration.
DATA EXCHANGE AND NOTIFICATIONS
The Memorandum of Understanding establishes a data base of information
exchanged in accordance with the Treaty. The Parties agree that changes
in the initial data must be reported, and the data base will be updated
every six months. In addition, the Treaty establishes a regime of over
80 different notifications to keep each Party informed of the activities
of the other Party's forces. Such notifications include such diverse
types of activities as: notice of movements of selected Treaty-limited
items; transits; certain visits and operations by heavy bombers; departures
and returns of deployed rail-mobile ICBM launchers for routine movements;
departures and returns for rail-mobile test launchers and deployed mobile
launchers; exercise and operational dispersals; variation from a standard
configuration of trains with deployed rail-mobile ICBM launchers and
their associated missiles; data on ICBM and SLBM throw-weight as required
by the Throw-weight Protocol; information on conversion and elimination
of Treaty-limited items; and information on new types of ICBMs, SLBMs,
and heavy bombers.
CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION OF TREATY-LIMITED ITEMS
In order to provide assurance that each Party has met the various
limits set forth in the Treaty, the Parties are required to eliminate
specified Treaty-limited items or to convert them to items not governed
by the Treaty's central limits in accordance with procedures established
in the Treaty. Most elimination activity is to take place at conversion
or elimination facilities. Fixed launchers of ICBMs and fixed structures
housing mobile launchers of ICBMs subject to elimination are eliminated
in situ. The Treaty expressly provides for verification of conversion
and elimination by inspection as well as by national technical means.
The Conversion or Elimination Protocol sets forth specific means for
conducting conversion or elimination of mobile ICBMs and their launchers,
silo launchers and SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers and certain associated
equipment and structures. Techniques include cutting, flattening, destroying
by explosion and modifying weapons bays.
TELEMETRY
The Parties are required to make on-board technical measurements and
to broadcast all telemetric information obtained from such measurements
during each flight test of an ICBM or SLBM. With limited exceptions,
no activity, including encryption, encapsulation, or jamming, that denies
full access to telemetric information during flight tests of ICBMs or
SLBMs is permitted. In addition, the Parties will exchange tapes of
the telemetry recorded on each flight test and information that will
assist in understanding that telemetry. These provisions are a major
breakthrough in openness and transparency. The Parties have voluntarily
committed to cease using encryption and jamming techniques for one year,
beginning 120 days after signature (November 28, 1991).
VERIFICATION BY NATIONAL TECHNICAL MEANS
The Treaty provides for verification by national technical means of
verification and prohibits use of measures of concealment or other measures
that would interfere with such means. Upon request, the Parties are
also required to conduct various cooperative measures to facilitate
national technical means of verification, including display in the open
of road-mobile launchers of ICBMs in restricted areas, of rail-mobile
launchers of ICBMs at parking sites, and of heavy bombers and former
heavy bombers located within a specified air base. Each Party may request
such cooperative measures seven times per year.
VERIFICATION BY INSPECTION
The Treaty contains the most extensive and intrusive inspection regime
ever included in an arms control agreement. The Parties will have the
right to conduct 12 types of on-site inspections and exhibitions. In
addition, the Treaty gives the Parties the right to conduct continuous
monitoring activities at mobile missile final assembly facilities.
There are the following basic types of inspections and exhibitions:
baseline data inspections at facilities to help confirm the accuracy
of the data on numbers and types of items specified in the initial data
exchanges; data update inspections to help confirm subsequent changes
in data; new facility inspections to help confirm the accuracy of data
provided on such facilities; suspect-site inspections to help ensure
that covert production of mobile missiles is not occurring at specific
facilities that have such a capability; reentry vehicle inspections
of deployed ICBMs and SLBMs to "spot check" the data related
to the number of warheads deployed on a specific type of missile; post-exercise
dispersal inspections of deployed mobile ICBM launchers and their associated
missiles; conversion or elimination inspections to observe those processes
and witness removal from accountability; close-out inspections to help
confirm that facilities have been eliminated; technical characteristics
exhibitions to confirm the data on technical characteristics of ICBMs,
SLBMs, and mobile launchers; distinguishability exhibitions of heavy
bombers, former heavy bombers, and long-range nuclear ALCMs; and baseline
exhibitions of various bombers.
In addition, the Treaty provides for continuous monitoring activities
at specified mobile ICBM final assembly facilities throughout the life
of the Treaty. These provisions call for a continuous presence at the
exits of these facilities so that monitors can count all the mobile
ICBMs that exit such facilities.
The general obligation of the Parties to facilitate inspections and
continuous monitoring is set forth in the Protocol on Inspection. It
establishes: how inspectors, monitors and aircrew members are to be
chosen and reviewed and sets forth the privileges and immunities to
which they are entitled; a general framework for transportation to the
place to be inspected or monitored; the detailed provisions on the notice
that is to be given prior to inspections; and the requirements for identifying
what is to be inspected.
IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE
To promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of
the Treaty, the Parties have established the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission (JCIC). Through the JCIC, the Parties can resolve questions
of compliance, agree upon additional measures to improve the viability
and effectiveness of the Treaty, and resolve questions related to the
application of relevant provisions of the Treaty to new kinds of strategic
offensive arms. The JCIC Protocol includes provisions that are designed
to facilitate resolution by the Parties of compliance concerns, including
by means of special access visits. The provisions of the Treaty governing
the JCIC are being provisionally applied for a 12-month period pending
entry into force of the Treaty.
AMENDMENTS; ENTRY INTO FORCE; DURATION; WITHDRAWAL
The Treaty shall enter into force on the date of exchange of instruments
of ratification.
The Treaty is to remain in force for 15 years unless superseded earlier
by a subsequent agreement on the reduction and limitation of strategic
arms. The Parties may agree to extend the Treaty for successive five-year
periods.
The Treaty also provides that each Party may, in exercising its national
sovereignty, withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary
events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized
its supreme interests.
CONCLUSION
Accompanying this Report is an Article-by-Article Analysis of the
Treaty, including its Protocols, Annexes, and Memorandum of Understanding,
as well as other agreements, letters and statements associated with
the Treaty sent for the information of the Senate.
I believe that this Treaty, by significantly limiting and reducing
strategic offensive arms, will reduce the risk of war and therefore
enhance the national security of the United States. I therefore recommend
that the Treaty be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent
to ratification at the earliest possible date.
Respectfully submitted,
James A. Baker III.
TREATY ON THE REDUCTION AND LIMITATION OF STRATEGIC OFFENSIVE ARMS
(START)
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
The White House, November 25, 1991
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:
I am transmitting herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate
to ratification, the Treaty Between the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms (the START Treaty) signed at Moscow on July
31, 1991. The START Treaty includes the following documents, which are
integral parts thereof:
-- the Annex on Agreed Statements ("Agreed Statements Annex");
-- the Annex on Terms and Their Definitions ("Definitions Annex");
-- the Protocol on Procedures Governing the Conversion or Elimination
of the Items Subject to the Treaty Between the United States of America
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Conversion or Elimination Protocol");
-- the Protocol on Inspections and Continuous Monitoring Activities
Related to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic
Offensive Arms, with 12 annexes ("Inspection Protocol");
-- the Protocol on Notifications Relating to the Treaty Between the
United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Notification
Protocol");
-- the Protocol on ICBM and SLBM Throw-weight Relating to the Treaty
Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms
("Throw-weight Protocol");
-- the Protocol on Telemetric Information Relating to the Treaty Between
the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Telemetry
Protocol");
-- the Protocol on the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission
Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms ("Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission
Protocol"); and
-- the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the Data
Base Relating to the Treaty Between the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation
of Strategic Offensive Arms, with 10 annexes ("Memorandum of Understanding").
In addition, I transmit herewith, for the information of the Senate,
the Report of the Department of State and documents associated with,
but not integral parts of, the START Treaty. These documents are of
four types: separate executive agreements related to the Treaty; letters
embodying executive agreements on various aspects of the Treaty; declarations
regarding specific systems that do not fall within the scope of the
Treaty; and a variety of statements and correspondence concerning aspects
of the negotiation of the Treaty. Although not submitted for the advice
and consent of the Senate to ratification, these documents are relevant
to the consideration of the Treaty by the Senate.
The START Treaty represents a nearly decade-long effort by the United
States and the Soviet Union to address the nature and magnitude of the
threat that strategic nuclear weapons pose to both countries and to
the world in general. The fundamental premise of START is that, despite
significant political differences, the United States and the Soviet
Union have a common interest in reducing the risk of nuclear war and
enhancing strategic stability.
The United States had several objectives in the START negotiations.
First, we consistently held the view that the START Treaty must enhance
stability in times of crisis. The strategic nuclear forces remaining
after implementation of START -- as well as during the period when weapons
are reduced -- should be such as to reduce Soviet incentives to provoke
a crisis or to strike first during a crisis. Stability in times of crisis
will remain important even in the post-Cold War era; no one can predict
the future, and the purpose of this Treaty is to regulate the strategic
threat for many years to come. Among the many measures we sought to
fulfill this objective, the most important were the preferential treatment
given to stabilizing systems, such as bombers and cruise missiles, the
stringent limits on deployed ballistic missiles and their reentry vehicles,
and the special, restrictive limits on heavy ICBMs, the most destabilizing
weapons in existence.
Second, we sought an agreement that did not simply limit strategic
arms, but that reduced them significantly below current levels. A successful
combination of this objective with that of a stabilizing force structure
can serve for many years as a linch-pin in shaping our strategic posture,
and, if appropriate, can serve as a basis for future agreements that
will lead to further reductions. Moreover, in order for the Treaty to
work smoothly over many years, its terms must be as precise and unambiguous
as possible. Neither Party should have any doubt as to the limitations
and obligations that are imposed by the terms of the Treaty.
Third, we sought a Treaty that would allow equality of U.S. forces
relative to those of the Soviet Union. Again, the emphasis is to reach
equality in order that the resulting levels will be stabilizing. Equality
does not require identical force structures; rather, it demands limits
that allow the Parties to have equivalent capabilities.
Fourth, we sought an agreement that is effectively verifiable. Effective
verification is necessary to ensure that the United States national
security is not jeopardized under the Treaty. Effective verification
also acts as an inducement to the Soviets to comply because they are
aware that their behavior will be closely monitored.
Finally, the United States placed great emphasis during the negotiations
in seeking an agreement that would be supported by the American and
allied publics. This objective means that United States' policies regarding
strategic forces must not only sustain deterrence, but will also serve
to assure the American people and allied publics that the risk of war
and crisis instability is low and is being further reduced.
I am fully convinced that the START Treaty achieves these objectives.
START will be the first Treaty that actually reduces strategic offensive
arms. START will lead to stabilizing changes to the composition of,
and reductions in, the deployed strategic offensive nuclear forces of
both countries. The overall strategic nuclear forces of both countries
will be reduced by 30-40 percent, with a reduction of as much as 50
percent in the most threatening systems. The Treaty will have a 15-year
duration, and can be extended for successive five-year periods through
the agreement of the Parties.
Force reductions under START will be asymmetrical due to currently
higher Soviet levels, and will result in equal limits on deployed strategic
offensive arms at the end of each of three phases over the first 7 years
that the Treaty is in force. Moreover, I believe that the reduction
of ICBMs should be accomplished even more rapidly than the Treaty would
require. On September 27, as a part of my statement on the future of
U.S. nuclear weapons, I said that those ICBMs that the United States
would reduce pursuant to START would be eliminated more rapidly than
required by the Treaty. Today, I reiterate that pledge.
More specifically, the central limits of START require reductions
down to ceilings of 1600 on deployed strategic nuclear delivery systems
(i.e., deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers),
6000 accountable nuclear warheads that those missiles and bombers would
carry, and 3600 metric tons of aggregate ballistic missile throw-weight.
Aggregate throw-weight -- a measure of the total weight of weapons and
related objects that a ballistic missile can deliver -- is limited to
approximately 54 percent of the current aggregate Soviet throw-weight
level.
Within these aggregate limits, the United States and Soviet Union
have agreed to observe certain subceilings in specific weapon categories.
Reduction and limitations on those weapon systems that could most threaten
crisis stability are emphasized in these subceilings. Under START, neither
Party may have more than 4900 deployed ballistic missile warheads of
which no more than 1100 warheads can be on deployed mobile ICBMs. Moreover,
the Soviet Union is required to reduce by 50 percent their heavy ICBM
force. The Soviet Union will eliminate no fewer than 22 SS-18 launchers
every year during the 7-year reduction period to a ceiling of 1540 warheads
on 154 heavy ICBMs.
To assist in verifying compliance with these limits, START incorporates
the most extensive verification regime in history, which includes the
exchange of ballistic missile telemetry tapes, the permanent monitoring
of mobile ICBM assembly facilities, 12 kinds of on-site inspections,
special access visits, cooperative measures, and data exchanges to complement
our national technical means of verification. Moreover, many of the
Treaty provisions, such as its definitions, counting rules, conversion
or elimination procedures, notifications, and numerous data exchanges,
will help to verify whether the Soviet Union is in compliance with the
central limitations. Thus, I am convinced START is effectively verifiable.
START represents a critical watershed in our long-term effort to stabilize
the strategic balance through arms control. Stabilization of the strategic
balance will help cement one of the most fundamental tenets of our preferred
world order -- that conflict must not and shall not be resolved through
the use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, recent events underscore the need
to ensure stability and to broaden the dialogue between our countries.
Implementation of START would reinforce these efforts.
In sum, the START Treaty is in the interest of the United States and
represents an important step in the stabilization of the strategic nuclear
balance. I therefore urge the Senate to give prompt and favorable consideration
to the Treaty, including its Annexes, Protocols, and Memorandum of Understanding,
and to give advice and consent to its ratification.
|