Talk:New START/Archive 1

Effective Date and Text
There is a Russian language text at http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/512 but nothing (yet) in English. However, it appears that the paragraph about the effective date is wrong. The treaty goes into effect upon ratification by both countries, and at least in the United States that might not happen for months, if ever, so the reference to a date of April 8, 2017, is wrong. Further, the Russian text indicates that the parties must comply with the limits within seven years, not that the treaty lasts for seven years; in fact, the treaty lasts for ten years, with an optional five-year renewal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.154.34 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The English text of the treaty and protocol have been posted by the State Department. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Data tables
Bring in the data tables from the Russian Wikipedia article? It would significantly help in readers' understanding on what is exactly going on. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, merge with START III? That's what the Russian Wikipedia seems to have done. All the historical/predicted information on the existing article can be shoved down the bottom. Russian media is actually calling the treaty START III apparently. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 07:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In the United States, START III refers to a treaty under negotiation during the Clinton Administration. The treaty was never concluded.  The Obama Administration refers to this treaty as "the New START treaty."  This may be intended to echo President Obama's desire to hit the "reset" button on U.S.-Russia relations. NPguy (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A second comment: I think the use of the Russian Wikipedia article is a temporary fix. For those who want to research the citations and don't read Russian, it is important to use English language sources.  Also, the terminology in the table of Russian strategic forces is not recognizable to most American students of arms control.  Finally, the numbers appear to favor the United States heavily.  Finally, I suspect that estimates from English language sources would be different and show a closer numerical balance. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

New Start Treaty
The U.S. Government is calling this the |"New Start Treaty". I think the title of this article should be changed accordingly. NPguy (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think it should also be tagged as a current event article. --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to wait until April 8, so that we can see its title in both English and Russian. I bet its official title is not "New Start Treaty". --91.77.113.165 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why use an incorrect name in the meantime? And whatever the formal name of the Treaty I would expect that it will become known as New Start, just as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. NPguy (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the formal short title is indeed 'New START Treaty.' But we can easily wait until April 8 to see what the commonly-in-use short title is. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It could easily be START III, or START IV or whatever... --85.141.92.246 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * START III referred to a negotiation process that never eventuated in a treaty. I believe Obama officials have said that numbers will cease to be used to refer to this treaty series. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't we stand up for the fact that calling it the START Treaty is like talking about putting in your PIN number at an ATM machine? ChrisMD123 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen some call it simply "New START" or the "New START agreement," which aren't quite as redundant. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia to propose UN General Assembly resolution on arms cuts
Any more details in the Russian language press?

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100929/160769626.html Russia is set to put forward a draft resolution on a new strategic arms reduction treaty at the current session of the UN General Assembly, Russia's envoy to the United Nations said on Wednesday. The draft resolution, on the bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and new frameworks for strategic relations, will be submitted jointly by Russia and the U.S.

Hcobb (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias in section on U.S. Public Debate
This new section now begins with the efforts and arguments of a the right-wing Heritage Foundation in opposition to New START, while giving short shrift to the widespread support for the treaty among mainstream non-partisan non-governmental organizations, including the rebuttals of the Heritage arguments. It completely omits the nearly universal support by current and former leading military officers and Republican former Secretaries of State. This needs to be corrected. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean. At first I had added what I was most familiar with, and the fact that there is debate necessarily means giving a prominent spot to opponents. Now I've added a new sentence to start the section that is a simple and balanced overview, and I have mentioned the support from Republican secretaries of state. Stargat (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Better, but insufficient. Heritage is an outlier, and its views should not be prevented without substantive counterpoint.  I recommend including a section on efforts by the Arms Control Association in support of the treaty. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

update needed soon
This will need an update to reflect the fact that Senator Kyl finally came out against the treaty and the outcome of the upcoming ratification vote. I suggest waiting until after the vote. NPguy (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian gloating
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2010/russia-101224-rianovosti07.htm "If one reads the text of the document carefully then it becomes clear that Americans will really have to reduce the number of [nuclear] warheads, while if we [Russia] want to reach the levels defined by the document, will actually have to increase the amount of warheads," Mikhail Margelov, the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council, said in an interview with TVTc television channel.

Add this in? Hcobb (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. First, it doesn't seem to be correct, based on the numbers in the article.  Second, I would not editorialize by calling it gloating. NPguy (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It matches to some of the sour grapes in the US Senate where it was pointed out that the Russians where already below the limit. C.f. Senator "Bomber" Thune for example. Hcobb (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There hardly can be any gloating about that. There's quite a different view of this in Russia: Russia will soon have to increase its nuclear arsenal in order just to catch up with the US. It's not smth to gloat about but to worry if one looks at a current trend of nuclear disarmament in Russia. Russia is unable to stabilize the ammount of nuclear weapons it has and won't be able to do so for at least 5-7 years. --Comiccar (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-Ballistic warheads
Does this treaty cover the various kinds of Battlefield nuclear weapons or weapons manufactured and guarded by one party but ready for a third parties use? I know they might be outside but perhaps we should find out and specify since we specify the irrelevance of rail-mounted launchers. The types I'm curious about are:
 * Air to air
 * Torpedo
 * Ship to Ship
 * Artillery shell
 * Engineering
 * German / other European stockpiles controlled and manufactured by the USA.

If anyone has any readily available information on this maybe make the edits yourself or drop it here. It seems like the sort of thing that should be in the article even if they're really talking about the weapons aimed at each other.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Text size in data table
The text in the data table is a little bit off in size and formatting... not sure how to fix it though. Faraday&#39;s Cage (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

START III
Reading over the article, I kept on reading off how START III got canceled, but no explanation of why. I think it is integral to this article to explain why the New START treaty is better than the START III treaty. This is only an suggestion, and visiting the START III page didn't give me much information. Can I get any opinions whether to add another section or some text? α_MCCCXXXVII_† 21:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha1337Saint (talk • contribs)

There is not START III Treaty. Negotiations were started in the Clinton Administration, but never completed. It's an incomplete artifact of an earlier era, and not something readily applicable today. NPguy (talk) 02:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

House move on nuclear weapons facilities
http://allthingsnuclear.org/post/6595239104/trimming-the-nuclear-weapons-budget

Does this really go here or do we need a new page like Obama's new nuclear weapons? Hcobb (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in Nuclear weapons and the United States. The title proposed above is absurdly POV. NPguy (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikileaks & the telegraph US-Russia-UK - Over hyped story or something really really big?
Released a day or so ago this story: re: New START deal with Russia-US and UK involvement is getting a lot of traffic/comments/attention (based solely on my opinion that 24,000 facebook recommends, 1,900 tweets and 2,800 comments in a few days is a lot! - Though I would like to be shown perspective if someone can provide something?) and I thought I place it here for discussion on whether it deems a mention on the wiki article. IMHO it does but would want others to comment/discuss etc. as again I am no expert on the issues involved (only vaguely know about this article involving warheads etc. etc.). Cheers. :) Calaka (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Found a few other bits & pieces:, & .Calaka (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This from a TIME blog not making a big deal out of it.Calaka (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * no big deal? Obama's administration gave the Russians all the serial numbers of British Trident missiles without permission, it' was a massive betrayal and deserves an entry.82.31.236.245 (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305116/GENEVA-AGREED-STATEMENTS-MEETING.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.236.245 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Please update for US Strategic Force
http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf

Thanks.

Phd8511 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to Check
Footnote 67 link does not work. - MartinLBuchanan@gmail.com50.183.242.176 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Putin Update
I think it's important to keep up with how Putin has been following the treaty. http://au.ibtimes.com/just-so-you-may-know-russia-has-5000-nukes-putin-tells-world-1380932 Allen750 (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Link dead: "START data for 1 July 2009 on state.gov"
Footnote 70 "START data for 1 July 2009 on state.gov" link is now dead on the State Department site. Can anyone find a suitable replacement? (I couldn't, but didn't look very hard)

162.237.228.60 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect it's one of the fact sheets linked here. NPguy (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New START. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to http://k2kapital.com/news/fin/753392.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New START. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106225949/http://nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2010/5/28/133330/351 to http://nukesofhazardblog.com/story/2010/5/28/133330/351

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New START. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=15926251&PageNum=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201050747/http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1118_new_start_ohanlon.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/1118_new_start_ohanlon.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Start II came into force on 14.04.2000.
In this page it is wrongly mentioned that start II never came into force, this statement is wrong, as it came into force on 14.4.2000 when Russia ratified it While USA already ratified it on 26.1.1996. However, Russia withdrew from treaty on 14.6.2002 leading to it's termination. Hence, start II remained effective from 14.4.2000 to 14.6.2002. Sheraz Razzaq Bajwa (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)