Talk:START II

Untitled
Removed from article:
 * The START II Treaty was never ratified by the USA, and Russia withdrawed from it on on June 13, 2002, as the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty.

Wrong. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start2/ --mav 06:47, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Above "wrong" statement could be misleading, in that most people interpret "ratification" as entry into force, or activation. There's a difference. While ratified, the START II treaty was never entered into force. Later, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM treaty, Russia withdrew from the START II treaty on June 14, 2002:


 * "The START II Treaty did not enter into force because the Russian ratification act made entry into force conditional on U.S. Senate consent to ratification of the September 1997 protocol and approval of the Agreed Statements on ABM-TMD Demarcation. Neither of these occurred because of opposition to the latter in the U.S. Senate, where a strong faction objected to any action that might be seen as supporting the ABM Treaty.  On June 14, 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by START II provisions."


 * Based on the above I'm restoring a modified version of the removed statement which clarifies the START II treaty was never in force. I'm sure that was the intent of the original statement, although technically the treaty was ratified. Joema 15:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does "the same argument applies to new American SLBMs"? If you can't destroy an opponent's missiles with your own (because they're in submarines) then what advantage does anyone get by launching first? Ojw (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed it, as you're quite right, and in any case it seemed a bit off topic for the article. 152.91.9.219 (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)