Talk:Strategic Arms Limitation Talks

Untitled
We should be careful when suggesting that the influence of defense contractors was essential to decision making at SALT:

"The combination of these factors meant that the military and political leadership on both sides had an incentive to reduce their arsenals. Factoring in the industrial complex, if the talks led to allowances for fewer but more advanced systems, this would allow for further expenditures and thus keep the military-industrial complex happy."

This is not a neutral analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.174.190.59 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EmilySloate, Jayjohnson540.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section Detailing History of Nuclear Arms Control
I wonder if this should be included or merits inclusion on a separate page. SALT is the most visible of the treaties, so I can see its utility as a portal of sorts, but still... Deleting CIA coverup reference :) Upshotknothole (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Photo
The photo of Brezhnev and Ford signing a comunique is misleading, it suggests that Ford signed the SALT1 treaty when it was actually Nixon becuase it was signed two years before Ford became president. Also the T in SALT stands for Treaty not Talks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.31.127 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sentence II is wrong. "T" in SALT = Talks. "T" in START = Treaty. Check the links below the article with the text source of the SALT agreements on state.gov with best regards from VINCENZO1492   17:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Salt Talks
I've always heard them referred to as the "SALT Talks", so I'm going to create a redirect page with that name. I know, it's a redundant acronym. xxxyyyzzz 20:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What is 'ABM'
There's no definition on this page as to the meaning of the abbreviation 'ABM'. 130.194.157.132 02:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anti-Ballistic Missile. Basically, a missile that shoots down ballistic missiles.  Rklawton 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Which treaty was it?
Was it the SALT treaty where nuclear weapons were banned from outer space by the USSR and USA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.95.143 (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That was the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which predated SALT. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The title
Why 'Seals And Lambs Treaty'? I understand it to stand for "Strategic Arms Limitation Talks" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righteous lies (talk • contribs) 11:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Factual error-it says Joseph Biden of Delaware signed this treaty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnvrbrncs95 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

SALT I confused with START I
I'm pretty sure that some author has confused SALT I with START I. The SALT I currently reads SALT I is the common name for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement, also known as Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers only after the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and SLBM launchers had been dismantled. That sounds like START I. If you can verify this, go ahead and change the entry.--Gadlen (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. "L" in SALT = Limitation = freezing the number of weapons. "R" in START = Reduction = decreasing the number of weapons. with best regards from VINCENZO1492   17:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not have a section: Reasons for not allowing total disarmament.
A) Defense, self-defense (guns). B) Inhibiting a water monopoly society from using enslavement principles while maintaining their own arsenals.

A is important, because it limits the potencial of a Walk-IN. B is important, because it limits any internal putz that would lead to a Water Monopoly Incest cycle, by providing alternate external solutions.

Within the past 40 years, it have been both ´dictators´ and ´water monopolistic´ theologists whom have proposed complete nuclear disarmament. These same individuals also push for internal enslavement within their own nations, under their own ´one god´ principle (supremist fascism orientations), which overal has a deterant called ´a nuclear weapon´.

To mention a few: Middle East Islam Sects, African Dictators, South American social communist. All these want ´walk-in´ rights without there being any potencial of any opposition to those demands, and overal have gone out of their way to not allow the use of guns by citizens, and that last, on pure humanitarian grounds that have no humanitarian reasoning except that humanitarianism where a ´walk-in´ could be shot. (IE: Humanitarianism for the crook or dictator, but for none other).

There is an interesting aspect to this, if you are of that thought and mind, and that aspect is: ´where would you run too, too whom would you run, if there was a severity of abuse under a complete disarmament?´. There is very little doubt that that would be to someone whom could counter, but such an entity/individual would no longer exist.

Increasing disarmament talks is a very, very, very bad idea, a NONE deterant to any individual with a ´I´m now master of the Universe principle¨. These days, that is defacto the ´United States of North America´ itself, and has been since the retraction of Russian sponsored forces in Eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.37.128.210 (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have such a section because Wikipedia does not use ideas you made up especially those that bear little relation to reality. Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote such ideas. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Section deletion proposal
I propose that a substantial amount of information added to the article after April 15th, 2017 be removed. The chart below contains the entries where I believe removal is warranted. Please note that the individual reasons for each entry removal are noted in the Notes section under lowercase letters "A" through "L".

In addition to what was removed above, information added under this specific reference was also removed, as it was unlocatable.

Any editor wishing to dispute this proposal is invited to address the issues I've raised here on the talk page. If there are no dissenting opinions, it is my intention to delete the entries within 7 days. Editors wishing to dispute this removal after the fact are free to begin a new discussion here on the talk page or to make a dispute resolution request at the ANI Noticeboard. Regards,  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   20:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The first 1978 source can be found here. Uglemat (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding this information. I've updated the tables to reflect my evaluation of the information taken from this source and rephrased for the wiki article.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   23:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As one editor has pointed out to me, almost the entirety of the information I'm seeking to have removed was placed in the article by two editors whose user accounts (and the edits made under them) were created as part of a class assignment — a class which ended May 2017 — and in all liklihood the editors involved won't be returning to defend their additions. In light of this, my previously specified wait period of 7-days is abrogated.  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   04:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Basic Principles Agreement
The article doesn't mention the term "Basic Principles Agreement" which I do see mentioned from the National Cold War Exhibition from the Royal Air Force Museum of the UK. So they have there:

3. The Basic Principles Agreement

This laid down some important rules for the conduct of nuclear warfare. The USA and the USSR pledged 'to do their utmost to avoid military confrontation' and 'to exercise restraint' in international relations.

I first heard this term used in a lecture by Professor Daniel Sargent of UC Berkeley in Lecture 15 of HIST 186: International and Global History Since 1945 (it's at about 34:47 in the audio file).

Sargent says:

The first, and the one which attracts least attention in the United States, is the so-called Basic Principles Agreement. What the Basic Principles Agreement does is to lay down a basic sort of code of conduct for the waging of the Cold War.

It commits the powers you know to do a bunch of mundane things -- like notifying each other about military maneuvers such that military maneuvers cannot be misunderstood, misconstrued, as offensive escalatory moves.

It establishes a sort of framework for stabilizing the adversary relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. There's also a symbolic importance to the Basic Principles Agreement. It's very existence as a document suggests that the United States is willing to recognize the Soviet Union as a coequal superpower.

So perhaps some content ought to be added on the Basic Principles Agreement aspect of the talks.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added a few sentences on the basic principles agreed upon during SALT I in this edit. Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)