The signing of the agreement salt-1 between the USSR and the United States: date. Negotiations on the strategic arms limitation

Negotiations on the limitation of strategic arms (start) – a series of bilateral agreements between the USSR and the USA on the issue of safety of nuclear weapons. Rounds of negotiations were few. In the result the treaties were signed the salt-1 and salt-2. First, in 1972, the second – in 1979.

Background and the concept of "adequacy" in the Soviet Union

If we talk about the prerequisites and the reasons why was the first signing of the salt-1, then it is necessary to mention the concept of "adequacy" in nuclear weapons. This term is ambiguously perceived in the West, but this fact does not affect the behavior of the Soviet side. At the XXVI Congress of the CPSU was announced our official nuclear concept. The gist of it is that the Soviet Union and the United States have the balance, which objectively serves to preserve peace, and in service has a sufficient number of nuclear warheads, which are distributed evenly between the strategic Missile forces, Navy and air force. No superiority in quantitative terms over the Americans we do not need. In fact, the Soviet leadership has announced that no arms race will be no more. .. Khrushchev at the time was John F. Kennedy said that for our country no matter how many times the U.S. can destroy it - eight or nine. We need to know what the Soviet Union could destroy the United States at least once. In fact, this is the whole point of “the concept of adequacy”, which was issued at the party Congress officially.

U.S. Position

The United States treated it differently: they been reluctant to sign the salt-1. The reason lies in domestic politics: in the US, two parties compete in the elections. One must always criticize the other. In the sixties of last century the Democratic party was in solidarity with the Soviet side and did so to a new term Republican Nixon began his reign with the question of arms limitation. For the new President this was a serious puzzle, as it has throughout the election campaign criticized the possible nuclear parity of the Soviet Union and the United States. He stated that we need to achieve total superiority in arms over our country. This took advantage of the losing Democrats, placing “pig” under the seat of the new President.

Recommended

"Knowledge is light and ignorance is darkness": the value, meaning and alternatives

There are some sayings that would seem to need no explanation, such as “teaching & ndash; light and ignorance – darkness”. But some still do not understand their meaning. But not only for such people is written by our article. I...

What was invented by Mendeleev for the army. The history and fate of the invention

D. I. Mendeleev was a brilliant Russian scientist-polymath, who made many important discoveries in various fields of science and technology. Many people know that he is the author of “Fundamentals of chemistry" and the periodic law of chem...

The origin of the Slavs. The influence of different cultures

Slavs (under this name), according to some researchers, appeared in the story only in 6 century ad. However, the language of nationality bears the archaic features of the Indo-European community. This, in turn, suggests that the origin of the Slavs h...

Nixon is caught in a stalemate: on the one hand, he criticized the idea of the parity of the USSR and the USA was a supporter of nuclear numerical superiority. And on the other hand, increasing of the arms race unilaterally - with the official announcement of the Soviet Union on the limitation of the number of its nuclear weapons undermined the image of the States as a “good power”, which is ‘evil Empire». It turns out that the parties switch roles in the eyes of the Western capitalist world. In this regard, Nixon had to make concessions and to agree to the signing of the ABM Treaty-1.

The Concept of the United States when Nixon

To Declare that the United States and the Soviet Union sign new contracts, and set parity, of course, President from the Republican party could not. That is why it was chosen “strategy of sufficiency” in the United States. I.e., for voters it was something between the concept of total superiority and the concept of nuclear parity. In fact, this view is not populist: the US does have a large stock of nuclear weapons than the Soviet Union.

Revealing remark of the Deputy Minister of defense D. Packard: “Sufficiency means only that this word is convenient to use in speeches. In addition, it doesn't mean anything”. Most likely, President Nixon regarded “the concept of sufficiency” as a compromise between his electoral program and policies prior to him Democrats.

Principles for the development of American strategic forces

So, the Nixon administration announced "the concept of adequacy". Officially was offered the following principles:

1. Maintain a sufficient number of strategic weapons to retaliate even after a “sudden nuclear attack”.
2. Eliminate any incentive for "sudden attack".
3. Denial of the perceived enemy capabilities to inflict damage on the US more than you can inflict damage on the United States in a retaliatory strike.
4. Protect the US from nuclear strikes.

As always happens in American diplomacy, the project can be “customized” like “the concept of adequacy" and the doctrine of “total superiority”, as clear plans and specific numbers in there. Many military experts said that any party may consider this concept as it pleases, and it will be right. However, a direct rejection of total superiority already made some progress U.S. policy, without which it becomes absolutely impossible the signing of the ABM Treaty-1.

The Issue of missile defense

The Whole point of American policy was manifested in the discussion of anti-missile systems. The fact that the Soviet Union has moved forward in the technology of missile defense. We learned 23 years before the Americans shoot down nuclear missiles-nuclear missiles due to the kinetic energy from the explosion of TNT. In fact, we had a safe shield that allowed me to not blow up in our territory nuclear warheads. The Americans could shoot down nuclear missiles only other nuclear missiles with less power. In any case, to avoid a nuclear explosion on U.S. territory is not obtained. Therefore, the Americans insisted on the abandonment of a missile defense system in the discussion of the salt-1 and salt-2.

The United States explained the rejection of missile defense that allegedly makes no sense to limit race in offensive weapons, if not ban defensive race. According to Americans, the continued development of missile defense by the Soviet side destabilizie established a delicate equilibrium between the two superpowers. In this regard, the United States seemed to have forgotten about their superiority in offensive weapons, and the election promises of Nixon.

The Soviet side was categorically against such an approach, rightly stating that development of defense – it is morally, and the development of the attack – is immoral. Besides, the Americans suggested to solve a question on reduction of offensive arms, also rightly claiming that the U.S. had the advantage.

The Deployment of us missile defense – the threat of the upcoming agreements

In 1967 the US Administration unilaterally deploying its missile defense system. They explained this by the fact that the system is not directed against the Soviet Union, and was intended to neutralize the threat of China. Last, and all had by that time only a nominal nuclear weapons, which could not threaten the United States. Amazing the way history repeats itself with anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe, ostensibly aimed against Iran, although it does not threaten neither the United States nor the countries of Eastern Europe. Military experts noted then, as now noted that the aim of the Americans is our country.

By 1972 the government and the Ministry of defense was unable to justify himself before the anti-militarist forces in the Western world. Stockpile the United States increased, the weapons were improved, and there are no prerequisites for this were observed. Our country to spite the Americans led friendly policies, agreeing to any agreement – shortly before it was signed an agreement about limiting the development of a missile defense system.

Visit of Nixon to the USSR and signing of the contract

In may 1972 was the historic visit of Nixon to Moscow. A preliminary agreement on limiting strategic arms was signed on 29 may 1972. It was called “the Basis of cooperation between the USSR and the US”. Both sides acknowledged that peaceful coexistence of both great powers is the only acceptable basis for relations. Also both countries have claimed responsibility for the prevention of local conflicts, took upon himself the duty to exercise restraint and solve differences through peaceful means.

In may, also signed another agreement-the "Treaty on the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems". The parties were to select certain areas on its territory, on which are located the objects ABOUT. USSR protected Moscow against a nuclear attack. USA-several objects with nuclear weapons.

The Signing of the salt-1: date, the principal provisions

Start-1 – a set of agreements between America and the Soviet Union from 1969 to 1972. It all started in Helsinki. And many believed that he will remain in the project. However, the signing of the Soviet-American salt-1 Nixon in Moscow in 1972. Nuclear weapons of the USSR and the United States since that time strictly fixed. The increase in the number of warheads was forbidden. Also introduced a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons in the USSR, but this did not mean that our country was ready to abandon the work on the development of nuclear power weapons.

...