Military Review

Russia and the United States signed a new treaty on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

19

Russia and the United States entered into a new non-proliferation framework agreement weapons mass destruction. Moscow and Washington will together monitor the safety of nuclear substances and monitor their quantity.


The agreement was signed on 14 June 2013, the press service of the White House reports.

“The new agreement allows the United States and Russia to work together in several areas of non-proliferation of atomic weapons, including the protection, control and accounting of atomic materials,” the US presidential administration said in a press release. “The signing of the document demonstrates that the United States and Russia remain true to the ideas of ensuring nuclear safety and other common goals.”

The signing of the document was made possible thanks to a successful agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation on the safety of transportation, storage and destruction of weapons of mass destruction. This agreement is more commonly known to the general public under the name of the “Nunn-Lugar Treaty”.

As previously reported, the topic of non-proliferation of atomic weapons has become one of the main negotiations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Barack Obama in Northern Ireland at the G8 summit. The Korean nuclear program is also not spared.

“We talked about the problem of North Korea. We agreed to strengthen our cooperation in all these areas, ”Putin told reporters at a press conference after the talks.

"We must strive to stay in the forefront of efforts to ensure nuclear security and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons," Russian leader Obama supported.

The parties also talked about the need to continue cooperation, which was launched under the Nunn-Lugar program.
Originator:
http://russian.rt.com/
19 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bremest
    bremest 18 June 2013 11: 38
    +7
    It would be nice if the Russian Foreign Ministry raised a scandal over the statements of the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands that US atomic bombs are stored in his country ............
    1. pensioner
      pensioner 18 June 2013 11: 50
      +3
      Yes, let them be stored! They there in Europe lost a couple of nuclear landmines laid back in the 70s. You look and lose the bombs. They say in Spain one is still looking at the sea ...
      1. bremest
        bremest 18 June 2013 11: 58
        +1
        The meaning of the scandal is to create a sense of guilt for the enemy, to use this fact for their political purposes, to blame, demand a UN investigation and use it as an excuse for their actions. Such events were actively conducted by the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs during the period of Khrushchev and Brezhnev. These were terrible days for the USA .....
        Nowadays, for some reason, we are embarrassed to do this, but it would be possible to wind their nerves into a fist ......
        1. танк
          танк 18 June 2013 13: 48
          +3
          I’ll tell you a terrible secret, our officials will not demand anything, because all of their loot, real estate, mobility, children, are behind the hill, they are all fed up and think not about the country, but their own ... leaders with strong political will, all that is done is dust in the eyes of the people !!!
  2. il grand casino
    il grand casino 18 June 2013 11: 38
    +3
    The meaning of the agreement will be this - Russia is disarming, Amer is arming)))
    Although the fact that agreement on the DPRK is not bad. Too unstable
    1. Atrix
      Atrix 18 June 2013 12: 12
      +7
      All these agreements are just babble compared to what Russia signed in 1997 on the sale of weapons-grade uranium in the United States.
      Let us estimate the transfer to the United States of 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium (more precisely, at least 500 tons as outlined by the said "Agreement ..."). So, in materials declassified in the United States on the history of the atomic project, it is reported that having spent 3,9 trillion dollars on the creation of nuclear weapons, since 1945, the United States was able to produce only 550 tons of weapons-grade uranium.
      Now, according to the aforementioned "Agreement ...", by the decision of the former government of V. Chernomyrdin, at least 500 tons of weapons-grade uranium is transferred from Russia to the United States, as noted. more than 90% of the strategic stocks of weapons-grade uranium previously produced in the United States itself are transferred from Russia. And this is being transferred ... not for the trillions of dollars that the United States previously spent on the production of such a quantity of weapons-grade uranium, but only for ... for. $ 11,9 billion, which will be discussed further.
      With what amount of weapons-grade uranium does Russia remain? Of the absolutely reliable sources of information that will be named by the author only during the organization of an official investigation, even in the best of times, the production capacities for the separation of uranium isotopes in the USSR exceeded the American ones by no more than 10%

      it can be argued that the uranium deal in the United States transfers especially important strategic values ​​of Russia and the countries of the former USSR worth more than 8 trillion US dollars! And all this ... is transferred under the "Agreement ...", I remind you, for only 11.9 billion dollars, i.e. almost a thousandth
      1. rereture
        rereture 18 June 2013 17: 02
        0
        Plutonium is more efficient, and it is produced faster)
  3. Airman
    Airman 18 June 2013 11: 39
    +5
    Why do we sign contracts with mattresses if they don’t fulfill them, or interpret them to please ourselves? Again we bend to the USA? They are side by side with us, and we will withdraw the contract, which will be unilaterally executed by us.
  4. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 18 June 2013 11: 42
    +3
    All these agreements are fictitious, or maybe they are beneficial to us (xs). But now I have read for me one very unpleasant news, bearing very bad consequences.
    it reads as follows: "LOKH-ERN, June 18. Seven GXNUMX states can accept a statement on Syria without Russia if President Vladimir Putin does not agree with their proposals, Western media reported, citing the views of British officials.

    "The results of the G8 summit in Northern Ireland" will clarify what commitments Russia is ready to accept at a leading international forum, "Reuters quoted one of the sources as saying.

    According to him, at a dinner in honor of the participants of the summit, British Prime Minister David Cameron put forward provisions on the solution of the Syrian problem, which should be discussed. These include the provision of humanitarian aid to the Syrian population, the growing problem of Islamist extremism in the country, questions about chemical weapons, the transfer of power using the example of Libya, and the creation of a "transitional government" in Syria, including the question of who should join it.

    According to Cameron, all these problems should be reflected in a joint statement on Syria. "If Putin does not agree, the rest of the states can agree to the adoption of the statement without Russia," the message says.

    We will remind, on the eve of British Prime Minister James Cameron during the G8 summit said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has deep differences of opinion with the leaders of other countries regarding the situation in Syria. Meanwhile, according to American media reports, the meeting of the presidents of the United States and Russia, dedicated to the situation in Syria, was held in "icy" colors. According to The Los Angeles Times, after the first meeting in a year, the American and Russian leaders supported the holding of a peace conference in Geneva, but did not show signs of progress necessary to end the war in Syria.

    The Wall Street Journal notes that Obama and Putin have entered open disagreements over the Syrian issue. The disagreements between the American and Russian sides continue to worsen: Moscow supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with the supply of heavy weapons, and Washington has ordered the CIA to arm opponents of the Syrian president. During a press conference following the talks, the presidents of the United States and Russia "preferred to look gloomily in front of them and made every effort to avoid open polemics," the author of the article said.

    The G8 Summit is taking place June 17-18 at the Lough Erne Golf Resort near Enniskillen in Fermanagh County in southwestern Northern Ireland. "

    Read more: http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2013/06/18/1141842.html

    PS I apologize for being a little off topic. But I think this is an important bell.
    1. nickname 1 and 2
      nickname 1 and 2 18 June 2013 13: 46
      0
      Quote: LaGlobal
      "If Putin does not agree, the rest of the states can agree to the adoption of the statement without Russia," the message says.


      And what is the UN for
      Quote: LaGlobal
      G8 Summit

      NOT ORDER?
      1. LaGlobal
        LaGlobal 18 June 2013 14: 02
        +1
        Quote: nick 1 and 2
        NOT ORDER?


        Along the way, no longer! I feel it’s time to prepare provisions ... And begin intensive physical preparation!
  5. faraon
    faraon 18 June 2013 11: 45
    +1
    This once again confirms my conclusions of the USA-Russia Molotov-Ribentrop plan on the division of the world. We will become participants in the redivision of the world
    1. Tersky
      Tersky 18 June 2013 12: 37
      +3
      Quote: faraon
      .We will become participants in the redivision of the world.

      Well, so ... such an event fellow and without Israel .. request where are we without you ... recourse
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 18 June 2013 14: 07
      0
      In the elderberry garden and uncle in Kiev ... Intentions to control the spread of nuclear weapons were outlined. And then world domination?
    3. pensioner
      pensioner 18 June 2013 20: 12
      0
      Hehe ... Not participants ... Objects ... It's time ...
  6. Commissar of the NKVD
    Commissar of the NKVD 18 June 2013 11: 46
    +2
    Oh, that's all nonsense. Yashki will be hammered into the contract again. Our traitors will follow it scrupulously. And then "what will they say in the West?"
  7. faraon
    faraon 18 June 2013 11: 51
    +1
    A big game has begun under the slogan of the fight against world terrorism while the main participants (the United States and Russia) only pretend that they are on opposite sides of the barricade and they are signing agreements under the guise.
    1. sergey261180
      sergey261180 18 June 2013 19: 52
      0
      These are the actions of the victorious and occupied countries. This is called the surrender of Russia to the United States.
    2. pensioner
      pensioner 18 June 2013 20: 13
      0
      Quote: faraon
      and they themselves sign contracts under the guise. In my opinion, the warring parties do not do this, this is the action of the Allies


      BZDI !!
  8. pensioner
    pensioner 18 June 2013 11: 51
    +1
    Of course, it is necessary to enter into an agreement with them. But the eye - yes the eye !!! And the fig in your pocket! The only way!
  9. sub307
    sub307 18 June 2013 11: 57
    +2
    The theater of hypocritical absurdity and absurd hypocrisy continues, "Everyone" made a "good face" that they had to sign in order to strengthen their efforts and continue to calmly go about their business. The question of weapons of mass destruction is very interesting. In general, the United States has recently "loved" to look for him here and there. In Iraq, for example, they searched for a long time.
    1. sub307
      sub307 25 June 2013 11: 00
      0
      By the way:
      "Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons
      even before the invasion of coalition forces in the country in 2003 ”
      (John Scarlett,
      Head of Foreign Intelligence Mi-6,
      in 2001-04 - head of the United Intelligence
      UK committee
      from an interview with the Associated Press,
      14.05.13 )

      “The White House has come to the conclusion
      that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
      used chemical weapons "on a small scale" ... "
      (Ben Rhodes,
      Deputy Advisor to the President of the United States
      on national security,
      25.05.13 )

      "Data on Assad's use of chemical weapons
      fabricated in the same place where the lie
      about weapons of mass destruction at Hussein.
      Obama is following George W. Bush’s path
      (Alexey Pushkov.
      head of international affairs committee
      State Duma of Russia,
      11.06.13 )

      So, we all are witnessing another militarized farce called "the feverish search for chemical weapons."
  10. agbykov
    agbykov 18 June 2013 12: 07
    +3
    Stanislav Lem wrote very well in his book "Moloch" about the impossibility of restraining the spread of nuclear weapons, as well as about information technologies, wars, etc. Highly recommend reading. At one time he was struck by the depth of thought of this writer, whom he had previously considered just a good science fiction writer.
  11. Zubr
    Zubr 18 June 2013 12: 22
    +2
    QUESTION! WHO FIRST RATIFIES THIS AGREEMENT? NO SORRY THE LADIES OF THE MATTRESS, ONLY AFTER YOU!
  12. Lech from ZATULINKI
    Lech from ZATULINKI 18 June 2013 12: 31
    +1
    Of course, the United States will withdraw from this treaty when it pleases - it was already with the ABM treaty.
    The presence of nuclear weapons is the only restriction on the spread of Western-style democracy.
    Therefore, all countries that want to be independent of the United States will sooner or later get around them.
  13. SPIRITofFREEDOM
    SPIRITofFREEDOM 18 June 2013 12: 36
    +4
    Only recently stated that Russia is the number 1 geopolitical enemy
  14. Alexei
    Alexei 18 June 2013 12: 43
    +1
    And who breaks the contract, the one that? That rotten tomato. I do not believe.
  15. Geisenberg
    Geisenberg 18 June 2013 14: 08
    0
    Well, now everyone is sure to bury their nuclear programs ... oh ... I'm certainly happy with this treaty.
  16. VadimSt
    VadimSt 18 June 2013 14: 21
    0
    The contract is about nothing! As well as the statement that Russia and the United States have a common understanding of the issues of restoring peace in Syria - there is one understanding, but the goals, objectives and ways to solve it are different.
  17. individual
    individual 18 June 2013 14: 39
    0
    In any the treaty of Russia - the United States laid cunning Anglo-Saxons.
    Even if the US treaty is fulfilled, its loyal ally, Great Britain and NATO are free from obligations and have the right to resolve any issues regarding atomic or other weapons of mass destruction.
    Russia will fulfill the agreements alone.(Will Kyrgyzstan replace the necessary nuclear capabilities or delivery vehicles?)
  18. Commissar of the NKVD
    Commissar of the NKVD 18 June 2013 20: 20
    0
    Quote: individ
    then his faithful ally Great Britain and NATO

    It means that it is tough and decisive to say to the Europeans: they say, guys, we, with your godfather - the USA - have signed an agreement on this. And if you, as members of one shalman - NATO - do not support him, then in the most fierce winter, spit on all contract-conversations without warning, turn off the taps. And freeze in the dark! We don't give a damn about you! Like you on us! You would do exactly the same in our place!

    Although I understand - this is just my cherished dream! sad Utopia...