Signing of the SALT-1 treaty between the USSR and the USA: date. Negotiations on the Limitation of Strategic Arms

Negotiations on the limitation of strategic arms (SALT) - a series of bilateral agreements between the USSR and the US on the security of nuclear weapons. There were several rounds of negotiations. As a result, the SALT-1 and SALT-2 agreements were signed. The first - in 1972, the second - in 1979.

Preconditions and the concept of "sufficiency" in the USSR

If we talk about the prerequisites and reasons for why the first signing of the SALT-1 treaty took place, then here it is necessary to mention the concept of "sufficiency" in nuclear weapons. This term was ambiguously perceived in the West, but this fact had absolutely no effect on the behavior of the Soviet side. At the 26th CPSU Congress our official nuclear concept was voiced. Its essence lies in the fact that the USSR and the USA have a balance that objectively serves the preservation of peace, and there is a sufficient number of nuclear warheads that are evenly distributed between the Strategic Missile Forces, the Navy and the Air Force. We do not need any superiority in quantitative terms over the Americans. In fact, the leadership of the USSR announced that there will be no arms race any more. Another N. Khrushchev once said D. Kennedy that for our country does not matter how many times the US can destroy it - eight or nine. It is enough for us to know that the USSR can destroy the US at least once. In fact, this is the whole essence of the "sufficiency concept", which was formalized at the party congress.

Position of the USA

The United States treated it differently: they were reluctant to sign the SALT-1 treaty. The reason lies in the internal political struggle: in the United States two parties compete in elections. One must always criticize the other. In the sixties of the last century the Democratic Party was in solidarity with the Soviet side and made it so that the new term Republican Nixon began his rule with the issue of arms limitation. For the new president, this was a serious puzzle, as he throughout the election campaign criticized the possible nuclear parity between the USSR and the United States. He kept saying that it was necessary to achieve total superiority in armaments over our country. This is what the losers of the democrats used, putting the "pig" under the chair of the new president.

Nixon fell into a stalemate: on the one hand, he criticized the idea of parity between the USSR and the US, was a supporter of nuclear quantitative superiority. And on the other hand, the build-up of the arms race unilaterally - under the official announcement of the USSR on limiting the number of its nuclear weapons - undermined the image of the US as a "power of good", which is fighting the "Empire of Evil". It turns out that the parties change roles in the eyes of the entire Western capitalist world. In this regard, Nixon had to make concessions and agree to the signing of the SALT-1 treaty.

The US concept under Nixon

Of course, the president of the Republican Party could not say that the US and the USSR are signing new agreements, and parity is being established. That is why the "sufficiency strategy" was chosen in the USA. Those. For voters, it was something between the concept of total superiority and the concept of nuclear parity. In fact, this view is not at all populist: the United States did possess a large stockpile of nuclear weapons than the USSR.

Demonstrative replica of the Deputy Minister of Defense D. Packard: "Sufficiency means only that this word is convenient to use in speeches. In addition, it does not mean anything. " Most likely, President Nixon regarded the "sufficiency concept" as a compromise between his pre-election program and the policies of the democrats preceding him.

Principles for the development of US strategic forces

So, the Nixon administration announced a "sufficiency concept". The following principles were officially proposed:

1. Maintaining a sufficient number of strategic weapons for a retaliatory strike, even after a "sudden nuclear attack."
2. Elimination of any incentive for a "surprise attack".
3. The deprivation of the possibility of the alleged enemy of the possibility of causing damage to the United States more than can be damaged by the United States in retaliation.
4. Ensuring the protection of the United States from nuclear strikes.

As it always happens in American diplomacy, this project can be "adjusted", both for the "sufficiency concept" and for the doctrine of "total superiority", since clear plans and concrete figures are not provided for in it. Many military experts said that either side can count this concept as it pleases, and will be right. However, the direct rejection of total superiority is already a certain progress of US policy, without which the signing of the SALT-1 treaty is absolutely impossible.

The Problem of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense

The whole essence of American policy was manifested in the discussion of anti-missile systems. The fact is that the USSR has gone ahead on missile defense technologies. We learned 23 years earlier than Americans to shoot nuclear missiles with non-nuclear missiles at the expense of kinetic energy from the explosion of the TNT equivalent. In fact, we had a safe shield, which allowed not to blow up nuclear warheads on our territory. Americans could shoot down nuclear missiles only with other nuclear missiles with less power. In any case, to avoid a nuclear explosion in the US did not work. Therefore, the Americans insisted on the refusal to create a missile defense system in the discussion of SALT-1 and SALT-2.

The US explained the refusal to develop missile defense by the fact that there is no reason to limit the offensive arms race unless the race of defensive weapons is banned. According to the Americans, the continued development of missile defense by the Soviet side destabilizes the established delicate balance between the two superpowers. In this issue, the United States seemed to have forgotten about its superiority in offensive weapons and about Nixon's election promises.

The Soviet side was categorically against such an approach, rightly stating that the development of defense is morally, and the development of an attack is immoral. In addition, the Americans were asked to resolve the issue of reducing offensive weapons, also rightly stating that the US had an advantage over them.

The deployment of US missile defense is a threat to forthcoming agreements

In 1967, the US Administration unilaterally deployed its anti-missile defense system. They explained this by saying that the system was not directed against the USSR, but aimed at neutralizing the threat of the PRC. The latter, and by that time, had only a nominal nuclear weapon, which in no way could threaten the United States. Surprisingly, history repeats itself with US missile defense in Eastern Europe, which is allegedly directed against Iran, although it does not threaten the United States or the countries of Eastern Europe. Military specialists noted then, as they note now, that the goal of Americans is our country.

By 1972, the US Government and the US Department of Defense could no longer justify themselves before the anti-militarist forces in the Western world. The US nuclear stock increased, the weapons improved, and no prerequisites for this were observed. Our country, to spite the Americans, pursued a friendly policy, agreeing to any agreements - not long before, an agreement on limiting the development of the ABM system was signed.

Nixon's visit to the USSR and the signing of treaties

In May 1972, Nixon paid a historic visit to Moscow. The preliminary treaty on the limitation of strategic arms was signed on May 29, 1972. It was called "The basis of interaction between the USSR and the United States." Both sides recognized that the peaceful coexistence of both great powers is the only acceptable basis for mutual relations. Also, both countries assumed responsibility for the prevention of local conflicts, assumed the responsibility to exercise restraint and resolve differences through peaceful means.

In May, another treaty was also signed - the "Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems". The parties were to select certain areas on their territory, on which the ABM facilities will be located. The USSR shielded Moscow from nuclear attacks. USA - several objects with nuclear weapons.

Signing of the SALT-1 contract: date, main provisions

OSV-1 is a set of agreements between America and the USSR from 1969 to 1972. It all started in Helsinki. And many believed that he would remain in the project. However, still there was a signing of the Soviet-American contract of SALT-1 by Nixon in Moscow in 1972. Since then, the nuclear weapons of the USSR and the USA have been strictly fixed. The growth of the number of warheads was forbidden. A moratorium was also introduced for the testing of nuclear weapons in the USSR, but this did not mean that our country was ready to abandon the continuation of work on the development of nuclear arms power.

At that time, the Soviet Union deployed up to 200 new missiles. The US had 1054 Intercontinental ballistic missiles, 656 missiles on submarines. The nuclear weapons of the USSR and the United States have remained unchanged since that time. However, the Americans adopted a new type of missile - MIRV (rockets with separating parts). The peculiarity of them is that it is nominally one missile, but it affects several strategic targets.

OSV-2

OSV-1 and SALT-2 are a unified system of contracts. The second was the logical continuation of the first. The only difference was that SALT-2 - a single agreement, signed June 18, 1979 in Vienna at the meeting of Leonid Brezhnev and D. Carter.

Basic Provisions

SALT-2 limited the number of strategic carriers to 2,400 pieces. Both sides also agreed to reduce this amount. Only 1320 units could be equipped with warheads with a given target of destruction. This number included all types of nuclear weapons. In addition to this, restrictions have been applied to the number of warheads that could be deployed on strategic carriers: ships, airplanes, submarines.

SALT-2 prohibited the commissioning of new missile silos, limited modernization. Each side, for example, could deploy no more than one new intercontinental ballistic missile that could be equipped with 10 warheads.

SALT-2 was not ratified in the US, since the Soviet Union introduced its troops into Afghanistan. However, the unofficial treaty was observed by both sides.

SNV-1 and START-2

The history of restrictive contracts for SALT-2 has not ended. July 31, 1991 in Moscow, the Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of the Soviet Union and the United States (START I Treaty) was signed. This is one of the last treaties of the USSR, signed by M. Gorbachev. Its validity was 15 years. The purpose of the treaty is to reduce armaments to 30 percent of all available nuclear weapons. An exception was made for sea cruise missiles with a range of over 600 km. This is not surprising: the United States had a huge number of such missiles, and our country did not have them at all.

After the collapse of the USSR, it was necessary to re-sign the treaty with Russia, since there was a risk that our country would not comply with START-1. In January 1993, a new treaty was signed - START II by B. Yeltsin and J. Bush. In 2002, our country withdrew from the treaty in response to the fact that the US withdrew from the ABM Treaty. In 2009, D. Medvedev and B. Obama in Geneva negotiated a new treaty on strategic offensive arms, but the Republican American Congress blocked all initiatives of Democrat B. Obama on this issue. The official wording of the congressmen is "the United States is afraid of a" scam "by Russia on the implementation of the treaty."

START III

In 2010, the presidents of Russia and the United States signed a new treaty. Each party may have no more than 1,550 nuclear warheads. The number of strategic carriers should not exceed more than 800 units. This treaty has been ratified by both sides.