Talk:New START

New Start Treaty

The U.S. Government is calling this the "New Start Treaty". I think the title of this article should be changed accordingly. NPguy (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should also be tagged as a current event article. --Wikiperson0202 (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to wait until April 8, so that we can see its title in both English and Russian. I bet its official title is not "New Start Treaty". --91.77.113.165 (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Why use an incorrect name in the meantime? And whatever the formal name of the Treaty I would expect that it will become known as New Start, just as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty. NPguy (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the formal short title is indeed 'New START Treaty.' But we can easily wait until April 8 to see what the commonly-in-use short title is. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It could easily be START III, or START IV or whatever... --85.141.92.246 (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

START III referred to a negotiation process that never eventuated in a treaty. I believe Obama officials have said that numbers will cease to be used to refer to this treaty series. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can't we stand up for the fact that calling it the START Treaty is like talking about putting in your PIN number at an ATM machine? ChrisMD123 (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've seen some call it simply "New START" or the "New START agreement," which aren't quite as redundant. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Effective Date and Text

There is a Russian language text at http://news.kremlin.ru/ref_notes/512 but nothing (yet) in English. However, it appears that the paragraph about the effective date is wrong. The treaty goes into effect upon ratification by both countries, and at least in the United States that might not happen for months, if ever, so the reference to a date of April 8, 2017, is wrong. Further, the Russian text indicates that the parties must comply with the limits within seven years, not that the treaty lasts for seven years; in fact, the treaty lasts for ten years, with an optional five-year renewal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.154.34 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The English text of the treaty and protocol have been posted by the State Department. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Data tables

Bring in the data tables from the Russian Wikipedia article? It would significantly help in readers' understanding on what is exactly going on. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, merge with START III? That's what the Russian Wikipedia seems to have done. All the historical/predicted information on the existing article can be shoved down the bottom. Russian media is actually calling the treaty START III apparently. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In the United States, START III refers to a treaty under negotiation during the Clinton Administration. The treaty was never concluded. The Obama Administration refers to this treaty as "the New START treaty." This may be intended to echo President Obama's desire to hit the "reset" button on U.S.-Russia relations. NPguy (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A second comment: I think the use of the Russian Wikipedia article is a temporary fix. For those who want to research the citations and don't read Russian, it is important to use English language sources. Also, the terminology in the table of Russian strategic forces is not recognizable to most American students of arms control. Finally, the numbers appear to favor the United States heavily. Finally, I suspect that estimates from English language sources would be different and show a closer numerical balance. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Russia to propose UN General Assembly resolution on arms cuts

Any more details in the Russian language press?

http://en.rian.ru/world/20100929/160769626.html Russia is set to put forward a draft resolution on a new strategic arms reduction treaty at the current session of the UN General Assembly, Russia's envoy to the United Nations said on Wednesday. The draft resolution, on the bilateral reduction of strategic nuclear weapons and new frameworks for strategic relations, will be submitted jointly by Russia and the U.S.

Hcobb (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias in section on U.S. Public Debate

This new section now begins with the efforts and arguments of a the right-wing Heritage Foundation in opposition to New START, while giving short shrift to the widespread support for the treaty among mainstream non-partisan non-governmental organizations, including the rebuttals of the Heritage arguments. It completely omits the nearly universal support by current and former leading military officers and Republican former Secretaries of State. This needs to be corrected. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see what you mean. At first I had added what I was most familiar with, and the fact that there is debate necessarily means giving a prominent spot to opponents. Now I've added a new sentence to start the section that is a simple and balanced overview, and I have mentioned the support from Republican secretaries of state. Stargat (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Better, but insufficient. Heritage is an outlier, and its views should not be prevented without substantive counterpoint. I recommend including a section on efforts by the Arms Control Association in support of the treaty. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

update needed soon

This will need an update to reflect the fact that Senator Kyl finally came out against the treaty and the outcome of the upcoming ratification vote. I suggest waiting until after the vote. NPguy (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)