Obama, Medvedev Agree To Cut Nuclear Arms

Two Leaders in Moscow Have Signed Joint Understanding to Reduce Warheads to as Few as 1,500 Each

(CBS/AP)  Updated 1:15 p.m. ET

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a preliminary agreement Monday to reduce the world's two largest nuclear stockpiles by as much as a third, down to the lowest levels of any U.S.-Russia accord, and counter what Mr. Obama called "a sense of drift" in the countries' relations.

"We must lead by example, and that's what we are doing here today," Mr. Obama declared in a Kremlin hall glittering in gold. "We resolve to reset U.S.-Russian relations so that we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest."

The document signed by the two leaders at a Moscow summit, Mr. Obama's first in Russia, is meant as a guide for negotiators as the nations work toward a replacement pact for the START arms control agreement that expires in December. The joint understanding also commits the countries to lower longer-range missiles for delivering nuclear bombs to between 500 and 1,100.

The limit for warheads would be in a range of 1,500 to 1,675 each. However, there are disagreements on what to count.

Medvedev called Monday's agreement a "reasonable compromise."

A White House statement said the new treaty "will include effective verification measures" and Mr. Obama said it would be completed by the end of the year. He also held out hope to "move even beyond that in subsequent agreements and treaties" and said he wanted to host a summit on global nuclear security next year in the United States.

More broadly, Mr. Obama needs Russia's help in pressuring Iran and North Korea to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, and also in tackling terrorism, global warming and worldwide economic woes. But ties are frayed over Moscow's war in Georgia last year and the U.S. plan for a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe, so Mr. Obama's desire to move forward is a huge test of his diplomatic skills.

"The president and I agreed that the relationship between Russia and the United States has suffered from a sense of drift," he said at Medvedev's side. "President Medvedev and I are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and rivalry of the past."

His host expressed similar good will.

"This is the first but very important step in improving full-scale cooperation between our two countries, which would go to the benefit of both states," the Russian leader said. Injecting a note of caution, he said that discussions so far "cannot remove the burden of all the problems."

The two leaders appeared together at a news conference where they and other officials from both countries signed and exchanged documents with great flourish and much handshaking.

Among the side deals meant to sweeten Mr. Obama's two days of talks here and show progress toward improving badly damaged U.S.-Russian relations was permission from Moscow for the United States to transport arms across its land and airspace into Afghanistan for the war there. Mr. Obama said the deal will save the U.S. "both time and money," to the tune of $133 million a year, by waiving transit fees and shortening flying time. (Read more about that agreement here)

They outlined other areas in which they said their countries would work together to help stabilize Afghanistan, including increasing assistance to the Afghan army and police, and training counternarcotics personnel.

Among other agreements was the resumption of military cooperation, suspended after Russia invaded neighboring Georgia last August and sent relations into a nosedive.

They also promised fresh cooperation on public health issues and revived a joint commission to try to account for missing service members of both countries dating back to World War II. The commission was first created by the first President Bush and President Boris Yeltsin in the early 1990s, but the Russians later downgraded their participation. The U.S. hope is that the Russians will now open some of their more sensitive archives to U.S. researchers seeking details about missing American servicemen.

Yet, the two sides remain stalemated over the U.S. pursuit of a missile-defense system in Europe, pushed aggressively by former president George W. Bush and still under review by Mr. Obama's 7-month-old administration. Both sides hardened their positions ahead of the summit, and Mr. Obama gave a lengthy rationale for the system at Medvedev's side.

Mr. Obama suggested the United States has a right to pursue defensive systems separate from the offensive weapons that are the subject of most arms control negotiations. Mr. Obama repeated the U.S. position that the planned system is aimed at intercepting missiles from Iran and has nothing to do with countering" a mighty Russian arsenal," as many in Russia suspect.

Medvedev called it "a difficult area for our discussion," but suggested that the new openness between the two countries could help.

Mr. Obama said he trusts the Russian leader to follow through on the agreements they struck. And he refused to be drawn into a debate over who really holds the reins of power in Russia, widely believed to be Medvedev's predecessor and mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. "My understanding is, President Medvedev is the president ... and Prime Minister Putin is the prime minister," Mr. Obama simply said.

Mr. Obama, who meets with Putin on Tuesday, caused a stir in Russia before his trip by telling The Associated Press that Putin has to learn that "the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated."

"The world has changed dramatically and it's trying to find those ways where it can be that super power," analyst Heather Conley told CBS News.

The summit starts a weeklong trip for Mr. Obama that also features G-8 meetings and a visit with the pope in Italy, and a speech in Ghana.

After Mr. Obama landed in Moscow under drizzly gray skies, he introduced his wife, Michelle, and their two daughters to Russian officials waiting to greet them. The entourage then headed to a wreath-laying ceremony at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Having enjoyed adoring crowds in other parts of Europe, Mr. Obama will face a far more skeptical Russian population. He will outline his vision for U.S.-Russian relations at a speech Tuesday at the New Economic School.

Just 15 percent of Russians say the U.S. is playing a positive role in the world; most said the United States abuses it power and makes Russia do what the U.S. wants, according to the University of Maryland's WorldPublicOpinion.org out Sunday.

"I would like to see America meddle less in other countries," said Valentina Titova, a 60-year-old retired economist strolling not far from the Kremlin.

Between them, the two countries possess more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, led each country to cut its nuclear warheads to about 6,000. The 2002 Treaty of Moscow called for further cuts to between 1,700 and 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012.

But Moscow and Washington have long argued over what weapons should be subject to cuts.

Russia wants to limit missiles, bombers and submarines along with nuclear warheads, just as the original START treaty did. The 2002 agreement applied only to warheads. Also, the United States has been prepared to count only the warheads ready for launch, while Russia wants to count those in storage as well.

[pepperwood2]

A day earlier, the rebroadcast of a June 13 Russian league soccer match on the main state-run sports channel seemed to overtake coverage of Obama's conference with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Way to go Dmitry! The Yoke is on BO. So Sad he just doesn't appear Presidential when the whole world is watching.

[pensacola8-2009]

The best news of this arms deal is that older weapons that not reliable anymore, will be retired and no new ones will be created to sustain the weapon count in the agreement. It is a basic attrition of aged weapons coming off the active service lists.

Most of the USA's newest weapons were created during the Reagan era between 1981-1989, which makes them around 20 years old and capable of serving another 12-15 years, before they have to be retired around 2020.

After a weapon attains 30-35 years of age, the reliability drops considerably.

Boosters are solid propellant and develope fractures and cracks with age. After they reach their critical age, they are retired. Trying to use them will risk duds, explosions in the silos, or shortened burn times that translate into falling short of the target into unintended areas.

At this time, the USA is still paying for weapons bought with borrowed money during the Reagan Era. Some analysts believe that most of the nukes will be retired around 2020 before Americans finish paying for them.

[ocreader]

...whats really interesting, is the fact that everyone is saying that Putin is not in charge!!! Hello, people, this is a ruskie, doesn't anyone understand "glasnost"...First used in a socio-political sense by Lenin; popularized in Eng. after Mikhail Gorbachev used it prominently in a speech of March 11, 1985, accepting the post of general secretary of the CPSU. However, it seemed to be accepted as "3-steps forward, 2-steps back, always a step ahead"! People, Russia has always been symbolized by a "hibernating bear"...and this is my ancestry, these people are not "trustworthy"..the bear is awakening!

[newerdeal]

President Obama, the economy is doing bad and you stay busy running around the world. Please come home and get the economy going again.

When you were running for president you seemed to want a chance to fix the economy real bad. Now is your chance and what are you doing ?

I am tired of you and your team blaming Bush. Come back to Washington and get it done ! ! !

[Newster1]

by -----One-American--

And so Obama's answer to Bush "bankrupting the nation" is quadrupling that debt in his first 3 months in office? Where's the logic in that?

Answer: There "

No, ANSWER; king george the last's doubling the debt was ALL down the toilet and is still growing, so to will the ultimate costs when you add in replacing destryed and beaten up tanks, planes, ships, arms and supplies as well as life-long medical care and artificial computer controlled $50,000 limbs.

OBAMA's running up the debt will only HELP and put mney back into OUR economy, creating jobs, repairing and rebuilding infrastructure, health care and more.
That will cost money now but pay big dividends later just like the Govt programs of decacdes ago when broke out of work men were put to work building dams, bridges, roads, national parks and much much more after the depression- almost all of which we enjoy and use TODAY as a benefit of it all.
King george the last's legacy will be the wars we didnt need and the trillions in equipment replacements and medical costs for the next half century or more.

[John_Merritt]

All I am going to say is this "Don't they make a cute couple?"

[rickwar]

by tmittelstaed July 6, 2009 1:29 PM PDT

"Nukes are the only thing that has kept the world from having WWIII. It would be a terrible mistake to get rid of them. The purpose of a nuke is to prevent war, and if you look at history since nukes were invented, we have never had a war between 2 nuke-armed countries. All the wars we have had have been between countries that wern't nuke, or countries where one was nuke and the other wasn't. Why do you think Iran is working so hard to get it's own nukes? They don't want to be attacked. They know perfectly well that once their field nukes, they will never be able to attack Israel - because if they did, the counterattack would be nukes on their civilians.

Doves hate nukes because they are sure that one day they will be used. Hawks hate nukes because their existence at your opponent means that's one less country you can fight a war with. Neither, though, has the brains to understand what nukes have actually accomplished."

That's just the continuation of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine from the 60's. If you are using that theory then we have enough to destroy ourselves several times over or as used to be known Overkill ratio. So in the end if you only need just for figuring 100 nukes, then why stockpile more?

And please don't use the I've got a bigger tool than you do" argument.

[ffoulkes-2009]

How about the 'I can shoot your nukes outta the sky' argument. If you have a thousand nukes, chances are that more will actually hit the target, thus even defensive missile technologies won't alter MAD. However if you have only 100 nukes, that could theoretically be minimized to cause far less damage, thus neutralizing MAD.

[specialty8]

Now where is that bottle of vodka, Obama likes to party on our dime.

[gravyboat4000]

As ALL Presidents do. Keep tryin though, it's funny...PATHETIC, but very, very funny.

[specialty8]

yea, it would be funny if it didn't hurt so bad.

[gravyboat4000]

Hey slow, long time, hope ya had a great 4th!

specialty8, do you think GW would still be takin trips to Crawford in this economy?

Wait, it's not a fair question, HE CAUSED THIS ECONOMY!!!

[tmittelstaed]

Nukes are the only thing that has kept the world from having WWIII. It would be a terrible mistake to get rid of them. The purpose of a nuke is to prevent war, and if you look at history since nukes were invented, we have never had a war between 2 nuke-armed countries. All the wars we have had have been between countries that wern't nuke, or countries where one was nuke and the other wasn't. Why do you think Iran is working so hard to get it's own nukes? They don't want to be attacked. They know perfectly well that once their field nukes, they will never be able to attack Israel - because if they did, the counterattack would be nukes on their civilians.

Doves hate nukes because they are sure that one day they will be used. Hawks hate nukes because their existence at your opponent means that's one less country you can fight a war with. Neither, though, has the brains to understand what nukes have actually accomplished.

[onesword]

Someone has to pave the way to make sure our children's future safe and prosperous. Isn't anyone tired of the USA being the "world's police department"? Especially when the other countries are tired of us being in their business. Cutting down further on nuclear arsenals is a very good idea. Having none is even better. Blowing up everything and everyone on the planet is not a great way to leave our children if they survive.

[nanc12]

by IThoughtItWasFunny2 July 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT
pffffffft...denial, evasion, lying, propagandizing...and thinking people are too stupid to see what you are doing...

rowdy describing rowdy

[rickwar]

The stupidity of the Right, still caught in the grips of the cold war continue their shrill cry to watch for the Communists under every bed, at every corner. Even--- if they've lived up their argreements on disarmament all the way back to Kennedy years.

[hclinton2012]

Russian is laughing at this JOKE of a LOSER of a US President Barack Obama? They have the power of being one of the "oil producing" country, while this LOSER of a President Barack Obama has "banned" all exploration of oil and gas in America! Weak-knee "*****@le" the Prime Minister Putin thinks of this LOSER of a President Barack Obama!

[daffy64]

Oh, did you mention that you think he's a LOSER?

And yet, he's the President of the United States and your Commander in Chief. Not to mention a self made millionaire (didn't inherit a dime or marry a rich woman) and enjoys vast popularity world wide.

Yet, he's a LOSER because YOU say so.

Chuckle.

[specialty8]

Just turned out to be another nice vacation for the Obama family paid in full by the grunts of this country for nothing.

[daffy64]

Well if you call getting a weapons treaty a waste of time then I guess, yeah. It was.

However, you must remember that even Republican Presidents like Reagan visited the "then" Soviet Union.

Was that a waste of time or him taking a vacation at taxpayers expense?

[jamesguy]

15, 150 or 1500, it doesn't really matter as long as both sides are making nice. Sorry about Georgia, guys. That was the last guy flexing muscles.

[erasmus111]

oops, sorry for the 2 posts.

[erasmus111]

by slownewsday_05 July 6, 2009 11:00 AM PDT
Actually, Rowdy, I am one person who only posts under one name.

If you hadn't lied about having a tech who could hack the CBS database and get my IP, this would be an issue in your deluded head.

Get some help. Or a companion. Or a cat. Something.



Pleeease, spare the cat.

How about a pet rock?

[erasmus111]

by slownewsday_05 July 6, 2009 11:00 AM PDT
Actually, Rowdy, I am one person who only posts under one name.

If you hadn't lied about having a tech who could hack the CBS database and get my IP, this would be an issue in your deluded head.

Get some help. Or a companion. Or a cat. Something.



Pleeease, spare the cat.

How about a pet rock?

[hclinton2012]

This LOSER of a President Barack Obama is showing all Americans how "weak-knee" of a COWARD he really is! Putting American in a bad position if Russia finally wants to attack Europe and destroy the USA, this JOKE of a LOSER is allowing them to have all the power? We cut our missles and the Russians continue to arm the rest of the world against the USA?

[YuSoWrong]

The sale of excess warheads on the black market is scheduled for later this year. In other news, pro-democracy advocates continue to vanish ...