This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/world/europe/russia-plutonium-nuclear-treaty.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Russia Withdraws From Plutonium Disposal Treaty Russia Withdraws From Plutonium Disposal Treaty
(35 minutes later)
MOSCOW — Saying relations with the United States have deteriorated into a “radically changed environment” of threat and instability, President Vladimir V. Putin withdrew Russia on Monday from a plutonium disposal treaty that was one of the framework nuclear disarmament deals of the early post-Cold War period.MOSCOW — Saying relations with the United States have deteriorated into a “radically changed environment” of threat and instability, President Vladimir V. Putin withdrew Russia on Monday from a plutonium disposal treaty that was one of the framework nuclear disarmament deals of the early post-Cold War period.
The treaty, signed in 2000, required Russia and the United States to destroy military stockpiles of plutonium, the radioactive material used in some bomb cores, in a deal presented as yet another step away from nuclear doomsday.The treaty, signed in 2000, required Russia and the United States to destroy military stockpiles of plutonium, the radioactive material used in some bomb cores, in a deal presented as yet another step away from nuclear doomsday.
The deal has no bearing on the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by Russia or the United States. Instead, it concerns 34 tons of plutonium in storage in each country that might go into a future arsenal.The deal has no bearing on the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by Russia or the United States. Instead, it concerns 34 tons of plutonium in storage in each country that might go into a future arsenal.
Still, the abrogation signals that the nuclear agreements that accompanied the breakup of the Soviet Union and were to lead the world back from the hair-trigger brink of atomic conflict could be open to revision, as Russia’s relations with the West sour on a range of disputes today, including Syria and Ukraine and the Kremlin’s interference in the domestic politics of Western democracies.Still, the abrogation signals that the nuclear agreements that accompanied the breakup of the Soviet Union and were to lead the world back from the hair-trigger brink of atomic conflict could be open to revision, as Russia’s relations with the West sour on a range of disputes today, including Syria and Ukraine and the Kremlin’s interference in the domestic politics of Western democracies.
Times have changed, Mr. Putin wrote in the decree signed on Monday. “The radically changed environment, the threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the U.S. against Russia, and the inability of the U.S. to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties” forced Russia’s hand, he wrote.Times have changed, Mr. Putin wrote in the decree signed on Monday. “The radically changed environment, the threat to strategic stability posed by the hostile actions of the U.S. against Russia, and the inability of the U.S. to deliver on the obligation to dispose of excessive weapons plutonium under international treaties” forced Russia’s hand, he wrote.
Russia will withdraw from the original pact and subsequent amendments, the decree says, meaning that the country will no longer be treaty bound to destroy its plutonium stockpiles. But the decree also offers an assurance, backed by no bilateral agreement, that the plutonium will not be used for military purposes.Russia will withdraw from the original pact and subsequent amendments, the decree says, meaning that the country will no longer be treaty bound to destroy its plutonium stockpiles. But the decree also offers an assurance, backed by no bilateral agreement, that the plutonium will not be used for military purposes.
Russia and the United States had reaffirmed the plutonium disposal agreement in 2009, as President Obama pursued the policy of reset with Dmitri A. Medvedev, then the Russian president. The United States viewed the agreement as diminishing the risk that plutonium held in storage in Russian warehouses could slip into the hands of terrorists or other states.Russia and the United States had reaffirmed the plutonium disposal agreement in 2009, as President Obama pursued the policy of reset with Dmitri A. Medvedev, then the Russian president. The United States viewed the agreement as diminishing the risk that plutonium held in storage in Russian warehouses could slip into the hands of terrorists or other states.
Russia had viewed the agreement as rendering disarmament irreversible by destroying the fissile materials accumulated during the Cold War. In this light, the Russians had interpreted the treaty as requiring that the plutonium be irreversibly transformed into nonexplosive materials by using it in civilian nuclear power plants as a type of fuel, called mixed oxide fuel, or mox. Russia is pressing ahead.Russia had viewed the agreement as rendering disarmament irreversible by destroying the fissile materials accumulated during the Cold War. In this light, the Russians had interpreted the treaty as requiring that the plutonium be irreversibly transformed into nonexplosive materials by using it in civilian nuclear power plants as a type of fuel, called mixed oxide fuel, or mox. Russia is pressing ahead.
But glitches and cost overruns in the mox plant, at Savannah River, S.C., delayed the American program. This year, Mr. Obama proposed canceling the program in the 2017 budget and instead sending the plutonium for long-term storage at a nuclear waste site in Carlsbad, N.M.But glitches and cost overruns in the mox plant, at Savannah River, S.C., delayed the American program. This year, Mr. Obama proposed canceling the program in the 2017 budget and instead sending the plutonium for long-term storage at a nuclear waste site in Carlsbad, N.M.
The State Department said the move complies with the treaty, but the Russians have said it does not, as Mr. Putin reaffirmed on Monday.The State Department said the move complies with the treaty, but the Russians have said it does not, as Mr. Putin reaffirmed on Monday.
As ties with the West have frayed under Mr. Putin, analysts in Moscow have floated the prospect of a Russian pullback from an array of nuclear disarmament agreements dating from a period of greater friendliness. American officials, for example, have already accused Russia of violating a treaty banning intermediate-range missiles launched from land.As ties with the West have frayed under Mr. Putin, analysts in Moscow have floated the prospect of a Russian pullback from an array of nuclear disarmament agreements dating from a period of greater friendliness. American officials, for example, have already accused Russia of violating a treaty banning intermediate-range missiles launched from land.
In Mr. Putin’s second term in office, Russia pulled out of a treaty governing conventional forces in Europe in retaliation for the Bush administration’s abrogation of the antiballistic missile treaty that prohibited missile defense systems.In Mr. Putin’s second term in office, Russia pulled out of a treaty governing conventional forces in Europe in retaliation for the Bush administration’s abrogation of the antiballistic missile treaty that prohibited missile defense systems.
Russia and the United States last signed a nuclear disarmament accord in 2009, when both sides agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles such as bombers or cruise missiles of 500 to 1,100, and a limit on deployed warheads as low as 1,500.Russia and the United States last signed a nuclear disarmament accord in 2009, when both sides agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles such as bombers or cruise missiles of 500 to 1,100, and a limit on deployed warheads as low as 1,500.
In the chaos surrounding the end of the Cold War, the United States embarked on a sweeping program to secure the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal and fissile materials by returning them to Russia from former Soviet states and upgrading security at storage areas.In the chaos surrounding the end of the Cold War, the United States embarked on a sweeping program to secure the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal and fissile materials by returning them to Russia from former Soviet states and upgrading security at storage areas.
The Soviet nuclear program was so entwined with the economy and society that slowing the Cold War military machine took years and cost United States taxpayers billions of dollars.The Soviet nuclear program was so entwined with the economy and society that slowing the Cold War military machine took years and cost United States taxpayers billions of dollars.
In several cities, specialized nuclear reactors, for example, continued to pump out plutonium because they were also used to heat water for residential use in showers and space heating in nearby towns.In several cities, specialized nuclear reactors, for example, continued to pump out plutonium because they were also used to heat water for residential use in showers and space heating in nearby towns.
A 1993 agreement allowed Russia to sell blended-down uranium bomb cores to American utilities for use as fuel rods in civilian power plants, in a swords-to-plowshares program called Megatons to Megawatts. This program generated about 10 percent of all electricity in the United States for 20 years, until 2013. The plutonium program, while smaller, held the potential to also yield energy for civilian electrical networks.A 1993 agreement allowed Russia to sell blended-down uranium bomb cores to American utilities for use as fuel rods in civilian power plants, in a swords-to-plowshares program called Megatons to Megawatts. This program generated about 10 percent of all electricity in the United States for 20 years, until 2013. The plutonium program, while smaller, held the potential to also yield energy for civilian electrical networks.
It seems unlikely that the two countries will resume cooperation on plutonium anytime soon. The Kremlin first wants the removal of all economic sanctions and compensation for the damage they have caused; the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, which allows Americans to freeze the assets of Russian officials thought to have been involved with human rights violations; and reductions in the American military presence in countries that joined NATO after Sept. 1, 2000.