Article III

Article III consists of ten paragraphs that describe how to count the launchers, ballistic missiles, bombers, and warheads that are subject to the Treaty limits set forth in Article II. It establishes when newly-constructed strategic offensive arms become subject to the Treaty. Article III also lists the types of strategic offensive arms that are considered to be existing types as of Treaty signature, and provides limits for reducing the number of warheads on missiles (sometimes referred to as "downloading").

Paragraph 1 of Article III provides one of the most fundamental counting rules. It states that each deployed ICBM and its associated launcher shall be counted as one unit, that each deployed SLBM and its associated launcher shall be counted as one unit, and that each deployed heavy bomber shall be counted as one unit. This rule is the foundation upon which subsequent counting rules operate.

Paragraph 2 of Article III sets forth the rules for counting deployed missiles and launchers. Subparagraph 2(a) states that, for the purposes of counting deployed ICBMs and SLBMs and their associated launchers, each deployed launcher of an ICBM or SLBM shall be considered to contain one deployed ICBM or one deployed SLBM, respectively. This means that when a Party observes a deployed launcher of an ICBM or SLBM of the other Party, the launcher is considered, for counting purposes, to contain a deployed ICBM or SLBM, respectively, even if the missile has been removed from the launcher.

Subparagraph 2(b) of Article III provides a rule to avoid a situation where an ICBM is double-counted as both a deployed and a non-deployed missile while removed from its launcher. Since, under subparagraph (a), the launcher is assumed to contain an ICBM, under subparagraph (b), if a deployed ICBM has been removed from its launcher and another missile has not been installed in that launcher, the ICBM that has been removed from the launcher continues to be considered to be contained in that launcher, provided it is located at that ICBM base. Thus, the combined effect of subparagraphs (a) and (b) is that a Party is precluded from claiming that deployed ICBM launchers should not count as containing an ICBM because they are empty, but at the same time an ICBM that has been removed will not be double counted.

Subparagraph 2(c) of Article III provides a similar rule for a deployed SLBM removed from its launcher. If a deployed SLBM has been removed from its launcher and another missile has not been installed in that launcher, such an SLBM removed from its launcher shall be considered to be contained in that launcher. Subparagraph (c) also contains a locational restriction on such an SLBM removed from its launcher. Such an SLBM may be located only at a facility at which non-deployed SLBMs may be located, as listed in subparagraph 9(a) of Article IV of the Treaty, or be in movement to such a facility.

Paragraph 3 of Article III provides the counting rules for ICBMs, SLBMs, and launch canisters. The rules reflect the fact that, for maintenance, storage, and transportation, some missiles are found in stages, others as assembled missiles without launch canisters, and others as assembled missiles in launch canisters. The Twenty-eighth Agreed Statement, in the Agreed Statements Annex, provides locational restrictions on canisterized ICBMs outside of their launch canisters, and on the first stages of ICBMs and SLBMs that are maintained, stored, and transported as assembled missiles (with or without launch canisters).

Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 3 provides that, for ICBMs or SLBMs that are maintained, stored, and transported in stages, the first stage of an ICBM or SLBM of a particular type shall be considered to be, for counting purposes, an ICBM or SLBM of that type. Subparagraph (b) provides that, for ICBMs or SLBMs that are maintained, stored, and transported as assembled missiles without launch canisters, an assembled missile of a particular type shall be considered to be an ICBM or SLBM of that type. Subparagraph (c) provides that, for ICBMs that are maintained, stored, and transported as assembled missiles in launch canisters, an assembled missile of a particular type, in its launch canister, shall be considered to be an ICBM of that type. For the United States, all existing types of ICBMs and SLBMs are considered to be maintained, stored, and transported in stages. For the Soviet Union, all existing types of ICBMs are maintained, stored, and transported as assembled missiles in launch canisters, except for the SS-13, which is maintained, stored, and transported in stages. For the Soviet Union, all existing types of SLBMs are maintained, stored, and transported as assembled missiles without launch canisters. (The Soviet SS-N-6 SLBM has only one stage.)

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 provides a counting rule for launch canisters of ICBMs. It provides that each launch canister shall be considered to contain an ICBM from the time it first leaves a facility at which an ICBM is installed in it, until an ICBM has been launched from it or until an ICBM has been removed from it for elimination. It also provides an exception, in that a launch canister shall not be considered to contain an ICBM if it contains a training model of a missile or if it has been placed on static display. Note that training models of missiles are not subject to the same locational restrictions as actual missiles -- i.e., there is no requirement that they be located only at declared facilities. This raises the possibility that a Party might observe, through national technical means, a launch canister containing a training model of a missile at an undeclared facility. This could lead to compliance concerns, since a Party cannot discriminate by national technical means between canisters with real missiles and canisters with training missiles. Such a situation could be raised in the JCIC. The Party possessing the missile would be expected to make efforts (which could include offering a special access visit) to demonstrate that the canister did not contain a real missile. Note that the definition of a training model of a missile requires that such a missile differ from a real one on the basis of functional and external differences visible during inspections.

Note finally, that subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3 provides a distinguishability rule, by requiring that launch canisters for ICBMs of a particular type shall be distinguishable from launch canisters for ICBMs of a different type. (See the discussion of the term "distinguishable" in the analysis of the Definitions Annex.) Also, subparagraph 13(b)(iii) of Section XIV of the Inspection Protocol obligates the inspected Party to demonstrate, in certain circumstances, that the launch of a mobile ICBM of a new type cannot be carried out from a launch canister for a mobile ICBM of an existing or previously declared new type, and vice versa.

Subparagraphs (c) and (d) reflect Soviet elevation to the level of a fundamental principle the association of a launch canister with its missile. Throughout the negotiations, Soviet negotiators insisted that the launch canister was an inseparable part of an ICBM; they based their negotiating position in a number of areas on this principle. Consequently, the provisions on launch canisters throughout the Treaty and its associated documents were crafted as a compromise between the U.S. desire for effective verification and the Soviet insistence that this principle be preserved.

Return to top

Paragraph 4 of Article III sets forth rules to be used for the purposes of counting warheads. The term "warhead" is used as the unit of account for the purpose of the 6000 limit in subparagraph 1(b) of Article II, whereas the term "reentry vehicle" is used elsewhere in the Treaty text to describe the physical object carried by a missile. Each of these terms is defined in the Definitions Annex. Also note that this paragraph is written in terms of "attributing" a certain number of warheads to a missile or heavy bomber; it is the number attributed that counts for purposes of Treaty ceilings.

Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 4 provides that the number of warheads attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of each existing type shall be the number specified in the Memorandum of Understanding. This means that the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs of existing types (i.e., those types deployed at the time of Treaty signature) is established, and will not need to be further calculated. All warhead attributions for existing types of ICBMs and SLBMs were agreed in the Joint Summit Statement of December 1987, except for the attribution for the SS-N-18 SLBM of the Soviet Union, which, by agreement, was subsequently changed, as is explained in the analysis of subparagraph 5(c) below. By signing the Memorandum of Understanding, the Parties have agreed on the number of warheads that will be attributed to each existing type of ICBM or SLBM. (This agreement is stated in the first unnumbered paragraph in the text above the signature block of the Memorandum of Understanding, and it is discussed in the analysis of that Memorandum.) Note that the Parties have a limited right to "download" or reduce the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs, and are prohibited from increasing the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs. This is discussed below in the analysis of paragraph 5 of Article III and paragraph 12 of Article V, respectively.

Since the number of warheads to be attributed to new types of ICBMs and SLBMs (that is, types of ICBMs and SLBMs that come into existence after Treaty signature) cannot be stipulated now, rules have been agreed for attributing warheads to such types if and when they are created over the life of the Treaty. Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 4 states that the number of warheads that will be attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of a new type shall be the maximum number of reentry vehicles with which an ICBM or SLBM of that type has been flight-tested. Subparagraph (b) also contains a rule for warhead attribution for the case in which a Party deploys an ICBM or SLBM of a new type that has been tested with a certain number of warheads but that is capable of carrying more. This rule provides that the number of warheads that will be attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of a new type with a front section of an existing design with multiple reentry vehicles (regardless of whether they are independently targetable), or to an ICBM or SLBM of a new type with one reentry vehicle, shall be no less than the nearest integer that is smaller than the result of dividing 40 percent of the accountable throw-weight of the ICBM or SLBM by the weight of the lightest reentry vehicle flight-tested on an ICBM or SLBM of that type. This is often referred to informally as the "40 percent rule". (For example, in the hypothetical case of a new type of ICBM with accountable throw-weight of 1100 kilograms, for which the lightest reentry vehicle flight-tested weighed 100 kilograms, the minimum number of warheads attributed would be determined by dividing 100 into 40 percent of 1100. The result -- 4.4 -- would be rounded down to the next lower integer, or 4.) The purpose of the "40 percent rule" is to prevent a side from attributing an unrealistically low number of warheads to a new type of ballistic missile by significantly under-demonstrating its reentry vehicle-carrying capability. For modern ICBM and SLBM designs, roughly half of the missile's throw-weight capability is used for reentry vehicles. The rest is used for fuel, the self-contained dispensing mechanism, guidance devices, and other items. Since some inefficient Soviet missile designs may result in their being able to use less than half their throw-weight for reentry vehicles, the Soviet Union insisted that the Treaty use 40 percent to avoid any possibility of over-attributing warheads.

In the case of an ICBM or SLBM of a new type with a front section of a fundamentally new design that carries multiple reentry vehicles, the question of the applicability of the "40 percent rule" to such an ICBM or SLBM shall be subject to agreement within the framework of the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission.

Return to top

In order to avoid a situation in which an ICBM or SLBM of a new type can exist, even temporarily, without an attribution, subparagraph (b) of paragraph 4 also provides that until agreement has been reached regarding the counting rule that will apply to an ICBM or SLBM of a new type with a front section of a fundamentally new design, the number of warheads that will be attributed to such an ICBM or SLBM shall be the maximum number of reentry vehicles with which an ICBM or SLBM of that type has been flight-tested. This subparagraph also stipulates that the number of new types of ICBMs or SLBMs with a front section of a fundamentally new design shall not exceed two for each Party as long as the Treaty remains in force.

In this regard, it should be noted that the Twenty-fourth Agreed Statement, in the Agreed Statements Annex, provides clarification of what is meant by "a front section of a fundamentally new design." Such a front section would not have the essential features that are characteristic of any existing design of a front section with multiple reentry vehicles that has been deployed or tested on any ICBM or SLBM as of the date of entry into force of the Treaty. (See the analysis of Agreed Statement 24 below.)

Subparagraph (c) of paragraph 4 provides the rule that the number of reentry vehicles with which an ICBM or SLBM has been flight-tested shall be considered to be the sum of the number of reentry vehicles actually released during the flight test, plus the number of procedures for dispensing reentry vehicles performed during that same flight test when no reentry vehicle was released. This means that even if no reentry vehicles were actually released, the number of reentry vehicles with which that ICBM or SLBM shall be considered to have been flight-tested shall be equal to the number of such procedures. This rule does not apply to procedures for dispensing penetration aids, provided that the procedure for dispensing penetration aids differs from a procedure for dispensing reentry vehicles.

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 4 provides that each reentry vehicle of an ICBM or SLBM shall be considered to be one warhead. Thus, a "reentry vehicle," used to describe the physical object, always counts as a "warhead," which is the unit of account. The terms are not equivalent, however, because under rules such as that of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph, more warheads may be attributed to an ICBM or SLBM than there are reentry vehicles actually on the ICBM or SLBM. It should also be noted that the Third Agreed Statement, in the Agreed Statements Annex, provides an exception to subparagraph 4(d) for the SS-11 ICBMs of the Soviet Union. The SS-11 is the only existing type of ICBM or SLBM of either Party that is equipped with multiple reentry vehicles that are not independently targetable. Some SS-11 ICBMs are deployed with three such reentry vehicles. But, in light of the fact that the three reentry vehicles cannot be independently targeted, an SS-11 is only attributed with one warhead for purposes of the limits in Article II. If a Party develops a new type of ICBM or SLBM that is equipped with multiple reentry vehicles that are not independently targetable, however, it will be attributed with warheads in accordance with subparagraphs 4(b), 4(c), and 4(d) of Article III.

Subparagraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 4 provide the counting rules for heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs of the U.S. and U.S.S.R., respectively. The different limits that are applicable to each Party reflect the differing practices of the sides and compromises that were reached in the course of the negotiations.

Subparagraph (e) provides that, for the U.S., each heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, up to a total of 150, shall be attributed with ten warheads. Each U.S. heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs in excess of 150 such bombers shall be attributed with a number of warheads equal to the maximum number of long-range nuclear ALCMs for which a heavy bomber of the same type and variant is actually equipped. Taken together, these two provisions mean that 150 U.S. heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs will count at ten warheads each, regardless of the number of such ALCMs with which they are equipped, while such bombers in excess of 150 count as having a number of warheads equal to the maximum number of such ALCMs for which that type/variant has actually been equipped. (For example, any B-52G declared to be over the 150 threshold would count as 12 warheads. On the other hand, because some B-52Hs are equipped for 12 long-range nuclear ALCMs and some for 20, any B-52H over the 150 threshold will be attributed with 20 warheads. If the United States declared separate variants of what is now declared simply as B-52H equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, such separate variants over the 150 threshold would then count as 12 or 20 warheads, respectively.)

Subparagraph (e) also provides that the U.S. will specify the heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs that are in excess of 150 such heavy bombers by number, type, variant, and the air bases at which they are based. The "as equipped" rule for U.S. heavy bombers in excess of 150 is a compromise intended to ameliorate Soviet concerns that the basic heavy bomber warhead attribution rule undercounts the actual number of long-range nuclear ALCMs carried by a heavy bomber. It should also be noted that in paragraph 20 of Article V of the Treaty, the United States is limited to no more than 20 long-range nuclear ALCMs on an existing or future heavy bomber.

Subparagraph (f) of paragraph 4 sets forth the counting rules for heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs of the Soviet Union. It states that each such heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, up to a total of 180 such heavy bombers, shall be attributed with eight warheads. This is in contrast to the attribution of 10 warheads to each U.S. heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs. This difference is due to the fact that Soviet heavy bombers are equipped to carry fewer long-range nuclear ALCMs than U.S. heavy bombers. Subparagraph (f) also provides rules for heavy bombers of the Soviet Union in excess of these 180 bombers. It provides that each heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs in excess of 180 such heavy bombers shall be attributed with a number of warheads equal to the maximum number of long-range nuclear ALCMs for which a heavy bomber of that type/variant is actually equipped. Subparagraph (f) requires the Soviet Union to specify its heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs that are in excess of 180 such heavy bombers by number, type, variant, and the air bases at which they are based. It should also be noted that in paragraph 21 of Article V, the Soviet Union is limited to 16 long-range nuclear ALCMs on an existing or future heavy bomber. (Note that the U.S. limit of 20 long-range nuclear ALCMs on 150 existing and future heavy bombers and the Soviet limit of 16 long-range nuclear ALCMs on 180 existing and future heavy bombers result in a roughly comparable number of potentially unaccountable warheads on heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs: 1500 for the United States and 1440 for the Soviet Union.)

Subparagraph (g), the final subparagraph of paragraph 4, addresses "categories" of heavy bombers. (A term defined in the Definitions Annex.) Subparagraph (g) provides that for each Party, each heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs shall be attributed with one warhead. With specified exceptions, subparagraph (g) also provides that all heavy bombers not equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs shall be considered to be heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs. Thus, the general rule is that heavy bombers will be counted under the Treaty, either as being equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs and having a number of warheads attributed pursuant to the other subparagraphs of paragraph 4, or as being equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs and being attributed with one warhead. The specified exceptions to this general rule, are for heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments, test heavy bombers, and training heavy bombers. Also, note that "former heavy bombers" are not considered to be "heavy bombers" and do not count under the central limits. Former heavy bombers are reconnaissance, tanker, or jamming airplanes converted from heavy bombers or initially constructed on the basis of the airframe of an existing heavy bomber. They must not be equipped for air-to-surface armaments.

Return to top

Paragraph 5 of Article III limits the extent to which a Party can "download" or reduce the number of warheads attributed to its ICBMs and SLBMs of existing types. (No downloading is permitted on new types of ICBMs or SLBMs.) It provides that each Party has the right to be credited with such reductions up to an aggregate number of 1250 at any one time. Subparagraph (a) provides that the 1250 aggregate shall consist, for the United States of America, of the reduction in the number of warheads attributed to the Minuteman III, plus the reduction in the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs of no more than two other existing types. Subparagraph (a) also provides that the 1250 aggregate shall consist, for the Soviet Union, of four multiplied by the number of deployed SLBMs of the SS-N-18 type, plus the reduction in the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs of no more than two other existing types.

As regards the SS-N-18, it should be understood that the United States and the Soviet Union had attributed seven warheads to this missile in the Washington Summit Joint Statement of December 1987. In late 1990, representatives of the Soviet Union stated that they had reduced all SS-N-18s to three warheads and had destroyed all the reentry vehicle platforms for the SS-N-18 that were designed to hold seven reentry vehicles. In addition, in a December 30, 1990, letter from Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze to Secretary of State Baker, the Soviet Union offered the explicit assurance that it had retired front ends for the SS-N-18 SLBM with seven reentry vehicles, that the stockpile of such front ends had been destroyed entirely, that the Soviet Union no longer produced and did not intend to produce such front ends, and that all SS-N-18s are equipped with front ends that carry three reentry vehicles and that are designed so that carrying more than three reentry vehicles would be impossible. As part of the overall agreement on downloading, the Parties thereafter agreed to handle the SS-N-18 as a special case. It is attributed with three warheads in the Memorandum of Understanding, which means that it is already listed at the reduced level of warheads for purposes of the Treaty. But the four warheads that have already been reduced on the SS-N-18 count as part of the Soviet Union's 1250 permitted "downloading" aggregate, which is why subparagraph 5(a) provides that the 1250 limit will consist, in part, for the Soviet Union, of four times the number of deployed SLBMs of the SS-N-18 type. The Soviet Union is not permitted to take further credit for additional "downloading" the SS-N-18, since part (ii) of subparagraph (a) is explicit that downloading is permitted only on two "other" existing types.

Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 provides three rules for reductions in the number of warheads attributed to Minuteman III ICBMs. First, Minuteman III ICBMs to which different numbers of warheads are attributed shall not be deployed at the same ICBM base. Second, any such reductions shall be carried out no later than seven years after entry into force of this Treaty. Third, the reentry vehicle platform of each Minuteman III ICBM to which a reduced number of warheads is attributed shall be destroyed and replaced by a new reentry vehicle platform. (See the analysis of subparagraph 5(c) of this Article for a discussion of the phrase "reentry vehicle platform.")

Subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5 provides six rules for reductions in the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs and SLBMs of types other than Minuteman III, that are to be applied to downloading after entry into force. Since the downloading of the Minuteman III has not yet occurred, the phrase "other than the Minuteman III" is necessary. Because the Soviets have said that the downloading of the SS-N-18 has already occurred, no comparable phrase is necessary for that missile. Nevertheless, these rules would never be applied to the SS-N-18, since, as is explained above, subparagraph 5(a)(ii) prohibits further downloading of the SS-N-18.

The first rule of subparagraph (c) is that the additional reductions shall not exceed 500 warheads at any one time for each Party. This is a "rolling" aggregate, meaning that if ICBMs or SLBMs of two existing types (other than Minuteman III or SS-N-18) that a Party has downloaded to make up all or part of the 500 limit are removed from accountability under the central numerical limits, then additional ICBMs or SLBMs of those two existing types can be downloaded up to the 500 limit, provided that all the other limitations of paragraph 5 are met. The second rule of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5 is that, after a Party has reduced the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs or SLBMs of two existing types, that Party shall not have the right to reduce the number of warheads attributed to ICBMs or SLBMs of any additional type. Third, the number of warheads attributed to an ICBM or SLBM shall be reduced by no more than four below the number attributed as of the date of signature of this Treaty.

The fourth rule of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5 is that ICBMs of the same type, but to which different numbers of warheads are attributed, shall not be deployed at the same ICBM base. Fifth, SLBMs of the same type, but to which different numbers of warheads are attributed, shall not be deployed on submarines based at submarine bases adjacent to the waters of the same ocean. This means, for example, that if the Soviet Union reduces the number of warheads attributed to its SS-N-23 SLBMs, all such SLBMs must be downloaded because they are deployed at bases adjacent to one ocean. If SS-N-23s were deployed at bases adjacent to two oceans, then the Soviets could download a portion of the force. But all downloaded SS-N-23s would have to be based adjacent to one ocean. The sixth and final rule of subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5 is that, if the number of warheads attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of a particular type is reduced by more than two, the reentry vehicle platform of each ICBM or SLBM to which such a reduced number of warheads is attributed shall be destroyed and replaced by a new reentry vehicle platform. The phrase "reentry vehicle platform" is not defined in the Treaty nor was any attempt made during the negotiations to reach any more detailed understanding of exactly what needed to be destroyed. As a result, each Party is free to determine exactly what to destroy, taking into account the design of the specific ICBM or SLBM to be downloaded. There are no verification measures associated with the destruction of reentry vehicle platforms.

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 5 provides that a Party shall not have the right to deploy ICBMs of a new type to which is attributed a number of warheads greater than the smallest number of warheads attributed to any ICBM to which that Party has attributed a reduced number of warheads pursuant to subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5. A Party shall not have the right to deploy SLBMs of a new type to which is attributed a number of warheads greater than the smallest number of warheads attributed to any SLBM to which that Party has attributed a reduced number of warheads pursuant to subparagraph (c) of paragraph 5. This subparagraph would thus constrain the number of warheads on future ICBMs or SLBMs of new types should a Party reduce the number of warheads attributed to an ICBM or SLBM of an existing type. It means, for example, that if a Party downloaded an existing type of ICBM so that it was attributed with six warheads, that Party could not deploy any new type of ICBM to which more than six warheads are attributed. A similar ceiling would apply for future types of SLBMs if an existing SLBM were downloaded. Because these ICBM and SLBM warhead ceilings apply only to downloading carried out pursuant to subparagraph (c), the warheads with which the Minuteman III and SS-N-18 are attributed are not relevant to these ceilings.

Return to top

Paragraph 6 of Article III sets forth the "initial accountability" provisions, which stipulate when newly constructed strategic offensive arms shall begin to be subject to the limitations provided for in the Treaty. Note that Section VII of the Notification Protocol requires notification of strategic offensive arms of new types. The phrase "subject to limitation" is used in paragraph 6 to mean that once a strategic offensive arm that is in process of being constructed reaches a certain step in this process, it will begin to be subject to numerical and other restrictions on that type of arm. Subparagraph (a) provides that an ICBM will be subject to limitation when it first leaves a production facility. Subparagraph (b) provides that a mobile launcher of ICBMs will be subject to limitation when it first leaves a production facility for mobile launchers of ICBMs. Subparagraph (c) provides that a silo launcher of ICBMs will be subject to limitation when both the excavation for that launcher and the pouring of concrete for the silo have been completed, or 12 months after the excavation begins, whichever occurs earlier. The Parties understand that the term "excavation begins" means the time when ground is first broken.

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 6 provides that a silo launcher of ICBMs will be subject to limitation, for the purpose of limits on deployed ICBMs and their associated launchers, by being considered to contain a deployed ICBM when both excavation for that launcher and the pouring of concrete for the silo have been completed, or 12 months after the excavation begins, whichever occurs earlier. Subparagraph (d) also provides that a mobile launcher of ICBMs will be subject to limitation, for the purpose of limits on deployed ICBMs and their associated launchers, by being considered to contain a deployed ICBM when it arrives at a maintenance facility of an ICBM base, except for the non-deployed mobile launchers of ICBMs provided for in subparagraph 2(b) of Article IV of the Treaty, or when it leaves an ICBM loading facility. Subparagraph 2(b) of Article IV allows each Party to retain no more than two non-deployed mobile launchers of ICBMs at the maintenance facility of each ICBM base for mobile launchers of ICBMs, for each type of ICBM specified for that ICBM base.

Subparagraph (e) of paragraph 6 provides that an SLBM will be subject to limitation when it first leaves a production facility. Subparagraph (f) provides that an SLBM launcher will be subject to limitation when the submarine on which that launcher is installed is first launched. Subparagraph (g) provides that an SLBM launcher will be subject to limitations, for the purpose of limits on deployed SLBMs and their associated launchers, by being considered to contain a deployed SLBM when the submarine on which that launcher is installed is first launched.

It is possible that a silo launcher or a ballistic missile submarine ultimately intended to hold a new type of ICBM or SLBM could become accountable before the ICBM or SLBM it is intended to hold has been flight-tested. The Treaty does not directly address accountability in such cases. Since the launcher is deployed, it must be considered to contain an ICBM or SLBM. It cannot be considered to contain the new, untested missile, however, since there are no provisions for attributing a number of warheads or for determining accountable ballistic missile throw-weight for a type of ICBM or SLBM that has never been flight-tested. Thus, unless the Parties were to agree otherwise, the only way to meet the requirements of the Treaty would be to declare the launcher to contain an existing type of ICBM or SLBM and subsequently to convert it (which requires only a notification) to a launcher of the new type.

If a silo launcher or a ballistic missile submarine ultimately intended to hold a new type of ICBM or SLBM became accountable after the ICBM or SLBM it is intended to hold has been flight-tested, but before the eighth flight test (when accountable throw-weight is determined), the owning Party could elect to declare that the new missile was deployed. As provided for in the Thirty-second Agreed Statement, the Parties would agree within the framework of the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission on the procedures for establishing throw-weight accountability in such a case. The warhead attribution in such a case would depend on the maximum number of reentry vehicles with which the new type of ICBM or SLBM had been flight-tested, subject to the 40 percent reentry vehicle counting rule; this number could not subsequently be altered. (If, however, a Party wished to declare that the new launcher was considered to contain an existing type of ICBM or SLBM and subsequently to convert it to a launcher of the new type, the Treaty would not prohibit such an approach.)

Subparagraph (h) of paragraph 6 provides the initial accountability rules for heavy bombers and former heavy bombers. "Former heavy bombers" are defined in the Definitions Annex as reconnaissance, tanker, or jamming airplanes that are not equipped for nuclear armaments, or non-nuclear air-to-surface armaments, and that have been converted in accordance with the procedures in the Conversion or Elimination Protocol or that meet the requirements for conversion in accordance with the Protocol. Such airplanes may be newly constructed on the basis of the airframe of an existing type of heavy bomber, or they may be converted from a heavy bomber.

Subparagraph (h) provides that a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber becomes subject to limitations when its airframe is first brought out of the shop, plant, or building in which components of a heavy bomber or former heavy bomber are assembled to produce complete airframes; or when its airframe is first brought out of the shop, plant, or building in which existing bomber airframes are converted to heavy bomber or former heavy bomber airframes. This means that the accountability of a new heavy bomber is tied in all cases to the appearance of the completed airframe. Note that while there is an initial accountability rule for heavy bombers, there is no such rule for long-range nuclear ALCMs. This is because such ALCMs are not directly accountable under the Treaty. Rather, warheads are attributed to heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs under agreed attribution rules, once such heavy bombers become accountable under the Treaty.

Return to top

Paragraph 7 of Article III first provides the general rule that ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers that have been converted to launch an ICBM or SLBM, respectively, of a different type shall not be capable of launching an ICBM or SLBM of the previous type. Apart from this general rule, paragraph 7 also provides the specific rules for accountability of converted launchers; that is, the rules for when launchers of ICBMs or SLBMs of one type, which are in the process of conversion to being launchers of ICBMs or SLBMs of a different type, shall begin to be considered as being launchers of ICBMs or SLBMs of the different type. Such changed accountability for a silo launcher of ICBMs that is in the process of conversion begins when an ICBM of a different type or a training model of a missile of a different type is first installed in that launcher, or when the silo door is reinstalled, whichever occurs first. Such changed accountability for a mobile launcher of ICBMs that is in the process of conversion begins at a point that would be agreed by the Parties, within the framework of the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. Such accountability for an SLBM launcher that is in the process of conversion begins when all launchers on the submarine on which that launcher is installed have been converted to launch an SLBM of the different type and the submarine begins sea trials. Subparagraph (c) also clarifies that a submarine begins sea trials when that submarine first operates under its own power away from the harbor or port in which the conversion of launchers was performed.

Paragraph 8 of Article III sets forth the rules for accountability of converted heavy bombers; that is, the rules for when heavy bombers that have been converted into heavy bombers of a different category or into former heavy bombers shall be considered to be heavy bombers of that different category or former heavy bombers. Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 8 states that, for a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs that is converted into a heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, the converted bomber is counted as being so equipped when it is first brought out of the shop, plant, or building where it was equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs. Subparagraph (b) provides that, for a heavy bomber of one category that is converted into a heavy bomber of another category or into a former heavy bomber, the converted bomber is counted as being of the different category or being a former heavy bomber when the inspection conducted pursuant to paragraph 13 of Section VI of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol is completed or, if such an inspection is not conducted, when the 20-day period provided for in paragraph 13 of Section VI of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol expires. Note that the rules for converting a heavy bomber of one category into a heavy bomber of another category are provided for in paragraphs 9-12 of Section VI of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol. There are no procedures for converting heavy bombers to heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs; when permitted, such conversion is accomplished by notification in accordance with paragraph 3 of Section I of the Notification Protocol. No procedures for such a conversion are required, because there is no cheating scenario in such a conversion.

Paragraph 9 of Article III contains the "type rules," which are rules that are necessary to associate an individual item with others of its "type," and to distinguish between types.

Subparagraph (a) of paragraph 9 provides that a ballistic missile of a type developed and tested solely to intercept and counter objects not located on the surface of the Earth shall not be considered to be a ballistic missile to which the limitations provided for in this Treaty apply. Thus, missiles for defense against ballistic missile attack or for air defense are not subject to Treaty limitations provided that they are developed and tested solely for defensive purposes. This provision parallels paragraph 3 of Article VII of the INF Treaty.

Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 9 provides the type rule for ballistic missiles as weapon-delivery vehicles. A "weapon delivery vehicle" is defined in the Definitions Annex as meaning, for ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, a missile of a type, any one of which has been flight-tested or deployed to carry or be used as a weapon, that is, as any mechanism or device that, when directed against any target, is designed to damage or destroy it. Subparagraph (b) provides that if a ballistic missile has been flight-tested or deployed for weapon delivery, all ballistic missiles of that type shall be considered to be weapon-delivery vehicles. Subparagraph (c) provides the type rule for cruise missiles as weapon-delivery vehicles. It provides that if a cruise missile has been flight-tested or deployed for weapon delivery, all cruise missiles of that type shall be considered to be weapon-delivery vehicles.

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 9 contains a two-part type rule for launchers other than soft-site launchers. ("Soft-site launchers" are defined as fixed, land-based launchers of ICBMs or SLBMs other than silo launchers.) It provides first that, if a launcher, other than a soft-site launcher, has contained an ICBM or SLBM of a particular type, it shall be considered to be a launcher of ICBMs or SLBMs of that type. Note that this provision, as well as the rest of the Treaty, refers to an ICBM or SLBM "of a type," but does not use the words a "launcher of a type." This was done to avoid suggesting that two dissimilar launchers of the same type of missile would be treated as different types under the Treaty; it was agreed that the "type" of a launcher is the type of the missile that is associated with that launcher. Note also that in the Sixteenth Agreed Statement, in the Agreed Statements Annex, the Parties agree that, with respect to this provision, each ICBM launcher or SLBM launcher existing as of the date of signature of the Treaty is capable of launching only an ICBM or SLBM of the type specified for that launcher in the Memorandum of Understanding.

Second, subparagraph (d) of paragraph 9 provides that, if a launcher, other than a soft-site launcher, has been converted into a launcher of ICBMs or SLBMs of a different type, it shall be considered to be a launcher of ICBMs or SLBMs of the type for which it has been converted. Thus, launchers can be converted from being launchers of one type of missile into launchers for another type. Finally, this provision has the effect of exempting soft-site launchers from the general rule that launchers are associated with only one type of ICBM or SLBM. Thus, soft-site launchers, located only at test ranges or space launch facilities, are permitted by the Treaty to launch several different types of ICBMs or SLBMs.

Subparagraph (e) of paragraph 9 contains the heavy bomber type rule. It provides that, if a heavy bomber is equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, all heavy bombers of that type shall be considered to be equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, except those that are not so equipped and are distinguishable from heavy bombers of the same type equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs. The term "distinguishable" is defined in the Definitions Annex. In this context, it means that the heavy bombers not equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs must be different on the basis of the totality of functional and external differences that are observable by national technical means (NTM) of verification, or, when such observations may be inconclusive in the opinion of the inspecting Party, that are visible during inspection. This means, for example, that although some B-52 bombers of the United States are equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs and some are not, the ones that are not so equipped will not count as being equipped, so long as they are "distinguishable." If they are not distinguishable, they will count as if they were equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs.

Subparagraph (e) also provides that if long-range nuclear ALCMs have not been flight-tested from any heavy bomber of a particular type, no heavy bomber of that type shall be considered to be equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs. This means, for example, that, so long as long-range nuclear ALCMs are not flight-tested from the B-2 heavy bomber of the United States, no B-2 bombers will be considered to be heavy bombers equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs for purposes of Treaty limitations. Subparagraph (e) also provides that, within the same type, a heavy bomber equipped for long-range nuclear ALCMs, a heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs, a heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear armaments, a training heavy bomber, and a former heavy bomber shall be distinguishable from one another. (See the discussion of the term "distinguishable" in the analysis of the Definitions Annex.)

Subparagraph (f) of paragraph 9 contains the long-range nuclear ALCM type rule. It provides that any long-range ALCM of a type, any one of which has been initially flight-tested from a heavy bomber on or before December 31, 1988, shall be considered to be a long-range nuclear ALCM. This means that if a long-range ALCM, whether it is a non-nuclear or nuclear-armed ALCM, was first flight-tested from a heavy bomber on or before December 31, 1988, then it will be considered to be a long-range nuclear ALCM. Long-range ALCMs first flight-tested from a heavy bomber after this date are treated differently, however. The second sentence of subparagraph (f) provides that any long-range ALCM of a type, any one of which has been initially flight-tested from a heavy bomber after December 31, 1988, shall not be considered to be a long-range nuclear ALCM if it is a long-range non-nuclear ALCM and is distinguishable from long-range nuclear ALCMs. Long-range non-nuclear ALCMs not so distinguishable shall be considered to be long-range nuclear ALCMs. This means that the long-range non-nuclear Tacit Rainbow system of the United States (now cancelled, but which was first flight-tested from a heavy bomber after December 31, 1988), would not be considered to be a long-range nuclear ALCM, provided that it is distinguishable from long-range nuclear ALCMs, according to the distinguishing features that would be provided as part of the notification required by Section VII of the Notification Protocol.

Subparagraph (g) of paragraph 9 sets forth the type rule for mobile launchers of new types of ICBMs. It provides that mobile launchers for each new type of ICBM shall be distinguishable from mobile launchers of ICBMs of existing types of ICBMs and from mobile launchers for other new types of ICBMs. Subparagraph (g) also provides that such new launchers, with their associated missiles installed, shall be distinguishable from mobile launchers of ICBMs of existing types of ICBMs with their associated missiles installed, and from mobile launchers of ICBMs of other new types of ICBMs with their associated missiles installed.

Subparagraph (h) of paragraph 9 sets forth the type rule for mobile launchers of one type of ICBM that are converted to launch another type of ICBM. This provision parallels subparagraph (g). Subparagraph (h) provides that mobile launchers of one type of ICBM converted into launchers of another type of ICBM shall be distinguishable from mobile launchers of the previous type of ICBM. Not only must the converted launchers be distinguishable, they must be distinguishable while their associated missiles are installed. (See the discussion of the term "distinguishable" in the analysis of the Definitions Annex.)

The final provision of subparagraph (h) provides that any conversion of a mobile launcher must be carried out in accordance with procedures that would be agreed within the framework of the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. Mobile ICBM launchers may not be converted prior to procedures being agreed in the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. This provision amounts to a de facto veto right over the conversion of mobile ICBM launchers.

Return to top

Paragraph 10 of Article III lists the existing and former types of ICBMs, SLBMs, heavy bombers, and long-range nuclear ALCMs as of the date of signature of the Treaty. Because a Party may sometimes designate a system of the other Party by a name other than that used by the other Party, the designations used by each Party for various systems are included to avoid any ambiguity. The Parties agree that the lists are complete as of the date of signature. Thus, systems such as the Titan II missile, which is not listed as either an existing or former type, are effectively exempted from all provisions of the START Treaty, provided that they are not subsequently deployed and that they do not subsequently meet the criteria to be considered a new type or a variant of an existing type of ICBM or SLBM. With regard to the Titan II, U.S. negotiators informed their Soviet counterparts on April 26, 1990, that the Titan II had been retired from service and that all launchers for the Titan II had been eliminated except for a single launcher located at Green Valley, Arizona. This single launcher is unable to launch missiles, and is being maintained as a museum display.

Subparagraph (a) lists the Parties' existing types of ICBMs and SLBMs. The technical characteristics for each of these ICBMs and SLBMs are listed in Annex F to the Memorandum of Understanding. The list does not include the Soviet SLBM designated as RSM-45, known to the United States as the SS-N-17, even though technical characteristics for this SLBM are listed in Annex F. This is because the data in the Memorandum of Understanding are data effective as of September 1, 1990, and the SS-N-17 was removed from operational service between that date and the date of signature.

Subparagraph (b) of paragraph 10 lists the Parties' existing types of ICBMs for mobile launchers of ICBMs. For the United States of America, this includes the Peacekeeper ICBM. Peacekeeper ICBMs are treated as mobile ICBMs under the Treaty, despite the fact that they have not been tested or deployed in a mobile mode. Peacekeeper ICBMs that are deployed in silos, however, do not count under the limit of 1100 warheads attributed to deployed ICBMs on mobile launchers of ICBMs. The U.S. Small ICBM is not listed in subparagraphs (a) or (b) since it is still a "prototype," as that term is defined in the Definitions Annex. If it becomes accountable, it will fall under those provisions of the Treaty regulating new types of ICBMs.

Subparagraph (c) of paragraph 10 lists the Parties' former types of ICBMs and SLBMS. The purpose of listing former types of ICBMs and SLBMs is to allow them to be used in flight tests involving reentry vehicles, without being treated as new types or variants of existing types of ICBMs or SLBMs. The U.S. Minuteman I and Polaris A-3 are listed. The Soviet Union has no ballistic missiles listed as former types. Note that the Twenty-ninth Agreed Statement specifies that the STARS (Strategic Target System) booster is not the Polaris A-3 SLBM and is thus not subject to any of the provisions of the Treaty. Note also that the Definitions Annex describes "retired types" as ICBMs or SLBMs deployed at the time the Treaty enters into force, but that subsequently become non-deployed due to conversion or elimination of all launchers for that type, except those launchers at test ranges and space launch facilities. In comparison, "former types" are listed types that were once deployed, but none of which are deployed as of entry into force of the Treaty.

The Polaris A-3 is considered a former type of SLBM, rather than a deployed type, despite the fact that two ex-Polaris submarines, USS John Marshall and USS Sam Houston, each equipped with 16 Polaris A-3 SLBM launchers, were in service during the Treaty negotiation. However, U.S. negotiators informed their Soviet counterparts on April 26, 1990 that these submarines had been converted to special purpose submarines; that the launchers had not been removed for reasons of cost, but that equipment to support launch was removed; that these submarines were unable to launch missiles; and that both submarines would be retired during the seven-year period of reductions under START. The method of retirement was not specified and the United States is not obligated to use START procedures in retiring these submarines.

Subparagraph (d) of paragraph 10 lists the Parties' existing types of heavy bombers. Heavy bombers are also classified by category (based on armament) and variant (based on distinguishable differences within a particular category/type combination). The terms "category," "variant," and "distinguishable" are each defined in the Definitions Annex. For each type of heavy bomber, the Memorandum of Understanding includes data on the numbers of all categories of heavy bombers and the numbers of former heavy bombers. Note that the Twelfth Agreed Statement and the letters exchanged by Heads of Delegation concerning Bear D bombers exempt certain Bear airplanes that might otherwise count under Treaty limits.

Note that two types of Soviet airplanes are not listed: Bison and Backfire. Although, years ago, there were many Soviet Bison (designated by the Soviet Union as "M" or "Myasishchev") airplanes that would have met the definition of heavy bombers, only limited numbers of Bison airplanes exist today. The Parties' agreement regarding the Bison is recorded in the Sixth Agreed Statement. It excludes from the Treaty three particular Bison airplanes converted to transport oversize cargo (e.g., the Soviet space shuttle), and it specifies that the remaining Bisons will be considered to be former heavy bombers, since these were converted to serve as tankers. The Soviet Tu-22M bomber, known to the United States as the Backfire, is not listed. On July 31, 1991, the Soviet Union provided a politically-binding declaration concerning the Backfire bomber, which provides the basis for the Parties not to limit Backfires as heavy bombers under START. (See discussion below in the "Declarations" section of this analysis.)

Subparagraph (e) of paragraph 10 lists the Parties' existing types of long-range nuclear ALCMs.

In regard to paragraph 10, it should be noted that no sea-launched cruise missiles are listed, nor are such missiles subject to any Treaty limitation. On July 31, 1991, the Parties exchanged politically-binding declarations concerning their long-range nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles. (See discussion below in the "Declarations" section of this analysis.)

Return to top

Next Page: Article-by-Article Analysis, Article IV

Return to START Article-by-Article Analysis Table of Contents

TC Home | Treaties & Agreements | Guidance & Directives | Training Courses
Links | E-mail the Webmaster