START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001178

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LOOK
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/17/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP MEETING, DECEMBER
3, 2009

Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-093.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 3, 2009
Time: 4:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) During a meeting of the Definitions Subgroup the
sides agreed that two definitions should be sent to the
Conforming Group and a third may be sent after the Russian
side consulted with its experts. The sides discussed the
definition of "new type." "Conversion or elimination
facility" was left bracketed pending resolution of the
definition of launch canisters by that working group. Six
other terms were discussed but the Russian side could not
agree to them because the terms referenced mobile ICBMs or
related items. Lastly, the Russian delegation provided their
concept for "non-deployed" and stated that the U.S. proposal
for a limit of 150 non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs was not
acceptable. End summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Forwarded To Conforming; Definition
of New Type; Other Definitions Discussed; and Non-Deployed.

--------------
FORWARDED TO CONFORMING
--------------


5. (S) The following terms and definitions were agreed:

- The term "Open Skies Airplane" means an airplane performing
an observation flight in accordance with the Open Skies
Treaty of March 24, 1992, which is simultaneously used for
transporting an inspection team through a point of entry to
and/or from the territory of the inspected Party.

- The term "non-deployed SLBM" means an SLBM not contained
((, and not considered to be contained,))1 in a deployed
launcher of SLBMs.

--------------
DEFINITION OF NEW TYPE
--------------


6. (S) Mr. Siemon invited the Russian side to present its
comments regarding the definition of "new type." Col
Kamenskiy stated the Russian side had reviewed the term as it
was defined in START and paid special attention to
throw-weight. Kamenskiy noted that in START, throw-weight
was used as part of the attribution method of counting and
there was a special protocol devoted to its calculation. In
the START Follow-on (SFO) treaty, throw-weight was not used
except in this definition. Therefore, the Russian side
proposed deleting this criterion (subparagraph (f)) of the
definition. For similar reasons, Kamenskiy also proposed
deleting launch-weight criterion (subparagraph (c)).



7. (S) The Russian side proposed that the definition for
"new type" be based on the remaining criteria; specifically,
the number of stages, propellant type, length and diameter.
However, because of the improved methods both in missile
design and engineering, Kamenskiy advocated reducing the
length criteria from 10 percent to 5 percent and likewise,
the diameter criteria from 5 percent to 3 percent. Siemon
indicated the Russian proposal had been sent to Washington
for review and he expected an answer shortly. Siemon
acknowledged that in START launch-weight and throw-weight
were used for verification but in SFO they could be
considered with respect to transparency.

--------------
OTHER DEFINITIONS DISCUSSED
--------------


8. (S) The following terms and definitions were discussed,
but were not resolved:

- "Conversion or Elimination Facility." The U.S. delegation
stated that it accepted removing the Russian brackets and the
sides agreed with the text in subparagraphs (a) and (b).
Siemon stated that the remaining bracketed text addressing
launch canisters would be removed once the Conversion and
Elimination Working Group resolved this issue.

- "Fixed Structure for Mobile Launchers of ICBMs." The
Russian delegation noted that the definition contained the
term "re stricted area" which they had not agreed to. They
proposed substituting the term "basing area." The Russian
delegation also proposed revising the definition to read
"unique structure, within a basing area, that is designed to
contain mobile launchers of ICBMs." Siemon noted that
"designed to contain" was significantly different than "can
contain" because the intent of the definition was to capture
buildings large enough to contain a mobile launcher of ICBMs.
The Russian delegation conceded Siemon's point and agreed to
consult on this later.

- "Solid Rocket Motor." The Russian delegation stated that
they had not studied the latest revision of the Conversion or
Elimination Protocol. However, Kuznetsov said he would check
his joint draft text (JDT). If he found an example of a
solid rocket motor in un-bracketed text he would send it
directly to conforming. Siemon added that the U.S. side had
discussed introducing the term "solid rocket motor casing,"
which would describe what was left after the propellant had
been burned out of the ICBM. The U.S. delegation said it
would provide a written proposal.

- "ICBM for Mobile Launchers of ICBMs." The Russian
delegation stated that until this term appeared in agreed
text in some part of the treaty they could not agree to
accept it. Therefore, it stayed bracketed.

- "Relocation." The Russian delegation stated that because
the definition included the term "mobile launchers of ICBMs"
it could not accept this definition for the reason stated
above.

- "Deployment Area" and "Basing Area." Again, the Russian
delegation stated that because these terms referred to mobile


launchers of ICBMs they could not agree to them. They
reiterated that they would consider replacing "re stricted
area" with "basing area," but this would require further
study by the experts. Siemon agreed.

--------------
NON-DEPLOYED
--------------


9. (S) Adm Kuznetsov suggested the group discuss deployed
heavy bombers. Siemon replied that the U.S. guidance was to
attribute three warheads to each heavy bomber but it did not
address the definitions of a deployed nor of a non-deployed
heavy bomber. Since this was one of the major issues of the
treaty, Siemon recommended deferring such a discussion.
Kuznetsov acknowledged Siemon's point but noted that the
Russian side had developed a general concept on deployed
missiles and their launchers. He noted that "deployed" and
"non-deployed SLBMs" terms were agreed text in the SFO
treaty.


10. (S) Siemon noted that the United States had proposed a
limit of 150 non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs that would become
effective 7 years after entry-into-force of the SFO treaty.
Kuznetsov noted that this was logical as Russia had many SLBM
launchers that required elimination. Siemon noted that the
same was true for the U.S. side as there were 50 empty
Peacekeeper ICBM silos, 50 empty Minuteman ICBM silos, and 2
SSBNs in long-term overhaul at any one time. This totaled
148 non-deployed launchers. Kuznetsov retorted that the U.S.
proposal of 150 was unacceptable. He stated that in his
personal view, taking into account political and technical
issues, no limit on non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs could be
agreed.


11. (S) Kuznetsov recommended sending "non-deployed SLBM" to
the Conforming Group. Siemon replied that his instructions
were to not drop the "considered to contain" portion
currently bracketed. As a result, he agreed to send theQm
to conforming with the U.S. text in brackets.


12. (U) Documents provided:

- UNITED STATES:

-- Official translation of "Open Skies Aircraft," in
English.


13. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Mr. Coussa
Mr. Dean
Ms. Dreicer
Mr. Sims
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

RUSSIA



Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Col Kamenskiy
Mr. Luchaninov
Ms. Melikbekian
Mr. Pogodin (Int)


14. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS