START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001235

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: 12/19/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUPS MEETING,
DECEMBER 18, 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-159.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 18, 2009
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The Definitions Working Group agreed to send two
terms to the Conforming Group ("routine movement," "test
heavy bomber,") and drop five terms ("deployment area," "re
stricted area," "nuclear armaments other than long-range
nuclear ALCMs," "missile-defense system," and the already
conformed term "training heavy bomber"). The Russian side
reopened the term "category" and the sides agreed that about
15 terms remained for discussion during the next session.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Sent to Conforming; Additional
Discussions; and Agreed to Delete

--------------
SENT TO CONFORMING
--------------


5. (S) The following two terms were agreed and sent to
conforming:

-- The term "routine movement" means the movement of a
deployed mobile launcher of ICBMs for the purpose of
training, maintenance, or testing that begins and ends at the
same basing area and does not involve movement to any other
declared facility except movement to the maintenance facility
associated with that basing area.

-- The term "test heavy bomber" means a heavy bomber which
is not a deployed heavy bomber, and whose sole purpose is
testing.

--------------
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS
--------------


6. (S) The U.S. side initiated discussion on "ICBM base" and
"basing area" to introduce the area size limitations that
reflected the current U.S. proposal in the bracketed Article
VI. Adm. Kuznetsov deflected discussion until the next
session saying this would be discussed in Moscow during the
break. Kuznetsov offered as a personal aside that he
believed that all areas should have a limit and that he had
expressed such a view to the Russian delegation. He did not
know if this view would hold in Moscow.


7. (S) Questions regarding the newly proposed version of
"warhead" were raised by the U.S. side. Additionally, Dr.
Fraley and Mr. Taylor reminded Kuznetsov that, when he had
proposed the term, he suggested it might not need to be
defined; and they asked whether he had further thoughts on
this. Kuznetsov opined (at length) about the difference


between reality and virtual reality with respect to counting
warheads and stated that questions which arise will need to
be answered. He indicated the term "warhead" was used
consistently when addressing ICBMs and SLBMs but that this
was not the case for heavy bombers. For deployed heavy
bombers, however, it was used one way for counting
(attribution) but another way for inspections (where deployed
heavy bombers were inspected to count the numbers of nuclear
warheads on them.) He believed that a good way to cover both
cases would be through the definition of "warhead." The U.S.
agreed to take the information back for further internal
discussion.


8. (S) U.S. questions about the definition of the term
"variant" centered around how the current definition would
help inspectors verify declarations and how it could be
determined when it was an existing type versus a variant
(once it was determined that it was not a new type). Mrs.
Zdravecky described a scenario in which, during an
inspection, if measurement of an item was different from the
agreed dimensions for that type by less than three percent
then the item would be confirmed as an item of the declared
type. However, if it differed by more than three percent,
such confirmation would not be possible. The inspection team
would be uncertain as to what the item was, since it did not
match the declared technical characteristics. Furthermore,
if it did not differ by enough to qualify as a new type, its
status would be even more difficult to determine. "What
would it be?" Zdravecky pointed out that the definitions of
variant and new type needed to take this into consideration.
At this point, Taylor asked for confirmation that the
tolerance for inspection measurements was three percent. Col
Kamenskiy confirmed that it was. Kuznetsov and Kamenskiy
agreed to consult their experts.


9. (S) Kuznetsov asked why the United States had not stayed
with the START definition for "telemetric information." He
proposed that the term should be "information that originates
on board a missile during its flight test that is broadcast",
and the phrase "or recorded for subsequent recovery" should
be bracketed as U.S.-proposed text. The sides agreed to
return to this during the next session.

--------------
AGREED TO DELETE
--------------


10. (S) In closing, Kuznetsov reviewed the list of
definitions that remained to be discussed. Addressing the
definitions of "re stricted area" and "deployment area"
Kuznetsov opined that they could be deleted since the U.S.
side had agreed the terms "basing area" and "ICBM base" would
replace them once the definitions were worked out. Taylor
offered that he could agree, with the understanding that the
U.S. proposed adding the size limitation of 125,000 square
kilometers for an "ICBM base" and a limit of five square
kilometers for "basing area." The Russian side agreed to drop
the term "nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear
ALCMs" and offered to drop "missile defense system," since
the latter no longer appeared in the treaty documents. The
Russian delegation raised the already conformed term of
"training heavy bombers" because it, also, no longer was used
in the treaty text. The sides agreed to delete the term.


About 15 terms remained to be discussed during the next
session, out of the approximately 125 terms listed in the
definition joint draft text JDT at the beginning of this
negotiating session.


11. (U) Documents Provided:

- UNITED STATES:

-- U.S. Working Paper, "basing area," dated December
18, 2009, in English.

-- U.S. Working Paper, "ICBM base," dated December 18,
2009, in English.


12. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Taylor
Dr. Dreicer
Mr. Elliott
Dr. Fraley
Mrs. Zdravecky
Ms. Gesse(Int)

RUSSIA

ADM Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Col Kamenskiy
Ms. Melikbekian
Mr. Poznihir
Mr. Pogodin (Int)


13. (U) Gottemoeller sends/
GRIFFITHS