VZCZCXYZ0008
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1235/01 3542018
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 202018Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1035
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/VCJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 6094
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY 3273
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 2283
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7490

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