Ordering Numbers Homework Year 1991

Overview

  • Signed: 31 July 1991
  • Lisbon Protocol: Signed 23 May 1992
  • Entered into Force: 5 December 1994
  • Duration: 15 year duration with option to extend for unlimited five year periods, if all parties agree
  • Expired: 5 December 2009
  • Parties: United States, Russian Federation, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine
Treaty Text


Background

The U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, known as START I, was signed on July 31, 1991 by U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

START I was the first treaty to provide for deep reductions of U.S. and Soviet/Russian strategic nuclear weapons. It played an indispensable role in ensuring the predictability and stability of the strategic balance and serving as a framework for even deeper reductions. Even though many elements of START I — first and foremost the limits on the number of warheads and delivery vehicles — quickly became outdated, its verification and transparency provisions maintained their value until the treaty's last days. At the same time, START I proved to be excessively complicated, cumbersome and expensive to continue, which eventually led the United States and Russia to replace it with a new treaty in 2010.

Negotiations that led to the signing of START I began in May 1982. In November 1983, the Soviet Union "discontinued" talks after the United States began deploying intermediate-range missiles in Europe. In January 1985, U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko agreed on a new formula for three-part negotiations that encompassed strategic weapons, intermediate-range forces and missile defense. These talks received a significant boost at the Reykjavik summit between Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. In December 1987, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed. Negotiations subsequently turned to the reduction of strategic weapons.

START I entered into force on December 5, 1994. The break-up of the Soviet Union in December 1991 and the need to make arrangements with regard to its nuclear inheritance contributed to a three-year delay between the signing of the treaty and its entry into force. Principles for adapting START I to new political realities were agreed upon in May 1992 in the Lisbon Protocol. According to that agreement, four post-Soviet states — Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine — were recognized as parties to START I in place of the Soviet Union, but only Russia was designated a nuclear weapon state, while the other three assumed an obligation to join the NPT as non-nuclear states and eliminate all START I accountable weapons and associated facilities within seven years (the period of reductions mandated by the treaty). Whereas Belarus and Kazakhstan quickly joined the NPT and ratified START I "as is," Ukraine experienced intense domestic debates over how to deal with its nuclear inheritance that dragged on for more than two years; its first START I ratification resolution was rejected by the United States and Russia.

Although the entry into force of START I took more than three years, some important activities were conducted shortly after its signing, most notably exchange of data on strategic weapons and associated facilities, as well as inspections to verify data on technical characteristics of strategic missiles and implementation of provisions on test launches and telemetry exchanges.

START I had a duration of 15 years. Reductions mandated by the treaty were to be completed no later than seven years after its entry into force. Parties were then obligated to maintain those limits during the next eight years. In fact, both the United States and Russia continued reductions after reaching START I mandated limits. By the time of the treaty's expiration, their strategic nuclear arsenals were significantly below those stipulated in the treaty.

During the 1990s, the United States and Russia undertook several attempts to replace START I with a new treaty that would have provided for deeper reductions. The 1993 START II treaty never entered into force due to what Russia perceived as serious deficiencies of that treaty. Consultations on another treaty, sometimes referred to as START III, were conducted from 1997-2000 but ended without result. The Moscow Treaty provided for significantly lower limits on strategic weapons, but lacked verification and transparency provisions.

START I remained in force until December 5, 2009. It contained the option of extending the treaty for five-year periods, but Washington and Moscow decided against extension — negotiations were already underway on a new, replacement treaty, and START I was allowed to expire.

Treaty Obligations

START I established an aggregate limit of 1,600 delivery vehicles and 6,000 warheads for each party (a reduction from 10-12,000 warheads in 1991). Within that limit, the Treaty established three sub-limits: 4,900 warheads for ICBMs (land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles) and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles), 154 heavy ICBMs (defined as having a launch weight greater than 106t or a throw-weight greater than 4,350kg), 1,540 warheads for these heavy ICBMs (Only the Soviet Union possessed this type of missile), and 1,100 warheads for mobile ICBMs (de facto applied only to the Soviet Union and Russia because the United States, shortly after the signing of START I, decided to forego deployment of such missiles). The Treaty also established a limit of 3,600 metric tons (t) for the throw-weight of ballistic missiles.

The construction of new types of heavy ICBMs and SLBMs is banned, although modernization programs and, in exceptional cases, new silo construction, are permitted.

The treaty bans the testing of missiles equipped with a greater number of warheads than established in the treaty, and bans any new ballistic missiles with more than 10 warheads. Parties to the treaty may also reduce the number of warheads attributed to a specific missile. However, no more than three existing missile types may have the number of warheads reduced, and the total reduction may not exceed 1,250 warheads.

While the treaty counts each ICBM and SLBM reentry vehicle as a single warhead, counting rules for warheads attributed to heavy bombers are more complicated. Each Russian heavy bomber equipped to carry long-range nuclear ALCMs (defined as having maximum range of 600km or more), up to a total of 180 bombers, counts as eight warheads toward the 6,000 warhead limit, even though existing Russian heavy bomber types can carry between six and 16 ALCMs. Each Russian heavy bomber above the level of 180 has its actual number of ALCMs counted toward the 6,000 warhead limit. Similarly, each U.S. long-range nuclear ALCM-carrying heavy bomber, up to a total of 150 bombers, counts as 10 warheads toward the 6,000 warhead limit, and each bomber in excess of 150 has the actual number of ALCMs it can carry counted toward the warhead limit. Bombers not equipped to carry long-range nuclear ALCMs are counted as one warhead.

Verification and Compliance

START I contains extensive provisions for verification. These include:

1. National Technical Means (NTMs), together with a ban on actions that impair the effectiveness of NTMs of the other party;

2. Data exchange: Accompanying the START I treaty is a Memorandum of Understanding drafted by the two parties, which contains an extensive set of data, including numbers and locations of all strategic delivery vehicles, both deployed and non-deployed, as well the locations and diagrams of all facilities associated with strategic delivery vehicles, such as bases, storage and production facilities, etc. Each party is required to provide notification about any change in that data shortly after it occurs. In addition, parties must exchange the entire set of data contained in the Memorandum every six months;

3. On-site inspections to verify the accuracy of data contained in the Memorandum of Understanding. Some of those inspections are short-notice (baseline data, data update, reentry vehicle, etc.) while others are "planned" (verification of technical data, the right to observe elimination of missiles and facilities, etc.). The treaty also provides for a special verification regime for mobile ICBMs. During the first seven years (the period of reductions), the United States conducted 335 inspections; Russia conducted 243.

4. Perimeter and portal monitoring of plants that produce mobile ICBMs. Because the United States decided not to deploy such missiles, this measure only applies to Russia: the United States established monitoring at the Votkinsk plant (or, rather, continued, because its monitoring began under the INF Treaty);

5. A ban on encryption of telemetry transmitted from ballistic missiles during test launches and exchange of all such telemetry.

Developments

2011

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov declared in front of the State Duma that if the United States further pursues the deployment of an anti-missile shield near Russian border, it might "force us to use the article of the treaty that provides for the withdrawal of a state that feels violated in terms of security." Lavrov is referring to Article 14, which gives both countries a right to withdraw from the agreement.

2010

On 8 April 2010 in Prague, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dimitri Medvedev signed the New START Treaty, and Protocol.

2009

Negotiations on a new START Treaty began on 18 May in Moscow and continued throughout the year.

On 1 July, the last data exchange prior to START's expiration took place in the START Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms. Data exchanges occur no later than 30 days after the expiration of each six-month period following entry into force of the Treaty.

START I expired on 5 December. Negotiations were put on hold during the American and Russian holidays.

As the treaty expired, U.S. inspectors ended their 15-year perimeter and portal continuous monitoring mission at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant, which produces the SS-26 Bulava, the SS-27 Topol-M, and its new MIRVed variant, the RS-24. START I permitted continuous monitoring at ICBM production facilities in order to confirm the number of mobile launchers produced. Russia was unable to maintain reciprocal monitoring at an American production facility after the United States halted the production of Peacekeeper missiles in Promontory, Utah in April 2000.

Deployment of Russia's next-generation RS-24 was widely expected upon the treaty's expiration, since START prohibits MIRVing the Topol-M. However, sources at the Russian Ministry of Defense said that deployment may not happen until 2011, noting that the RS-24 will carry three warheads.

2008

On 7 April, after a bilateral meeting in Sochi, Russia, Putin stated that Russia would continue working with the United States to maintain all the useful and necessary parts of the START treaty.

On 9 April, the United States announced that the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program completed the elimination of SS-24 "scalpel" ICBM, including their supporting components, in accordance to START I obligations.

On 29 May, Russia announced that it had dismantled 36 outdated Topol mobile ballistic missile systems in 2007 and twelve in two consecutive operations in March and May 2008 under the provisions of the START I treaty.

On 11 September, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated Russia was still awaiting concrete proposals from the United States, a statement confirming Russian sources contending that the U.S. had not supplied necessary working papers to move the negotiation process forward.

On 29 September, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov stated that the bilateral negotiations on the future of START were "not so far heading anywhere."

2007

In March, the United States and Russia commenced bilateral consultations at the level of the deputy minister to explore a post-START agreement, including a possible extension of certain verification elements of the treaty.

In July, statements were made at an informal meeting between U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Kennebunkport, Maine, expressing support for the replacement of START I, which expires at the end of 2009. While there were no direct talks pertaining to the START I treaty during the meeting, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov commented that both countries were committed to reducing strategic arms levels to "the lowest possible level consistent with their national security requirements." Supporters of the START treaty process expressed hope that the dialogue was to encourage a disarmament discussion in the future.

2001

On 4 January, the Russian Defense Ministry accused the United States of violating its START I obligations of disarmament in regards to the U.S. LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM. The United States considered destroying the first stage of the Peacekeeper to be sufficient under START I guidelines. However, the Russian Defense Ministry contended that all stages of the missile must be destroyed under START I. In response, the Pentagon claimed that the second and third stages of the Peacekeeper are used for space launch vehicles, which are permitted under START I.

On 24 August the United States announced the destruction of the last Minuteman III silo at Grand Forks, North Dakota.

On 30 October, Ukraine completed its compliance obligation under the START I Treaty by destroying its last SS-24 ICBM silo.

On 13 November President Putin announced that in late October the last Ukrainian nuclear warhead had been destroyed in Russia.

On 5 December the United States and Russia announced that both parties had fulfilled START I requirements. In particular, Russia announced that it had reduced its deployed strategic delivery vehicles to 1136 and its accountable warheads to 5518. This accomplishment marked the largest arms control reduction in history.

1997

In congruence with START I obligations, on 22 December the United States announced that the last Minuteman II silo was destroyed at Whiteman Air Force Base.

1996

On 23 November, after transferring its remaining ICBMs and nuclear warheads to Russia, Belarus announced that it had fulfilled its START I and NPT obligations and officially became a non-nuclear-weapon State.

1995

On March 14 a Russian Defense Ministry spokesman announced that US START I verification inspectors were "satisfied" with the three ICBM bases that they inspected during the first round of inspections conducted under the START I regime. The inspectors examined the Kostroma SS-24 base, the Irkutsk SS-25 base, and the Yasnaya SS-25 base.

On 9 November, a revision of the START I treaty was signed in Geneva, allowing converted mobile strategic missiles to be used as space launchers. Under the revision, Russia can establish space-launch sites anywhere in the world as long as the converted ICBM launchers remain under Russian control.

On 1 March, three 10-member teams from the On-Site Inspection Agency arrived in Russia from the U.S. to begin a 120-day baseline inspection. The teams inspected 71 weapons facilities in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.

1994

On 5 December at the Budapest Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine exchanged instruments of ratification for START I, thereby marking the treaty's entry into force.

In May, the Joint Commission on Inspection and Compliance met in Geneva to discuss the implementation details of START I. Representatives from the United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine signed several agreements that will help to realize the multilateral obligations of START I.

1993

On 26 Novemberthe Russian government formally denounced the Ukrainian Rada's conditional ratification of the START I Treaty, stating that it was not valid under international law.

On 18 November the Ukrainian Parliament ratified START I and the Lisbon Protocol. However, given Ukraine's serious reservations about the Treaties, doubts arose concerning Ukraine's commitment to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.

On 2 July Kazakhstan ratified START I and subsequently acceded to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state on 14 February 1994.

On 23 April, President Clinton announced an accelerated reduction schedule for U.S. strategic forces under START I in an attempt to further strengthen disarmament and security measures.

On 4 February, Belarus ratified START I, the Lisbon Protocol and acceded to the NPT.

1992

On 4 November, Russia ratified START I. However, Russia announced that it would not exchange its instrument of ratification until Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine were to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.

On 23 May, the United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol in Portugal. Furthermore, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine agreed to accede to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states in "the shortest possible time".

1991

On 31 July, President Bush and President Gorbachev signed START I. The Treaty was expected to cut strategic warheads arsenals by approximately 35%.

1. Find representations of original designs for a variety of manufactured articles. These representations can be:

2. Find the registration details for a design, such as:

There is a separate guide on diamond and trade marks. Diamond marks can help you to date when an item was registered.

2. Essential information

Ornamental or decorative designs were registered for copyright under a series of Acts of Parliament (see table headings at section 6).

Registration protected the decorative elements of the design from being copied and manufactured without permission. Details of how an item worked – the mechanics of the design – were protected by patents of invention.

The system used for registering designs changed as different Acts were introduced, which can sometimes make finding designs complicated. The tables in section 6 should help you find the right records.

The National Archives has representations for around 2,950,000 designs registered between 1839 and 1991. Registration was not compulsory, so many designs will not be found in our records.

3. Understanding the registered design records

Until 1839 there had been copyright protection for some textiles, but most areas of the decorative arts, such as glass, metalwork, ceramics and wallpapers, had no copyright protection at all.

There is information about each design in two places:

  • the registers, recording the name and address of the copyright owner, or ‘proprietor’ (who was not usually the designer), the registered design number, the date of registration and sometimes a description of the design
  • the corresponding volume of representations, containing a drawing, painting, photograph or sample of the design submitted at the time of registration

The representations are pasted into large leather bound registers and have a registered design number stamped on them. The same number is recorded in the register so that you can cross refer between the two volumes.

4. Searching our catalogue for records

4.1 Registered designs catalogued at item (design) level

The following record series have been described in our catalogue in more detail than others. This makes it easier to search the records within them:

Use the advanced search option in our catalogue and search within BT 42, BT 43 and BT 51 with one or more of the following as your keywords:

  • the registered design number (also the catalogue item number)
  • name of proprietor (person registering the item for copyright, usually the manufacturer or retailer and sometimes the designer)
  • address of proprietor
  • description of object – for example ‘hat’ or ‘vase’

From 1842 to 1883 the representations in BT 43 were filed according to their material classification – or what they were made of. The table in section 6 shows the classifications used.

The clerks sometimes placed items in the wrong material class so that, for example, a book binding may be misfiled as a carpet. The lace and earthenware classes were also used for miscellaneous items that did not fit into any of the other classes.

4.2 Registered designs in other record series

Designs in record series other than those mentioned above haven’t been catalogued in detail, and finding a design is difficult if you don’t know the registered design number.

If you know the registered design number, use the tables in section 6 as follows:

  • find the correct date, design number and material in the table
  • find the number range your design falls into
  • read across the table to see what record series and pieces  cover that number range
  • look in the catalogue at the record series piece numbers to find the one that covers your design number

If you don’t know the registered design number you will need to search through the registers for the relevant period, and cross-reference any registered designs which seem promising with the corresponding representations.

4.3 Example of a search for an item registered after 1883

In this example we are looking for the records for a glass vase with a design number 607120.

  • Go to section 6 and find the relevant design number range(s)
  • The table shows the number range 548920-861679 which covers the design number 607120
  • The table shows the representations will be in BT 52/166-2454, and the corresponding registers will be in BT 53/11-87
  • Go to our catalogue and type BT 52/166 into the search box. When you see the description of this record you will see what design numbers it covers. In this instance it is 548920-549300.
  • You can now either (1) click on ‘browse by reference’ and move through the piece descriptions until you find the one that included the design number 607120 or (2) type a BT 52 reference with a different piece number into the search box and note the design numbers it covers – this will help you to make an educated guess at which piece numbers are going to cover the design number you are looking for. This is an easier option if there are many piece numbers to look through
  • You will find design numbers 606980-607200 in BT 52/456 – so the design number we are looking for will be in the volume with that reference number
  • Carry out the same process to find the corresponding register

5. Searching without a design number

If you can’t find a design number but you have a diamond mark, you might be able to date the design and find out what material class it belongs to. Use our guide on diamond marks to do this. Unfortunately this process won’t help you to find the design in all cases.

If you know the proprietor for a design registered between c1840 and c1870 try the alphabetical register BT 44/38.

6. The classification tables

These tables should help you find the right records for the design or object you are interested in. The system used for registering designs changed as different Acts of Parliament were introduced and records are located in different series depending on the most recent Act in place when they were registered.

6.1 Designs registered between August 1839 and August 1842 (under 1839 Act)

Start DateFinish DateDesign RangeClassificationRepresentationsRegisters
12/08/183931/08/18421-1424Other than paper hangings with certificates(1)BT 42/1-6None
14/10/183931/08/18421-1424Other than paper hangings without certificatesBT 42/7-13None
14/10/183929/04/184226-1218Paper hangings with certificates(1) (2)BT 42/14-15None
14/10/183929/04/184226-1218Paper hangings without certificates(2)BT 42/16-17None

Notes:
(1) Incomplete date range
(2) Incomplete number range

6.2 Designs registered between September 1842 and July 1885 (under 1842 Act – ‘ornamental’ designs)

Notes:
(1) BT 42 and BT 43 form a single numerical series
(2) Incomplete number range
(3) BT 44/14 has an extended register range to 372225 whereas BT 43/187 extends only to 361923
(4) Class 11, Furnitures are printed fabric designs with a repeat pattern greater than 12 x 8 inches
(5) BT 44/33-37 are a set of registers to proprietors with indexes (volumes ‘A’-‘E’, but volume ‘B’ is not available). BT 44/38 is an alphabetical register of proprietors in BT 44/33-37

6.3 Designs registered between September 1843 and June 1884 (under 1843 Act – ‘useful’ designs)

Start DateFinish DateDesign RangeClassificationRepresentationsRegisters
01/09/184330/06/18841-6740Non-ornamental (useful) designsBT 45/1-30BT 46/1-4
Index to Proprietors’ namesBT 46/5-7(1) (2)
01/09/184312/04/1883Alphabetic index to subjectsBT 46/9(2)

Notes:
(1) BT 46/5 Letter A is missing from the index
(2) BT 46/8 Number not used

6.4 Designs registered between January 1851 and December 1883 (under 1850 Act – ‘provisional’ designs)

Start DateFinish DateDesign RangeClassificationRepresentationsRegisters
03/01/185127/12/18831-2025Provisional: Ornamental designsBT 47/1-2BT 48/1
02/01/185131/12/18831-3819Provisional: Useful designsBT 47/3-10BT 48/2
Index to Proprietors’ names
in BT 48/2
BT 48/3-4(1)
18/03/185122/11/188320-59Sculpture (2)BT 47/11(1) (2) (3)BT 48/5

Notes:
(1) Incomplete date range
(2) Incomplete number range
(3) BT 47/11 Designs 1-19 are missing

6.5 Designs registered between January 1884 and 1908 (under 1883 Act)

Start DateFinish DateDesign RangeClassificationRepresentationsRegisters
01/01/188408/01/081-526397All designs except sculpturesBT 50/1-709(1) (2)BT 51/1-173(3)
18841894Name index (submitting firm or person)BT 51/174-175

Notes:
(1) Incomplete number range
(2) BT 51/138 Includes non-textile designs 518415-520895
(3) BT 51/173 For continuation of this volume see BT 53/7-8

6.6 Designs registered between January 1908 and 1991 (under 1907 Act and subsequent acts)

Notes:
(1) BT 51/138 Includes non-textile designs 518415-520895
(2) BT 51/173 For continuation of this volume see BT 53/7-8
(3) For designs 1-11532 see BT 53/9-10
(4) BT 53/104 Document missing
(5) Incomplete number range
(6) Only brief details (and no representations) were recorded during the First World War period

7. Further reading and resources

Read Inventions that didn’t change the world by Julie Halls (Thames and Hudson, 2014).

Read The National Archives’ blog posts on design registers.

Listen to the podcast A momentous question: decorating the Victorian home.

Listen to the podcast Inventions that didn’t change the world: a history of Victorian curiosities.

Guide reference: Domestic Records Information 100

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *