US and Russia close to nuclear arms deal

This looks promising:

The U.S. and Russia are close to signing an agreement to slash their arsenals of nuclear weapons, officials said Wednesday, setting the stage for the two former Cold War rivals to sign a treaty in Prague shortly after Easter.

"We're very close to getting an agreement," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

He said the two countries can't finalize the deal until President Barack Obama speaks personally with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, but added that they're likely to talk within the next several days.

"The president, I think, hopes to speak to the Russian leader in the next several days, but there's still some things that need to be worked out," Gibbs said.

"The two presidents will talk soon to finalize the language, but terms have been agreed to and both sides are expecting a signing in Prague in early April," said a person close to the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.

Officials in the Czech Republic said Wednesday that the two leaders are expected to sign the START II treaty in Prague sometime after Easter, or April 4. That would be almost exactly a year after Obama delivered a major speech there spelling out his hopes for a nuclear-free world.

From the Miami Herald.

So they have some kind of a deal...

It appears that the Copenhagen climate talks have produced something or other:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other world leaders — including those from the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa — are leaving Copenhagen with a compromise climate deal and a vow to work out the details.

Of course, "the details" is where one is most likely to find the man in the red suit. In this case, though, there's no need to wait for said details:

Harper called it a "comprehensive and realistic" agreement, while U.S. President Barack Obama hailed it as a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough."

However, the agreement is not binding and does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission-reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding.

So in other words, it's utterly meaningless, except as a way for the leaders to claim they've accomplished something. And yet, something good could still come of this; the leaders have in effect made a very public admission that they recognize the reality of climate change, which could force them to make some effort to actually do something about the problem. And then there are other possible spinoffs:

The US and Russia on Friday said they were close to an agreement on nuclear arms reduction after presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev met on the sidelines of the Copenhagen climate conference.

Mr Obama reported ”excellent progress” towards a replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired this month, while Mr Medvedev said a deal was “very close”, with only “technical details” to resolve.

Both leaders have pledged to sign a fresh accord leading to further reductions in nuclear arms, after cutting their respective arsenals to fewer than 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles under the previous Cold War-era treaty.

If only the climate talks themselves could produce such concrete results. Of course, 6,000 warheads and 1,600 delivery vehicles is still a ridiculous amount of firepower, and it remains to be seen what the new agreement will bring. Still, it's a clear step in the right direction, and there's already a precedent for agreeing to actual numbers. And if we are to face significant climate change, the fewer nuclear weapons there are, the better; things are likely to get ugly in the next few decades.