Confusion reigns in the “press pool”:http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/113301.htm.
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: With regard to the [START] treaty, I think one of the principal differences is over the scope of the treaty. For us in the United States, we would like a treaty which sets limits on strategic nuclear weapons. *Our colleagues in Russia would like a treaty with a broader scope than that, and they would like it to encompass conventional forces as well, conventional strategic forces*.
QUESTION: *Conventional nuclear?*
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: Sorry?
QUESTION: *Conventional nuclear forces?*
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: *That’s a contradictory term, conventional nuclear*. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Well, there is such a – well, so is full tactical nuclear weapons. That’s what I’m talking about. That’s what I’m saying.
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: *Tactical nuclear weapons form a nuclear weapon. I wouldn’t call it a conventional weapon.* But there are —
QUESTION: Are there long-range bombers, then, or something like that?
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: No. *You can have strategic conventional weapons. Long-range bombers that drop a conventional weapon would be one.* Conventionally armed —
QUESTION: They’re talking about – that they’re talking about?
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: Yes, yes.
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: *They’d like that sort of thing to become –conventionally armed missiles, other forms of conventional forces.* And whatever means they would be, they would be strategic.
QUESTION: *So when you say conventional, you mean not nuclear?*
UNDER SECRETARY ROOD: Yes.
Now that we got _that_ sorted out… Might I recommend “WMD411”:http://www.nti.org/f_WMD411/f_index.html?