Does Belarus have nuclear weapons. Will nuclear weapons return to Belarus? Kim Jong-un: unprecedented activity
The Republic of Belarus is an important participant in global efforts for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the context of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
Belarus first announced its intention to make its territory a nuclear-free zone in 1990 in the Declaration "On State Sovereignty of the Republic of Belarus". By signing the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, Belarus became a member of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). This step was inextricably linked with the adoption of the most important political decision on the accession of Belarus to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a state without nuclear weapons.
In July 1993, Belarus officially acceded to the NPT, becoming the first state to voluntarily renounce the possibility of possessing nuclear weapons left after the collapse of the USSR. It should be emphasized that Belarus refused to possess the most modern military nuclear potential without any preconditions and reservations. Thus, our country actually initiated the process of settling the issues of nuclear disarmament in the post-Soviet space in the interests of international peace and security. Welcoming the fact of Belarus' accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear state, Great Britain, Russia and the United States provided security guarantees to Belarus, fixing their obligations in the Budapest Memorandum on December 5, 1994.
The withdrawal of nuclear weapons from the territory of Belarus was completed in November 1996.
Belarus regards the obligation of nuclear-weapon states under Article VI of the NPT to negotiate effective measures for nuclear disarmament as the main strategic goal of the Treaty. We support a balanced and phased approach to nuclear disarmament. Belarus welcomed the signing by Russia and the United States on April 8, 2010 of a new Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms as the next step towards the reduction of nuclear weapons. We consider it necessary to continue efforts at the national, regional and global levels to move towards the goal of universal nuclear disarmament.
The problem of guarantees of the non-use of nuclear weapons against the states parties to the NPT that do not possess such weapons remains topical. The provision of unambiguous security guarantees is a guarantee of trust and predictability in international relations and can help strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime based on the NPT. Belarus intends to continue working on obtaining legally binding guarantees, which could be formalized in the form of a separate international document.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons laid the foundation for an international system of guarantees excluding the use of peaceful nuclear energy for military purposes. Such a system operates under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency and involves the conclusion by each state party to the NPT of separate agreements with the IAEA.
In accordance with its obligations under the NPT, in 1996 Belarus concluded an Agreement on the Application of Safeguards with the IAEA. The verification activity of the Agency carried out on the basis of this Agreement confirms the fulfillment by Belarus of obligations on the exclusively peaceful use of nuclear material and facilities. In 2005, Belarus and the IAEA signed the Additional Protocol to the Safeguards Agreement. This document significantly expands the IAEA's ability to carry out verification activities.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons clearly guarantees the right of states to pursue peaceful nuclear programs, subject to the fulfillment of non-proliferation obligations. This provision of the NPT is especially relevant due to the fact that at present there is an increase in the attention of the world community to the development of nuclear technologies, primarily to the creation of national nuclear energy programs. In this regard, Belarus is interested in seeing the rights of the participating States enshrined in the Treaty be fully implemented and on a non-discriminatory basis.
In May 2010, the five-yearly NPT Review Conference was held in New York, in which a Belarusian delegation took part. The conference concluded with the adoption of a final document including conclusions and recommendations for future action. The Belarusian delegation took an active part in the work of the conference, in particular, in the development of the plan of action in the field of nuclear disarmament approved by the final document. We believe that paragraph 8 of the action plan, which indicates the obligation of nuclear states to comply with existing security guarantees, is directly applicable to the guarantees provided to Belarus in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, especially taking into account the fact that the UN registered this document on November 13, 2012 as an international contracts.
The preparatory process for the 2015 Review Conference is currently under way.
On Monday, the Russian Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov, when asked by Interfax about whether Russia would deploy new military facilities in Belarus in connection with the deployment of the American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, answered quite unexpectedly:
It already depends on the level of our political integration. And also from the points of view of experts, diplomats, the military: it is necessary, it is possible, when, how. I mean facilities related to nuclear weapons.
Quite a diplomatic answer right down to the last sentence. But no one pulled the ambassador's tongue, and the informational nuclear bomb exploded.
The next day, Alexander Surikov hurried to correct the situation. He told ITAR-TASS that his position on military cooperation "has been completely misinterpreted". At the time of writing, official Minsk and Moscow refrained from commenting. But on both sides of the ocean there is a discussion of prospects. The American senators are outraged, the Minister of Defense of Lithuania calls for prudence.
The entire military infrastructure of the Belarusians is in perfect condition, this also applies to the launchers of missiles with nuclear warheads, which were taken to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Returning missiles to the mines is much faster than building a radar in Poland, says Ivan MAKUSHOK, Assistant Secretary of State of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
He is echoed by some Russian generals. For example, the president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, believes that Russia should place tactical nuclear weapons (with a range of less than 5,500 km) on the territory of Belarus.
The deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on the territory of Belarus does not make Minsk a nuclear power and does not violate its international obligations, Interfax quotes Ivashov. - Just as US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany do not make Germany a nuclear power.
In general, the military is already making plans.
FIRST HISTORY
Stanislav SHUSHKEVICH, initiator of the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Belarus: I understood what a threat it was to the country
Enough with Belarusian lives to defend Russia, - Stanislav Shushkevich reacted to the statement, under which they began to withdraw nuclear weapons from Belarus. - Remember the Second World War. Belarusians have suffered millions of losses, which cannot be compared with any other nation. Do they again want to set Belarus up and turn it into a nuclear test site, which will be struck first in the event of a conflict? Why is it necessary?
- But, perhaps, the Belarusian side will receive financial benefits?
You can't trade lives.
- But in the event of a nuclear war, will there be a difference where the missiles are located - in Lida or Smolensk?
This is a very big difference. When there were nuclear weapons in our country, we had so many missiles that Belarus had to be destroyed in the first place.
- And how did the withdrawal process begin?
From the Belovezhskaya agreement. I immediately said that without any preconditions or compensation, we are ready to remove nuclear weapons from our territory. The operation was also beneficial for Russia - it received weapons without compensation.
- And what were you guided by when making such a decision?
- I headed the Department of Nuclear Physics for 20 years and understood what a threat these weapons pose to Belarus. It was very easy for me to convince the government of this.
P.S. Stanislav Shushkevich nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The initiative comes from former Polish President Lech Walesa. Shushkevich is nominated for his main peaceful achievement - the withdrawal of nuclear missiles from Belarus.
HOW IT WAS
In 1996, the last strategic missile was withdrawn from Belarus.
Our country voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons.
Belarus inherited 81 intercontinental ballistic missiles (with a range of more than 10,000 km) and 725 tactical-class warheads from Soviet times. An army with such an arsenal could destroy a target anywhere in the world. On the other hand, enemy missiles were also aimed at Belarus.
In April 1992, the government voluntarily gave up nuclear weapons. And in February 1993, the Supreme Council decided to join the Republic of Belarus to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
A gradual withdrawal of nuclear weapons to Russia began. The last echelon with RS-12M Topol missiles was withdrawn on November 27, 1996.
BY THE WAY
Russian bombers count on the airfield in Baranovichi
Russian strategic bombers Tu-160 and Tu-95 resumed flights to the US coast. In order to fly to the destination, the so-called jump airfields are used - sites where aircraft can be provided with technical assistance, refueling is carried out, and crews are provided with rest. One of these airfields is located in Baranovichi. Russian generals reported that now the bombers are flying without nuclear weapons on board.
SAID
I think there will be no such situation and situation for delivering tactical nuclear weapons here ... If there is a threat to our peoples, nothing needs to be ruled out, we must ensure our security with all our strength and means. (Alexander LUKASHENKO during the Union Shield-2006 exercises.)
In response to US sanctions, Belarus threatened to regain its nuclear status. And on the same day, Sergei Shoigu announced the creation of a Russian air base in Belarus. It is possible that Russian aircraft will be carriers of nuclear missiles. It looks like we're heading back to a full-blown cold war.
Belarus has threatened the West with a possible withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to official Minsk, the United States and Great Britain, by applying economic sanctions against Belarus, violated their obligations towards the country. That is why Minsk may cease to comply with these conditions. This, at least, was stated by the Belarusian delegation in Geneva at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT Review Conference.
The Belarusian side emphasized that it is very important for it that the tripartite security guarantees provided in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in connection with Belarus' voluntary renunciation of the right to possess nuclear weapons work. "Three states - Great Britain, Russia and the USA - have undertaken to respect the independence and sovereignty of Belarus, including not to use measures of economic coercion," the Belarusian delegates emphasized. And if there are sanctions, then Western partners encroach on the independence of Belarus.
“A reasonable question arises why, despite the fixed and repeatedly confirmed commitments, some nuclear powers in practice ignore them, continuing to apply economic and political pressure. was registered with the UN as an international treaty in November 2012. Violation of accepted legal obligations is an unacceptable norm of behavior of states from the point of view of international law," the Belarusian side stressed.
The irritation of the official Minsk is understandable. The US and the EU apply a whole range of political and economic sanctions to Belarus. Currently, the "black list" of the EU includes 243 individuals and 32 companies that support the "Lukashenko regime." The number of those on the "black list" of the United States is unknown, but it is possible that it is even higher. We are talking about budget-forming companies - such as Belspetsexport, Belneftekhim, Belaruskali. They sell their products mainly in foreign countries. This means that sanctions are a direct blow to the country's budget.
Along the way, Belarus reached a new - almost Soviet - level of military integration with Russia. In May, the allies will hold large-scale exercises "West-2013", where they will work out a possible nuclear strike on Warsaw. The exercises will take place in close proximity to the Polish borders. In addition, Russia announced for the first time that it plans to permanently deploy its air regiment with fighter jets in Belarus by 2015. According to Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, the start of work on this project is scheduled for this year: Moscow will place an aviation commandant's office with its neighbors and put the first duty unit of combat fighters on duty. "We intend to continue to consider issues necessary to strengthen the defense capability of our Belarusian colleagues and brothers," Shoigu stressed.
Yury Shevtsov, director of the Minsk Center for European Integration Problems, believes that a landmark event has happened for the Belarusian foreign policy. "To relocate an entire air regiment to Belarus in less than two years is very fast. And this reflects a high degree of military anxiety about NATO or individual NATO countries. Polish games of greatness have always ended badly for Poland," the expert explains. And he adds: “It is unlikely that the opposition to Polish activity regarding Belarus will be limited to one Russian air regiment. At a minimum, the saturation of the Belarusian army with new weapons and equipment will go faster now. will increase exponentially."
Of course, such activity on the part of the official Minsk will inevitably affect the eastern borders of the EU. Poland and Lithuania will begin to rapidly increase military spending. And if for Poland they are unlikely to become too strong an economic burden, then for Lithuania, geopolitical changes will definitely mean additional problems in terms of getting the country out of the economic crisis. Shevtsov also believes that Russia will increase pressure on Lithuania - both economic and informational. "The EU does not compensate Lithuania for these losses. There will still be no war between Russia and NATO, but, here, the losses from the current Polish activity in the east for Lithuania can be quite serious," the political scientist sums up.
Experts consider it quite likely that the threats of the Belarusians will not be empty air shaking, and that the country will respond to the sanctions by withdrawing from the Budapest Memorandum. "The United States has actually already withdrawn from it. Recently, it seems, there was a statement by the US embassy in Belarus that the United States does not consider this Memorandum as a binding document for them," Shevtsov comments.
All this means that Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are about to get a legal basis to return to their nuclear status. And in the end, someone, and Belarus, will definitely be able to count on the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons on its territory. Moreover, the Belarusian government already possesses approximately 2.5 tons of nuclear materials, some of which are highly enriched, sufficient, for example, to quickly manufacture a "dirty" atomic "bomb."
In addition, “a number of threshold countries will receive an additional impetus to the creation of nuclear weapons, since will see the unreliability of US security guarantees. Most likely, Iran will officially try to become the first of these countries,” Shevtsov describes the more distant consequences of these changes.
All this, no doubt, plays into the hands of Lukashenka. Stanislav Shushkevich, the author of the Belarusian nuclear disarmament program, says that "Lukashenko will soon begin to blackmail the United States more actively with a return to nuclear status." He will do this in order to achieve the removal of economic sanctions from Belarus. And Old Man can return to him every time he doesn’t like something in the behavior of NATO member countries. Whether Lukashenka will receive nuclear weapons, which he has been dreaming of for a long time, will depend only on Russia in the next few years.
The United States, obviously, will have to somehow respond to this. An attempt to pacify the intractable Lukashenka may turn into new conflicts for NATO member countries. Which is especially unsafe against the backdrop of the growing military power of China and the embittered rhetoric against the West from Russia.
Maxim Shveits
In recent years, secrecy has been removed from several documents containing plans for a US attack on the Soviet Union using nuclear weapons. They carefully calculated how many bombs needed to be dropped on each city in order to destroy the population and industry. Belarusian cities also fell under attack. the site looked at declassified plans for nuclear strikes that could end the history of our country.
List of apocalypse
From the declassified list of targets for nuclear strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, declassified by the US National Archives and Documentation Administration, it became known that a number of Belarusian cities were hit. The document was compiled by the US Strategic Air Command in 1956 and contained 800 targets.
One of the targets for each city on the list was "population". The primary task was to destroy the infrastructure of the enemy air force, including 1,100 airfields in the countries of the Soviet bloc. And here many cities fell under attack. Two of which - Bykhov and Orsha - were on the list under the first and second numbers.
The top twenty of the list also included objects in Bobruisk, Minsk (Machulishchi), Gomel (Pribytki). Belarusian airfields, according to the CIA report, were used for basing M-4 and Tu-16 strategic bombers. These planes could not fly to the territory of the United States, but they could strike at NATO member countries.
SM-62 Snark. Photo: wikimedia.org B-47 Stratojet jet bombers based in Great Britain, Morocco and Spain, as well as heavy ultra-long-range B-52 Stratofortress intercontinental strategic bombers stationed in the United States, and SM-strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles were to take part in the destruction of the USSR. 62 Snark.
Optimum 204 nuclear bombs
According to a secret document dated September 15, 1945, the Pentagon intended to destroy the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack directed against large urban areas, BusinessInsider reported.
A document was published on the site, from which the classification was removed. The list of the largest cities in the USSR included 66 strategic goals. The Americans calculated the area of each city and the number of bombs needed to destroy it. For example, one atomic bomb was assigned to Minsk, six bombs were planned to be dropped on Moscow, and the same number on Kyiv.
The Pentagon believed that 204 atomic bombs were enough to erase the USSR from the world map. But it was considered “optimal” to drop 466 atomic bombs on the Soviet state.
Is it a lot or a little? For example, one atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima resulted in the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds.
The Soviet bombing plan document was released in September 1945, a month after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and two years before the onset of the Cold War.
Directive 59 if the President decides
In December 1978, the Americans unilaterally curtailed negotiations on restrictions on the arms trade, and in June 1979 they refused to resume dialogue on anti-satellite systems. The tension in the confrontation between the USSR and the USA increased. In November 1979, President Jimmy Carter issued a directive allowing the country to enter a prolonged conflict with the USSR.
One of the main authors of Directive No. 59, General William Odom, who in 1980 served as Assistant to the President's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Photo: nsarchive2.gwu.edu However, the most dangerous was another document signed on July 25, 1980 by Carter - Directive No. 59 (PD-59). The document was so classified that its full content at the time of creation was not known even to many members of the Carter government.
Directive No. 59 is, in a way, a set of rules and principles that provide for the procedure for entering and waging a nuclear war, the result of which was to cause significant damage to the economic power of the USSR, up to its complete destruction. And this document significantly expanded the powers of the American president in the face of the threat of a nuclear conflict.
And although some members of the US National Security Council expressed their protest against the inclusion of the Provision on a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union in the directive, it was also included in the final version of the document.
Millions could die
According to one of the American plans for an attack on the USSR, 1,154 targets were to be destroyed, including on the territory of the allied countries. Based on data declassified by the US National Archives and Records Administration two years ago, American physicist Max Tagmark and historian Alex Wallerstein created an interactive map that allows you to assess the consequences of the atomic bombing.
Users can choose the power of a nuclear charge in the range from 50 Kt to 10 Mt and assess the scale of radioactive contamination and casualties. For example, if Polotsk was hit with a 1Mt warhead, 53,200 people would have died, and 38,300 people would have been injured of varying severity.
The radius of destruction of a warhead with a capacity of 1Mt upon impact on Vitebsk.
With a strike on Bobruisk, the losses would have amounted to 58.7 thousand dead and 76.3 thousand wounded, in Slutsk - 46.3 thousand dead and 18 thousand wounded, in Kobrin - 42.5 thousand dead and 10.9 thousand wounded, in Orsha - 1.9 thousand dead and 22.2 thousand wounded.
Wallerstein noted that if all warheads had a capacity of 1 Mt and were activated in the air, then the victims in the USSR and allied countries would amount to 111 million people: in the USSR - 55 million, in the Warsaw Pact countries - about 10 million, and in China and North Korea, about 46 million. In addition, 239 million people would have been injured and exposed to varying degrees of radiation.
In the Belarusian-Russian relations, a new topic suddenly appeared. With the light hand of Russian Ambassador Alexander Surikov, the whole world today is talking about the possibility of accommodation in Belarus. In addition to the purely political aspect of this issue, there is also a technical issue. According to Ivan Makushok, Assistant Secretary of State of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, it can be easily resolved.
“The Belarusians have the entire military infrastructure of the Warsaw Pact era in perfect condition, up to the launchers of missiles with nuclear warheads that were taken to Russia after the collapse of the USSR,”- said Ivan Makushok in an interview "Kommersant". The right hand of Pal Palych Borodin, perhaps, is more visible. But "Belarusian news" on the issue of the “ideal state” of the necessary infrastructure, they are ready to argue with the union official.
In the last years for the USSR, there were three headquarters of units of the Special Forces Missile Forces (RVSN) in Belarus: in Lida, Pruzhany and Mozyr. Within a radius of several tens of kilometers from these places, Topol rocket launchers with intercontinental ballistic missiles were based on automobile chassis. Chassis for ICBMs of the Topol type is produced by the Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant. In the people they are called "centipedes" for a large number of wheels.
Each of these installations had at least three concrete launch pads (concrete thickness - 1.5 meters) with side dimensions of several tens of meters. The launch pads had precisely measured coordinates, which, before the creation of the Glonass satellite navigation system, provided the necessary hit accuracy. It was possible to launch from unprepared positions, but in this case, preparing the rocket for launch would take more time. During the exercises, huge tractors, mainly at night, periodically advanced to the starting positions.
In total, 81 launch pads were located in Belarus. Under an arms reduction agreement with the United States, all sites were to be destroyed, and funds were allocated for this. But only three sites were destroyed - due to the deterioration of relations between Minsk and Washington, dismantling work was suspended. The current state of the rest of the sites is far from ideal, but still they could be used to launch missiles - if modern technology did not allow them to be dispensed with.
But most of the bases for storing nuclear charges are now in disrepair. Nuclear charges for carriers were stored separately at special mobile missile technical bases (PRTB), and a very limited circle of military personnel directly involved in servicing these charges had access to such storage facilities. Before use, they were brought in special containers to the locations of the carriers (to airfields, missile and artillery bases).
According to the former chief of staff of the Belarusian military district, and then the first minister of defense of Belarus Pavel Kozlovsky, storage facilities for nuclear weapons were located in the vicinity of Lepel, Shchuchin, Osipovichi, at airfields near Minsk and Baranovichi, where strategic aviation was based.
On the site of a military unit near Lepel, in the Vitebsk region, there is now a sanatorium of the Ministry of Defense of Belarus and a military forestry.
The premises where military equipment once stood are now occupied by small woodworking and car repair enterprises. Based on the preserved earthen rampart encircling an area the size of a football field, and the remains of several rows of barriers, one can determine the location of a mobile missile and technical battery. Nearby there were several firing points for protection. PRTB at military bases is traditionally the most protected facility.
Many buildings located there are now destroyed. In conversations with me, the locals were surprised when I mentioned the nuclear weapons they had stored at their side. There is nothing strange in this: even among the military who served here, only a few knew what was behind the powerful earthen rampart.
At the location of the military unit, I found several dozen abandoned dummies of anti-tank mines, in which concrete was poured instead of explosives. The radioactive background is normal.
Pavel Kozlovsky spoke about his first visit to this nuclear storage base after taking the office of the chief of staff of the Belarusian military district. The storage itself, according to him, was located on the territory of the military unit in a concrete bunker underground at a depth of 1.5 meters, had protective systems, including a barbed wire fence under high voltage. The storage was guarded by conscripts of this unit. A certain regime of temperature and humidity was observed in the storage. The charges were located on several racks: missile warheads on one side, artillery ones on the other.
"Like young piglets in stalls,- this is how Pavel Kozlovsky describes his impressions of the first visit to the repository. - Smooth, clean, neat rows of nuclear warheads stood. Books often describe that if you put your hand on a nuclear charge, you feel the heat from the slow decay of plutonium or uranium. I put my hand to the smooth side. I did not feel heat - the cold steel of a very strong body. Being in the vault, I felt the tremendous power hidden in the steel "pigs".
According to Pavel Kozlovsky, in the early 1990s, a trained group of terrorists like the Chechens could, if desired, seize one of the nuclear weapons storage facilities in Belarus. The possibility of a surprise attack by trained terrorists was not seriously considered then. Of course, the army conducted exercises to protect important military facilities from possible sabotage groups. During such exercises, the protection of protected objects increased sharply, and after that it weakened again.
“For Belarus, nuclear weapons are an unaffordable luxury,- says Pavel Kozlovsky. - Even storing nuclear weapons is a very costly business. Nuclear weapons require regular checks and maintenance. There are no service specialists in Belarus, and no country is willing to assist in their training. We will have to regularly invite specialists from Russian nuclear centers. Often preventive work with ammunition can be carried out only in the conditions of the manufacturer. Transporting a nuclear weapon to a manufacturing plant in Russia is not cheap. Nuclear weapons have a shelf life after which they must be disposed of. To do this, again, you will have to contact Russian specialists and return the ammunition to the manufacturer. Not only nuclear weapons are becoming obsolete, but also the storage sites themselves. By the beginning of the 1990s, they were already outdated and required replacement of the security and alarm systems, air conditioning, and utility systems of warehouses. Replacing all this would absorb a huge amount of money.
Nuclear weapons in the form of operational-tactical, tactical missiles, artillery shells and air bombs went to independent Belarus in 1991. After the collapse of the USSR, all units of the Strategic Missile Forces remained subordinate to Russia, but they were withdrawn from Belarus only in 1996, when the necessary conditions for their deployment were prepared in Russia.
According to Pavel Kozlovsky, the main reason why the Belarusian authorities decided to get rid of nuclear weapons in the early 1990s was economic: poor Belarus could not afford to keep nuclear weapons.
photos at the location
mobile rocket-technical battery near Lepel
were made in the winter.