Now the future of SS-24 strategic missiles is not only America’s concern

Quite recently, almost all meetings of the Ukrainian and US leaders would end up with the latter always raising the question of the SS-24 strategic missiles. It all boiled down to when we will finally get up the gumption to destroy them. As a result, Ukraine agreed to get rid of these missiles. But today, the SS-24 have suddenly come into the area of conflicting interests, this time in our own state.

The SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles, known as Scalpels in the West, were the pride and last word in the USSR state-of-the-art technology. Each of them could carry ten warheads, capable of reducing to ashes ten large US cities, with deadly accuracy over 10,000 kilometers. 46 Scalpels were firmly seated in Ukraine, where the 43rd Strategic Missile Army was stationed, with 176 launching silos.

The collapse of the USSR, end of the Cold War, winds of disarmament, and independent Ukraine’s proclamation of a nuclear-free status radically changed the destiny of both the missile servicemen and missiles themselves. Now the military are doing a job they to which they are unaccustomed: destroying their weapons. Moreover, they are doing this for American money, thanks to the initiatives of Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, who decided that America will best contribute to national security by funding nuclear disarmament in the former Soviet republics. Under international agreements, Ukraine has already got rid of all the 130 liquid fueled SS-18 missiles. Now it is the turn of Scalpels. But what is in the focus of dispute today is where and how to store and destroy the SS-24s. The US money for these purposes seems to be an apple of discord for the Ukrainian recipients.

In 1997, it was decided at a joint meeting of Ukraine’s Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Industrial Policy that the SS-24 strategic missiles would be stored at Mykhailenky, a remote arsenal of the defense agency. Now it is suggested that they be stored and destroyed right in Pavlohrad. But to what extent is this dangerous for a densely-populated industrial center? Moreover, city town still remembers the explosion of a missile stage, which affected almost a third of the Pavlodar Chemical Works. The Day turned for explanations to the manager of the latter, Leonid Shyman.

“Mr. Shyman, why have the missile storage and utilization plans changed?”

“Before we took up this scheme (the threat reduction program executed jointly by Ukraine and the US Defense Department — Author), that is, over a year ago, disposal work was done mainly by the 43rd Missile Army. They carried out their work according to their own criteria. They thus decided to store the missiles in Mykhailenky. It had been planned earlier to build eight warehouses there and to store the assembled missiles 5-7 years after the expiration of warranty period. But the military are experts in servicing military equipment, while in this case it is the question of a fundamentally new situation, when a missile should be regarded not as a weapon but as a piece of equipment to be reused.

“Since the Pavlodar Chemical Works was the producer of all the three missile stages, the Pivdenne Design Bureau was the general designer, and the Pavlodar Mechanical Plant assembled the missiles, we expressed our worries to the military that the storage of assembled missiles presents a grave danger. It is better to disassemble them. And, for the missiles to be stored safely until the end of the liquidation process, they must be taken apart as soon and in as many small fragments as possible. We explained this to the Americans, and they agreed. So the construction of new missile storage facilities in Mykhailenky was stopped. Efforts are now being made to withdraw the existing missiles from storage as soon as possible. The missiles should be disassembled very fast, with each element being stored separately.”

“But we still do not know about any final decision in your favor, so to speak.”

“The government resolved to ban the building of storage facilities in Mykhailenky in 1998. But the military tried to persuade the Americans by all possible means to invest money in building these storage facilities, justifying it with various factors.”

“And where is the guarantee that the missiles will be safer in Pavlodar?”

“There are certain technical rules and standards. We believe all missiles will be disassembled before the end of 2001. Not a single missile will be stored for more than eight months after the warranty period has expired. This is not 5-7 years in Mykhailenky as was planned. They are to be further placed in storage facilities once built for the manufacture of these missiles. We’ve got the plants and workshops for all this. We used to produce up to a hundred missiles a year. Now it is only a question of 54 missiles.

“The Pavlodar Mechanical Plant, the Pivdenne Mechanical Engineering Plant, and we all have special shops and skilled personnel to do this work safely.”

“But it was reported earlier that Ukraine had only inherited 46 SS-24 ballistic missiles.”

“46 were those on stand-by alert. Add to this the missiles we stored. We already have 8 and a half disassembled missiles in storage.”

“What is it planned to do further, after a missile has been disassembled?”

“Originally, our military suggested that these missiles be simply incinerated. The program also included this provision at first. All the 54.5 missiles were to be incinerated as is now being done in Russia.”

“Is this approach caused by the absence of SS-24 solid-propellant recycling technologies in this country?”

“We have prepared a feasibility report. The heart of the matter is that it is inadvisable to incinerate the missiles. We offered a solution of our own: to produce industrial explosives out of the missile fuel. Moreover, these explosives are much more environment friendly than those traditionally used for demolition. Let me give an example. Over 70,000 tons of explosives a year are detonated in Kryvy Rih. Pure TNT accounts for half of these explosives. The explosion of one kilogram of TNT gives off 800 liters of gases. So, if we do some calculation, there is an annual emission of two and a half billion cubic meters of gas in Kryvy Rih. Out of this, 70% is noxious NO and CO gases, soot, etc. If we replace a part of this TNT by the explosives contained in the missile solid fuel, an explosion will discharge 900 liters of gas, but hazardous varieties will only account for 0.5%.”

“Is this pure theory or already practice?”

“We have been conducting research on the request of the US Defense Department. Incidentally, they do not incinerate their missiles either. They have technologies to extract the fuel and recycle it as components for other missile fuels or industrial explosives. So we conducted research and drew up a feasibility report on the basis of these studies. This report was approved in our government, the US Defense Department, and finally the US Congress. And the congressional appropriation of about $20-25 million for missile destruction is the best protection for our technological solution of the problem of how to reuse the solid-propellant SS-24s.”

“Mr. Shyman, the plans to store war missiles in Pavlohrad have triggered a quite acute and negative attitude of your town’s public organizations. You seem to have failed to convince them.”

“We, together with representatives of US firms have repeatedly invited them to our facility and explained to them what the program of strategic missiles destruction provides for. Yet, these people are still concerned.

“I can understand them. But we told them that all the projects to be implemented here comply with Ukrainian standards, as well as safety and environmental laws. Representatives of public organizations will have, if they wish, access to the projects to be carried out here.”

Far from all share Mr. Shyman’s optimism and confidence. For example, we once heard an argument from the military that, although Pavlohrad used to produce an annual 100 missiles, the plant never saw more than fifty items stored at a time. The message is that this kind of scale is far from being safe. Moreover, the main guarantee of safety does not at all lie in the ability to take a missile down to the last bolt. This is like saying that the explosive taken out of a projectile is safe.

Chief of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast Ecological Safety Department Mykola Shpak also takes a dim view of the Pavlodar people’s persistence. Speaking to The Day’s correspondent, Mr. Shpak thus assessed the situation:

“From the safety viewpoint, the Pavlodar Chemical Plant can currently house the number of disassembled missiles they now have, not more. There are the relevant documents, certificates, and project-report regulations confirming that one must not overstep the boundaries of what is forbidden. It would be wise to keep the missiles in the storage with the military. Thus missiles should only be sent to Pavlohrad as often as they are reprocessed at the plant. But this reprocessing is not going on, for it is not clear under precisely what technology these items will be scrapped.”

“But the Pavlodar Chemical Plant management claims they do have such technology which satisfies everybody, including the US.”

“I can say the solid fuel extraction technology has not yet undergone expert examination. I have an official letter from this plant’s management, saying that a tender will be held later this year for the missile-scrapping technology. But there is no tender as such; at least I have no official notification to this effect. There is neither the finally selected technology nor the expert examination of this technology. Missiles cannot be subjected to reuse — extraction of the solid fuel and reprocessing it as explosives — unless this chain is adhered to.

This is the story, different for each of the characters. In addition, Tuesday before last Pavlodar suddenly saw representatives of one more side not indifferent to what is going on. The town was visited by US Defense Department inspectors. The objective of such inspections under START-2 is quite traditional: to see that Pavlodar has not resumed the production of the SS-24 ballistic missiles. But the Americans have more than once visited us on this occasion. And while earlier they racked their brains over how to defend America from our Scalpels, now they are likely to see if we are able to defend ourselves from our own know-how.