Russian Nuke Arsenal Falling Apart
Thursday, 11 February 1999
M O S C O W (AP)
AT THE height of Russia's financial meltdown, the minister named to save
the economy outlined an overriding priority: build a new generation of
nuclear missiles.
The warning from First Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Maslyukov, first made
in October, that Russia could lose its nuclear capability, has produced rare
unanimity among the country's bitterly divided political factions.
Communists, nationalists and liberals alike agree that Russia must stake
everything on its nuclear forces if it wants any claim to be a world power
and have any kind of credible military.
Yet, the huge arsenal of rockets, planes and submarines that once terrified
the world is falling apart and there is no money to maintain it or build large
numbers of replacements.
"The only thing for which Russia is respected in the world and which
makes us worthy partners ... is our strategic rocket forces," said Alexander
Lebed, a former general and a leading presidential candidate.
Russia's nuclear arsenal of 6,000 warheads could soon shrink to just a few
hundred, analysts say. Early-warning radar and satellites vital to protect
against pre-emptive attacks and prevent premature missile launchings are
also falling apart, they add.
"By the year 2010, the number of Russia's nuclear warheads will fall
10-fold to 600 to 800," predicted Alexander Pikayev, a top expert in arms
control with Moscow's branch of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace.
Russia could be eclipsed as a nuclear power by China, which once lagged
far behind Moscow, he said.
Analysts paint a gloomy picture of Russia's crumbling nuclear triad:
- The navy's nuclear missile submarines are in the worst state. During the
Soviet-era, dozens of submarines were on patrol, lurking under the waves
with batteries of nuclear missiles ready for instant firing. Scores of
submarines have been decommissioned and no more than three are thought
to be on patrol at any one time now. Even the working boats rarely leave
harbor.
And if a nuclear war starts, the submarines wouldn't be able to sail out
immediately because they don't have food supplies on board.
- The air force's mainstay Bear bombers are more than 40 years old. Pilots
only get a few hours flying time each year, far below the level at which they
can operate effectively, analysts said. Lebed said the air force has only 20
modern nuclear bombers.
- The land-based rocket forces, always the strongest part of the Soviet
nuclear triad, are in better shape. But many of the most powerful missiles
are well past their operational lifetime, officials admit.
Nuclear weapons have a limited lifespan because of their atomic warheads
and corrosive fuel. Beyond that lifespan they often are incapable of
working or function defectively.
"The strategic nuclear forces' command systems are also expiring, and that
may result in loss of control over them," Lebed wrote in a Jan. 21 article in
the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper.
It would cost $3 billion a year to maintain existing missiles, according to
Roman Popkovich, head of the defense committee of the Duma, the lower
chamber of parliament. Russia's full budget for 1999 is $25 billion, and
officials concede much of the money exists only on paper.
With the economy in a nose dive and conventional forces collapsing,
Russia's military has become increasingly dependent on its still massive
Soviet-era nuclear forces.
Whatever money the government can scrape together for the military is
being funneled into nuclear forces, but analysts say it's too little, too late.
The navy designed a new nuclear missile submarine - the Yuri Dolgoruky -
but only one is under construction. "It's really difficult to say how many
nuclear submarines Russia will have on duty by 2010 - two, four, five or
seven," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a leading analyst.
The air force does not have any plans for a new long-range nuclear
bomber or cruise missiles, analysts said.
The land forces alone have a new weapon - the Topol-M - a
single-warhead missile, 10 of which were deployed for the first time in
January.
But even if Russia meets its goal of building between 35 and 40 Topol-Ms
a year, analysts say the nuclear forces will still drop drastically. Some
officials advocate building multi-warhead missiles, but this would break the
proposed START-2 agreement with the United States.
The Communist-dominated Duma repeatedly has refused to ratify the
treaty, which was approved by the U.S. Senate in 1996 and would reduce
each side's nuclear arsenals to between 3,000 and 3,500 warheads by
2007.
Government officials say Moscow must accept START-2 and seek a
START-3 treaty to cut both sides to about 1,500 nuclear warheads as the
only way to give Russia some kind of parity.
Such drastic cuts are "dozens of times more important for our country than
for the United States," said Popkovich, warning that Russia cannot afford
any kind of arms race with Washington. |
