Military Review

Russia - without chemical weapons. Our country has destroyed about 76 percent of all declared reserves of toxic substances

23
A statement that the Russian Federation destroyed more than 30 thousand tons of toxic substances - this is 76 percent - recently made by the Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov. It is the ministry headed by him that provides finance and determines the implementation of work on the safe storage of chemical stocks. weapons.


The Russian program for the destruction of chemical weapons is entering the home straight. Recall that in 1996, the government approved the federal targeted program “Destruction of chemical weapons in the Russian Federation”, which received presidential status. This work was supposed to be carried out in four stages: the destruction of the percentage of chemical weapons stocks by 1, 400 tons of toxic substances by the 2003 year; 20 destruction of percent of stocks of chemical weapons, 8000 tons of toxic substances - to 2007 year; 45 destruction of percent of stockpiles of chemical weapons, 18000 tons of toxic agents - by 2009 year. All this is implemented, today, as part of the final stage, “clean up” the remnants.

The International Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons entered into force in 1997, it was signed by 188 countries, including Russia and the United States. Over the past decade, a new industry has been created in Russia to destroy chemical munitions. A fundamental decision was made: to build factories for the elimination of bombs and shells directly next to the arsenals in order to exclude the transit of deadly cargo through the country’s territory. After all, destroying chemical weapons is much more difficult than producing them, and fatigue accumulates in ammunition, fraught with an unexpected release.

For the destruction of stocks of chemical weapons required to create seven specialized facilities. To date, two of them - in the Saratov village of Gorny and the Udmurt city of Kambarka - have successfully completed the process of destruction of chemical weapons.

In the same Mining, mustard was stored in rail tank cars removed from the wheels, and ultrasound diagnostics showed that the walls of the tanks were gradually becoming thinner. We had time, the arsenal is empty.

In 2006, a facility was commissioned in the village of Maradykovskiy, Kirov Region, where more than 91 percent of stored chemical warfare agents have been destroyed by now. In 2008, the Leonidovka facility in the Penza Region, which already eliminated more than 96 percent of the local arsenal, began to destroy. In 2009, the Shchuchye facility was launched in the Kurgan Region - more than 71 percent of stocks were destroyed. The Pochep facility in the Bryansk region joined the practical implementation of the program in 2010, and by now more than half of the chemical weapons stocks have been destroyed there. The construction of the seventh object is being completed - in the village of Kizner of the Udmurt Republic, it is planned to be put into operation at the end of this year.

But the rehabilitation and subsequent environmental rehabilitation of places of former chemical weapons storage facilities will be implemented under a separate federal targeted program, “Eliminating Accumulated Environmental Damage”. Relevant activities are planned in Udmurtia, Chuvashia, Nizhny Novgorod, Penza and Saratov regions. In general, it is planned to allocate 2017 million rubles in 550,7 for the rehabilitation of the territories of the pre-conventional treatment of chemical weapons, in 2018 and 2019 for 500 million rubles. However, the Penza region already in the 2014 year should receive from the federal budget 15 millions to study the possible consequences of the influence of pre-event activity with chemical weapons, and in 2015 – 2016 years more for 30 million rubles.

After the completion of the destruction of chemical weapons and the elimination of the consequences of working with hazardous substances, the plants will be reoriented to produce civilian products. On the instructions of the President, an interdepartmental working group has been established, which is starting to explore possible options for the subsequent use of facilities. Time is enough: the final life of the facility is not the completion of the destruction of ammunition, but its decommissioning and liquidation of the consequences of hazardous chemical production, which is designed for another three to five years after the completion of the elimination of chemical weapons.

For example, the leaders of the Shchuchansky district regularly hold a “hot line” with the population. Previously, residents were most interested in the safety of the enterprise and its impact on the environment. Today, interests have shifted in a different direction: they ask what will happen to the enterprise after the complete destruction of chemical weapons, how the plant will be redeveloped. So far there is no concrete solution, but it is already known: in the future, the plant will produce peaceful innovative products. The administration guaranteed residents that there would not be mass layoffs at the plant, where more than a thousand people work, moreover, all jobs will remain. In the Kirov region have already decided: on the basis of the plant for the destruction of chemical munitions planned to create a pulp and paper mill. An enterprise in Gorniy may become one of the objects of the chemical industry.

Moscow’s fulfillment of the obligations of the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention causes a negative reaction from Washington.

The US is trying to blame Russia, in particular, for not having got rid of its stockpiles of chemical weapons to this day. Given that overseas extend their program for the destruction of such arsenals to 2023 year.

Moreover, recently there have been reports that this process in the United States has actually been suspended. In our country, the remaining stocks of these weapons - about 12 thousand tons - should be eliminated already in the 2015 year. Do we have to “slow down” or work according to plan? The question seems strange, since even the assumption of the use of chemical weapons looks unthinkable today.

Of course, the current, particularly keen interest in chemical warfare agents is caused by recent events in Syria. The rebels unfoundedly accused government forces of using chemical weapons - without giving any evidence. In turn, the authorities strongly emphasize that it was the “democratic opposition” forces that the authorities were using.

The overall picture in the field of ridding the world of OB arsenals does not look very rosy. First of all, eight countries did not join the international convention: Angola, Egypt, Israel, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Myanmar, Syrian Arab Republic, Somalia and South Sudan. It is believed that four of them may possess chemical weapons: Egypt, Syria, Israel and the DPRK, and these countries have no data on the possible reserves of agents, according to approximate forecasts, they are about 5 thousand tons. Is it a lot or a little?

For example, one kilogram of the combat substance “V-ex” is enough to kill two and a half million people.
And no one knows what types of chemical weapons can be stored in the arsenals of these states.

At the same time there is another "but." Experts do not exclude that in the future some states will be able to develop new types of ammunition. Those that are not subject to the convention, because it regulates specific types of chemical weapons and their properties, known on the day of its conclusion ...
Author:
Originator:
http://www.stoletie.ru/
23 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 26 August 2013 09: 10
    +4
    In principle, there are now more effective and less resonant munitions, I think chemical weapons are outdated, they are expensive to store, expensive to manufacture, even more expensive to use, but there is no particular effectiveness - in general, the First World War showed this ...
    1. chunga-changa
      chunga-changa 26 August 2013 10: 04
      +7
      After use, as well as in the event of a threat of use, the protective measures against chemical weapons are the same as in the consequences of a nuclear strike. Try fighting in the OZK and gas mask in the summer or winter. Or just carry the kit with you in full gear.
      In conditions of total war, chemical weapons are actually an inexpensive and convenient substitute for nuclear weapons, of course, without a flash, a shock wave and radiation. And they banned him because of inhumanity, i.e. in Russian speaking because of the highest efficiency.
      1. Hon
        Hon 26 August 2013 17: 27
        +3
        Quote: chunga-changa
        Try fighting in the OZK and gas mask in the summer or winter. Or just carry the kit with you in full gear.
        In conditions of total war, chemical weapons are actually an inexpensive and convenient substitute for nuclear weapons, of course, without a flash, a shock wave and radiation. And they banned him because of inhumanity, i.e. in Russian speaking because of the highest efficiency.

        Amer in Iraq at first in chemical defense fought, and nothing crap. And there is not just summer, there is desert. How can chemical weapons replace TNW? Almost all equipment has protection against chemistry, but the discomfort is great, many will be poisoned, but in the case of warriors with a well-equipped army, the efficiency of chemistry is low, it’s good for them to poison partisans in the jungle. In the case of the use of nuclear weapons, whole armies can be erased from the face of the earth in one fell swoop.
        1. chunga-changa
          chunga-changa 26 August 2013 21: 54
          0
          As I understand it, radiation from democratic nuclear weapons does not affect Americans. We erased the army and forward to the places of military glory to play baseball. In addition, it is obvious that you did not make foot marches in full gear in the OZK and gas mask. Obviously they did not explain to you that there are many chemicals from which the gas mask does not protect. If chemistry has such a low efficiency and it is practically safe, why doesn’t everyone use it everywhere, and on the contrary, the threat of use makes you refuse to use your own.
          1. Hon
            Hon 26 August 2013 22: 20
            +1
            And what about the Americans here? Nuclear weapons can be changed by anyone who has, and whoever applies first will die second. Chemistry is of little use, but much harm. Hussein used chemistry against Iran, and the Kurds, did it help him?
          2. Hon
            Hon 26 August 2013 22: 27
            +1
            Quote: chunga-changa
            In addition, it is obvious that you did not make foot marches in full gear in the OZK and gas mask.

            Amer in chemical protection in the desert fought and did not melt. It is clear that the thing is unpleasant, but not fatal.
            Quote: chunga-changa
            If chemistry has such a low efficiency and it is practically safe, why doesn’t everyone use it everywhere, and on the contrary, the threat of use makes you refuse to use your own.

            Because this shit was eaten during World War I, even Hitler did not use it. For those who are sitting in a tank or an armored personnel carrier, it doesn’t matter what the gas mask does not save from there, pressure is pumped up and the detonating bomb simply does not get inside. Man is now going out into outer space, from which substances he will not be able to defend himself?
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 August 2013 16: 18
      0
      Quote: KG_patriot_last
      In principle, there are now more effective and less resonant munitions, I think chemical weapons are outdated, they are expensive to store, expensive to manufacture, even more expensive to use, but there is no particular effectiveness - in general, the First World War showed this ...


      For instance ? Is the Tomahawks more resonant or tactical nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons are weapons for the poor. If there were no sarin in Syria, the Americans would have trampled Syrian land. And so at least some chance still remains.

      No need to draw conclusions from scratch.
      1. Hon
        Hon 26 August 2013 17: 28
        +1
        Quote: Geisenberg
        For instance ? Is the Tomahawks more resonant or tactical nuclear weapons? Chemical weapons are weapons for the poor. If there were no sarin in Syria, the Americans would have trampled Syrian land. And so at least some chance still remains.

        Do not have Syria air defense ...
  2. Veter
    Veter 26 August 2013 09: 58
    0
    There will be no reason for Western intervention. Joke)))
    1. skeptic
      skeptic 26 August 2013 15: 36
      0
      Quote: Veter
      There will be no reason for Western intervention. Joke)))


      Of course a joke! After all, this is not a nuclear weapon. The decay time of a chemical is almost equal to the decomposition time of the enemy’s bodies. And after that, come in and take everything that’s hosh.
  3. T-100
    T-100 26 August 2013 10: 13
    +3
    But even those 24% will probably be enough to poison the whole earth)))
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 26 August 2013 11: 52
      0
      only one Kambarka kept 4 lethal doses for every inhabitant of the earth (including the Chinese). the truth was there was an old lewisite (1st generation bov, like, if I'm not mistaken)
    2. Ka-52
      Ka-52 26 August 2013 11: 55
      0
      These 24% will be destroyed by 2015 wink
      If ours do not suspend the program.
      Amer seems to have decided to "save". A cheap version of nuclear weapons, due to the crisis, and you can scare the civilian population ...
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 26 August 2013 16: 22
        0
        Quote: Ka-52
        These 24% will be destroyed by 2015 wink
        If ours do not suspend the program.
        Amer seems to have decided to "save". A cheap version of nuclear weapons, due to the crisis, and you can scare the civilian population ...


        Amers have all the infrastructure there since the 60s. Now they will save unconditionally, but then they will spend 10 times more on a funeral.
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 August 2013 16: 21
      0
      Quote: T-100
      But even those 24% will probably be enough to poison the whole earth)))


      ... together with oceans and polar glaciers about 3-4 times. Moreover, the Americans simply stopped the disposal of chemistry. So that's enough for everyone, even cockroaches will not remain.
  4. NOBODY EXCEPT US
    NOBODY EXCEPT US 26 August 2013 12: 26
    +2
    The binary chemical weapon does not fall under the convention, and the future seems to be behind it .....
  5. biglow
    biglow 26 August 2013 13: 33
    +1
    chemical weapon refers to the type of weapon that is better to destroy than own or use it
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 August 2013 16: 26
      +2
      Quote: biglow
      chemical weapon refers to the type of weapon that is better to destroy than own or use it


      Yes, yes. With the current development of science, it is possible to do CW for specific purposes with specific characteristics. For example, you can make a compiler, without color, taste, smell, which, once in the tunnel to the terrorists, will flow into each slot and will exist there for say 12 hours, after which it will decompose and become safe in another day. Well, no one has specifically bothered to create such a thing ...
  6. makst83
    makst83 26 August 2013 13: 37
    0
    I remember Adolf Aloizovich Shikelgruber wanted to use chemical weapons against besieged Leningrad, as soon as it became known to Joseph Vissarionovich, it was transmitted through intelligence: "If at least one chemical ammunition falls on the city, Berlin will be flooded with chlorine, mustard gas, etc., etc. P!" Not a single chemical fell on Leningrad. ammunition!
    1. skeptic
      skeptic 26 August 2013 15: 41
      +1
      Quote: makst83
      : "If at least one chemical ammunition falls on the city, Berlin will be littered with chlorine, mustard gas, etc., and so on!" Not a single chemical fell on Leningrad. ammunition!


      Now it’s simpler - for everything in response to nuclear weapons, and more effectively, for centuries to come.
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 26 August 2013 16: 33
      +1
      Quote: makst83
      I remember Adolf Aloizovich Shikelgruber wanted to use chemical weapons against besieged Leningrad,


      They promised to inject hydrocyanic acid, all of Europe, ankle-deep. It is lazy right now to look for a source, but it was not Stalin who said it, but someone from the environment.
  7. Arabist
    Arabist 26 August 2013 15: 41
    0
    Is it still difficult to do? Nobody will make a secret and obstacles to the production of the same phosgene.
  8. tilovaykrisa
    tilovaykrisa 26 August 2013 16: 25
    +2
    In vain, probably all the same, it will come in handy to poison bearded lice along gorges and mountains, cheaply and angrily.
  9. Savva30
    Savva30 26 August 2013 19: 10
    0
    in my opinion it’s better not to talk about it ...
  10. Pavel. 199615
    Pavel. 199615 8 September 2013 09: 47
    0
    hi........................................