Military Review

The destruction of the Russian chemical weapons is coming to an end

38
The destruction of the Russian chemical weapons is coming to an end

Russian facilities for the destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles started to destroy them after the end of the planned maintenance work carried out from the third decade of December, when the Federal Directorate for the Safe Storage and Destruction of Chemical weapons fulfilled ahead of time the state defense order 2013 of the year. Interfax-AVN reported about this with reference to the head of the Federal Directorate for the safe storage and destruction of chemical weapons, Colonel-General Valery Kapashin.


According to him, at the facility in the village of Leonidovka of the Penza region this year will continue the destruction of ammunition of complex construction. The same types of ammunition, containing not only poisonous, but also explosives, will be destroyed at the facility in the village of Mirny, Kirov Region. Both of these objects destroyed the stockpile of their arsenals of chemical weapons by 99% and are close to completing the task.

“Two other facilities that have destroyed toxic substances at 100% are currently conducting preparations for decommissioning. This is a federal state-owned enterprise (former facility) "Gorny" in the Saratov region and the object "Kambarka" in the Udmurt Republic, "- said the journalists. According to them, the remaining facilities will start the destruction of chemical weapons as needed: the Pochep object in the Bryansk region from February 1, the Shchuchye object in the Kurgan region from March 1 and the Kizner object in the Udmurt Republic from April 1.

“As of 20 in January, 2014 was destroyed in Russia, about 78% of chemical weapons stocks, which is 31 thousand tons. It remains to destroy less than 9 thousand tons.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Dwarfik
    Dwarfik 24 January 2014 09: 51
    +13
    Kind! I personally agree that chemistry must be destroyed! Store expensive, and no one needs it now! Add to this the behavior of toxic substances over a long time and possible reactions - it is better to dispose!
    1. Vitaly Anisimov
      Vitaly Anisimov 24 January 2014 09: 53
      +2
      I agree..! We have something to answer if that ..
      1. Old Cynic
        Old Cynic 24 January 2014 10: 38
        +4
        Alas, there is nothing. The footcloths were canceled ... laughing

        Although, if you think about it, a non-washed week of a sock can be equated to a liter of phosgene in terms of its striking ability ...
      2. Cherdak
        Cherdak 24 January 2014 17: 23
        +1
        Quote: MIKHAN
        We have something to answer if that ..
      3. APASUS
        APASUS 24 January 2014 19: 55
        0
        Quote: MIKHAN
        I agree..! We have something to answer if that ..

        I think in the modern age of genetic engineering, the army does not need 100 thousand tons of modern chemical weapons, just one test tube and all the enemy armies will die out like flies. It's another matter that no one will guarantee their own security.
        One way road .............
    2. ShturmKGB
      ShturmKGB 24 January 2014 10: 08
      +13
      I believe that we are all sure that the USA is destroying it at home? Is that so? They also allegedly destroy nuclear weapons, but in fact they disassemble and store them!
      1. zart_arn
        zart_arn 24 January 2014 10: 41
        0
        I am glad that the majority understands the danger of storing CW primarily for ourselves. When destroying, the main thing is tight control so that God forbid someone does not spioneril for their own use.
      2. Cherdak
        Cherdak 24 January 2014 17: 30
        -1
        ShturmKGB
        but actually disassemble and store!
    3. avt
      avt 24 January 2014 11: 28
      +4
      Quote: Dwarfik
      Store expensive, and no one needs it now!

      Well, they destroy that old weapon that is dangerous during long-term storage. Do you really seriously believe that the same Americans abandoned it!? In the 70s, they were engaged in safe storage in the form of binary ammunition and put it on their own stream.
      1. clidon
        clidon 25 January 2014 12: 24
        0
        Yes, I seriously believe that the Americans will give it up. And what are some prerequisites to doubt?
    4. nycsson
      nycsson 25 January 2014 08: 50
      0
      Quote: Dwarfik
      Kind! I personally agree that chemistry must be destroyed!

      But I do not agree!
      Quote: Dwarfik
      Store expensive, and no one needs it now!

      Vigorous bombs are also expensive to store. This is a deterrent. We cut medium-range missiles, I won’t speak thanks to whom, and now NATO rushing to our borders. BRDZK, rockets from sharks also sawed. It remains to destroy the chemistry, and everything can be taken warm .....

      Quote: MIKHAN
      I agree..! We have something to answer if that ..

      Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing.
      1. clidon
        clidon 25 January 2014 12: 23
        0
        nycsson
        In the presence of nuclear weapons, it makes no sense to store and produce much more dangerous "in everyday life" (especially for old types of ammunition) and much less controlled weapons. Therefore, they get rid of it.

        Yes, the fact of the matter is that there is nothing.

        Our nuclear strategic complexes are not represented not only by medium-range missiles and BZHRK. So it's up to "warm" so far as to Mars.
  2. Kapitan Oleg
    Kapitan Oleg 24 January 2014 09: 59
    +7
    All this is good and healthy, but there are still many problems with the chemical weapons that were flooded in the seas (Black, Baltic, Barents, how to deal with this? And yet, it is still not known how many chemical weapons were buried in the ranges of central Russia. Who Will he look for him? Take, for example, a landfill in the Kuzminsky forest park of Moscow.
    1. leks
      leks 24 January 2014 10: 08
      +3
      This is a big question, there are a huge number of burials in the country, what should be done with them?
      And the question is, how are things with biological weapons?
      1. BARKAS
        BARKAS 24 January 2014 13: 32
        +1
        Quote: leks
        And the question is, how are things with biological weapons?

        This is just not a question. American laboratories are working intensively near our borders almost all around the result of exotic epidemics of people and animals that were not in these places before!
  3. mountain
    mountain 24 January 2014 10: 07
    +1
    And yet, I would leave a barrel for every fireman, and suddenly come in handy.
    1. nycsson
      nycsson 25 January 2014 08: 57
      0
      All those who are dedicated to the reduction of Russian weapons ...... fool fool fool

      US fighter makes emergency landing at Lithuanian base
      http://warfiles.ru/show-46886-istrebitel-ssha-sovershil-avariynuyu-posadku-na-li
      tovskoy-baze.html

      The US F-15C Eagle fighter, performing a NATO air police mission in the Baltic countries, made an emergency landing at the Lithuanian Air Force base in Siauliai. This was reported by the Ministry of Defense of the Republic.

      The incident occurred on Friday, January 24, during training flights. The plane landed successfully, without any consequences. The cause of the emergency landing was a technical malfunction. “The implementation of the NATO air police mission was not violated,” the department noted.

      Representatives of the US Air Force began patrolling the airspace of the Baltic states in early January 2014. The US military replaced the Belgians guarding the skies of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from 1 September. Their mission will last four months.

      NATO countries have been sending their military contingents and aviation to the Baltic states since March 2004. This is due to the fact that the republics that are members of the alliance do not have the military equipment necessary for patrolling.

      This is called, before shrunk ....... am
  4. piokor03
    piokor03 24 January 2014 10: 07
    -4
    Yes, it’s better to recycle, and then to re-melt all the tanks, warships, aircraft and live in good and harmony ..... Wake up - this is utopia.
    1. tatkali
      tatkali 24 January 2014 12: 06
      +1
      How can you say that? !!!! Yes, you're Russophobe !!! Correctly zamusuyut you !!! Will know!!!
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. Heccrbq.3
      Heccrbq.3 24 January 2014 13: 30
      0
      With such US military budgets and their latest developments in this area, this is not called utopia, but betrayal of the homeland.
  5. klimpopov
    klimpopov 24 January 2014 10: 13
    0
    What is conc?
  6. Archikah
    Archikah 24 January 2014 10: 32
    +6
    Gentlemen, do not forget that it is only Russia that is destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles. And the mattress covers are storing everything new (binary) of the last generation. Just in case, apparently. Of course, this is a barbaric weapon and it is necessary to get rid of it, but it is necessary to somehow demand that everyone else do it. Otherwise, this is some kind of wiring. stop
    1. leks
      leks 24 January 2014 10: 58
      +2
      In general, I heard that the Americans practically destroyed their stocks if it’s not right to correct the info on this topic in the studio !!! As far as I know, this document has been signed within the UN framework and is being implemented, as international inspections go so that they don’t deceive.
    2. leks
      leks 24 January 2014 12: 47
      +1
      The United States as of July 1, 2010 destroyed 75 percent of the total stockpiles of chemical weapons, according to DefPro. We are talking about the disposal of 22958 tons of toxic substances and 2,1 million shells. The United States crossed the 70 percent threshold in February 2010. At the time of the beginning of liquidation in the first half of the 1990s, chemical weapons in the United States amounted to 31,5 thousand tons.

      Under US law and the country's obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the US must destroy 90 percent of the 1993 declared chemical munitions by April 2012. Earlier it was reported that the United States plans to take two breaks in the process of destruction of chemical weapons - from 2012 to 2015 and from 2017 to 2018. During these periods, it is planned to build factories for the disposal of chemical weapons near the warehouses of Pueblo and Blue Grasse.
  7. Old Cynic
    Old Cynic 24 January 2014 10: 35
    +12
    Good all the time of day !!! hi

    I would like, as in that joke:

    Russia and the United States completed the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. All. Now everybody has zeros.
    We signed the protocols, sealed with state seals ... That's all ...

    And here Obama speaks quietly in Putin’s ear:
    - You know, Vladimir, but I deceived you. Even your GRU didn't help. We have three more "Minutemen" in the secret mines in Nevada! So Russia is not yours now, but mine ...
    Putin became sad and began to think how it would be softer to tell everyone. Here, from behind Sands, he whispers to him:
    - Vladimir Vladimirovich, there is an emergency ... Here in Siberia, Colonel Ivanov forgot to take out the missile division drunk from the taiga ... This is a disaster !!! What shall we say to the Americans now?
    And Putin tells him:
    - First of all, not a colonel, but a colonel general! And secondly: as long as Russia exists - IT IS UNBEATABLE.
  8. shelva
    shelva 24 January 2014 11: 27
    0
    It would not be bad to part with chemistry and bacteria. Very expensive and not safe storage and protection. Warehouses with weapons explode, and if an emergency situation in a warehouse with such weapons? In the end, there are no less effective means, the contents of which are less dangerous and cheaper.
  9. propolsky
    propolsky 24 January 2014 11: 33
    +5
    Only a small factory for production should stay and be ready to work ... Just in case of an attack of democracy in the world.
  10. Nitarius
    Nitarius 24 January 2014 11: 39
    +1
    ShturmKGB
    I believe that we are all sure that the USA is destroying it at home? Is that so? They also allegedly destroy nuclear weapons, but in fact they disassemble and store them!

    WHY DESTROY IT ?? ?
    Americans are developing it and DESTROYING! I'M AGAINST! THE WAR IS NOT EVEN WHO CANCELED!
    1. your1970
      your1970 24 January 2014 12: 53
      +2
      then, for example, in Gorny, for example, barrels stupidly decayed and it was impossible to take them to the war (possible) at all, they scattered on the spot, there were a lot of leaks into the ground. Therefore, we had to destroy them, in any case it is no longer a weapon - more precisely, against us. ..
  11. Kibalchish
    Kibalchish 24 January 2014 11: 59
    -3
    Hello? Is there an editor on the site or not? conc ...
  12. ausguck
    ausguck 24 January 2014 12: 20
    0
    Something I don’t hear anything about the destruction of American chemical weapons ..... how is it there, don’t you know?
    1. aksai61
      aksai61 24 January 2014 13: 53
      0
      I agree! I have the same question!
      And how do our "partners" fulfill contracts?
      We are destroying the regime, and they ?!
  13. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 24 January 2014 12: 38
    0
    And what about our "potential friends", chem. not only America had weapons, but also its allies. For example, Japan or France has it, who knows.
  14. leks
    leks 24 January 2014 12: 45
    +1
    Quote: chunga-changa
    And what about our "potential friends", chem. not only America had weapons, but also its allies. For example, Japan or France has it, who knows.

    In 1993, in Paris, UN member states opened for signature the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the production and stockpiling of many chemicals. The "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction" (CWC) entered into force on April 29, 1997 for 87 States Parties (another 22 countries ratified the Convention within 180 days of its entry into force).
    1. leks
      leks 24 January 2014 12: 48
      +1
      According to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), in total, the countries possessing chemical weapons have eliminated more than half of all declared stocks. The OPCW includes 188 countries of the world, including Russia, the USA, Albania, India and Libya. The "Convention on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons" was signed but not ratified by Israel and Myanmar. Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Syria and Somalia are not members of the convention.
  15. Unisonic
    Unisonic 24 January 2014 12: 45
    -1
    Next in line are nuclear weapons and bye Russia.
  16. kelevra
    kelevra 24 January 2014 12: 48
    +1
    That's good, you do not need to store this muck in our country, you never know!
  17. Tuzik
    Tuzik 24 January 2014 12: 58
    0
    let them destroy Amers for money, make it easier, faster and cheaper than to dispose of them, the main thing is that the developments should not be turned off, but the Americans are already using biological weapons, they threw the same swine flu from a laboratory in Georgia, right now they will do the same in Ukraine then in general will be the khan of our cx
  18. Mareman Vasilich
    Mareman Vasilich 24 January 2014 13: 20
    +1
    What else will we destroy further? And where will they take a replacement? Breaking does not build. Now everything is expensive to store. And as for danger, life is generally a dangerous thing, until there is no one who has got out of it alive.
  19. Leshka
    Leshka 24 January 2014 15: 17
    0
    and correctly what for do we need it
  20. tank64rus
    tank64rus 24 January 2014 16: 42
    0
    The Americans extended the deadline to 2023 due to funding difficulties. we have the pace of 2015. Maybe we should not be in such a hurry.
    1. clidon
      clidon 24 January 2014 18: 02
      0
      These weapons are now more dangerous for us than for Americans. In addition, it’s hard for me personally to imagine a situation in which the Americans are starting to re-deploy chemical munitions.
  21. your1970
    your1970 24 January 2014 16: 56
    +1
    Quote: your1970
    then, for example, in Gorny, for example, barrels stupidly decayed and it was impossible to take them to the war (possible) at all, they scattered on the spot, there were a lot of leaks into the ground. Therefore, we had to destroy them, in any case it is no longer a weapon - more precisely, against us. ..

    I repeat, it was impossible to use for its intended purpose was the destruction of containers from time to time, some more than 60 years
    All the post-war years developed the replacement, we most likely have binary ammunition ..
  22. clidon
    clidon 24 January 2014 18: 01
    0
    Wow "Coming to an end." Another 9 thousand tons.
  23. delfinN
    delfinN 24 January 2014 20: 47
    +1
    Quote: propolsky
    Only a small factory for production should stay and be ready to work ... Just in case of an attack of democracy in the world.

    Everything is correct. Let it produce some kind of urea for the collective farm "40 years without a crop", but the necessary lines must be preserved for the time being.
  24. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 24 January 2014 22: 32
    0
    I think a couple of factories will be smart enough to produce "new chemistry".
  25. 120352
    120352 25 January 2014 00: 05
    0
    We always do everything with the truth. We destroy means we destroy. But how are our "partners"? Will they forget what?