Development

Belarus is a nuclear power. Nuclear powers and nuclear powerless people. What are the guarantees of non-use?

home

The list of nuclear powers in the world for 2019 includes ten main states. Information on which countries have nuclear potential and in what units it is expressed quantitatively is based on data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Business Insider.

Nine countries that are officially owners of weapons of mass destruction form the so-called “Nuclear Club”.
No data. First test:
No data. First test:

Last test: Today it is officially known which countries have nuclear weapons. And Iran is not one of them. However, he did not stop working on nuclear program

and there are persistent rumors that this country has its own nuclear weapons. The Iranian authorities say that they are quite capable of building it for themselves, but for ideological reasons they are limited only to the use of uranium for peaceful purposes.

2018 To the list of countries with nuclear weapon In 2019, to the great horror of the Western world, North Korea entered. Flirting with nuclear power in North Korea began in the middle of the last century, when Kim Il Sung, frightened by US plans to bomb Pyongyang, turned to the USSR and China for help. Nuclear weapons development began in the 1970s, but stalled with improvement political situation

in the 90s and naturally continued as it worsened. Already since 2004, nuclear tests have taken place in the “mighty, prosperous country.” Of course, as the Korean military assures, for purely harmless purposes - for the purpose of space exploration.

For now, Iran's use of nuclear power is under the control of the IAEA as a result of a 2015 agreement, but the status quo may soon be subject to change - in October 2017, Donald Trump said that the current situation no longer corresponds to US interests. How much this announcement will change the current political climate remains to be seen. 80
No data. Adding to the tension is the fact that the exact number of nuclear warheads in North Korea is unknown. According to some data, their number does not exceed 20, according to others, it reaches 60 units.
No data. Adding to the tension is the fact that the exact number of nuclear warheads in North Korea is unknown. According to some data, their number does not exceed 20, according to others, it reaches 60 units.

Israel has never said that it has nuclear weapons - but it has never claimed the opposite either. What adds piquancy to the situation is that Israel refused to sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Along with this, the “promised land” vigilantly monitors the peaceful and not so peaceful nuclear power of its neighbors and, if necessary, does not hesitate to bomb the nuclear centers of other countries - as was the case with Iraq in 1981. According to rumors, Israel has every opportunity to create nuclear bomb dating back to 1979, when light flashes suspiciously similar to nuclear explosions were recorded in the South Atlantic. It is assumed that either Israel, or South Africa, or both of these states together are responsible for this test.

Despite successfully detonating a nuclear charge back in 1974, India officially recognized itself as a nuclear power only at the end of the last century. True, having detonated three nuclear devices in May 1998, just two days after that India announced its refusal to further tests.

It is no wonder that India and Pakistan, having a common border and being in a state of permanent unfriendliness, strive to overtake and surpass their neighbor - including in the nuclear field. After the Indian bombing of 1974, it was only a matter of time before Islamabad developed its own. As the then Prime Minister of Pakistan said: “If India builds its own nuclear weapons, we will make ours, even if we have to eat grass.” And they did it, albeit twenty years late.

After India conducted tests in 1998, Pakistan promptly carried out its own, detonating several nuclear bombs at the Chagai test site.

Great Britain is the only country of the nuclear five that has not conducted tests on its territory. The British preferred to carry out all nuclear explosions in Australia and Pacific Ocean, however, since 1991 it was decided to stop them. True, in 2015, David Cameron gave in to the fire, admitting that England was ready to drop a bomb or two if necessary. But he didn’t say who exactly.

China is the only country that has committed not to launch (or threaten to launch) nuclear strikes on non-nuclear-weapon states. And at the beginning of 2011, China announced that it would maintain its weapons only at a minimum sufficient level. However, since then, China's defense industry has invented four types of new ballistic missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. So the question of the exact quantitative expression of this “minimum level” remains open.

In total, France conducted more than two hundred nuclear weapons tests - from an explosion in the then French colony of Algeria to two atolls in French Polynesia.

Interestingly, France has consistently refused to take part in the peace initiatives of other nuclear countries. She did not join the moratorium on holding nuclear tests in the late 50s of the last century, did not sign the treaty banning military nuclear tests in the 60s, and joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty only in the early 90s.

The country that has also been the first power to implement nuclear explosion, and the first and only one to date to use nuclear weapons in a combat situation. Since then, the United States has produced 66.5 thousand atomic weapons over 100 various modifications. The bulk of US nuclear weapons are ballistic missiles on submarines. Interestingly, the United States (like Russia) refused to participate in the negotiations on the complete renunciation of nuclear weapons that began in the spring of 2017.

US military doctrine states that America retains enough weapons to guarantee both its own security and the security of its allies. In addition, the United States promised not to strike non-nuclear states if they comply with the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

1. Russia

Russia inherited some of its nuclear weapons after the collapse of the USSR - existing nuclear warheads were removed from the military bases of the former Soviet republics. According to the Russian military, they may decide to use nuclear weapons in response to similar actions. Or in case of strikes with conventional weapons, as a result of which the very existence of Russia will be threatened.

Will there be a nuclear war between North Korea and the United States?

If at the end of the last century the main source of fears of a nuclear war was the strained relations between India and Pakistan, then the main horror story of this century is the nuclear confrontation between the DPRK and the United States. Threatening North Korea with nuclear strikes has been a good US tradition since 1953, but with the advent of the DPRK's own atomic bombs, the situation reached a new level. Relations between Pyongyang and Washington are tense to the limit. Will there be a nuclear war between North Korea and the United States? It is possible and will be if Trump decides that the North Koreans need to be stopped before they have time to create intercontinental missiles, which are guaranteed to reach the west coast of the world stronghold of democracy.

The United States has kept nuclear weapons near the borders of the DPRK since 1957. And a Korean diplomat says the entire continental US is now within range of North Korea's nuclear weapons.

What will happen to Russia if a war breaks out between North Korea and the United States? There is no military clause in the agreement signed between Russia and the DPRK. This means that when war starts, Russia can remain neutral - of course, strongly condemning the actions of the aggressor. In the worst case scenario for our country, Vladivostok could be covered with radioactive fallout from the destroyed DPRK facilities.

In Belarusian-Russian relations an unexpected new topic. WITH light hand Ambassador of Russia Alexander Surikov, the whole world today is talking about the possibility of posting in Belarus. In addition to the purely political aspect of this issue, there is also a technical issue. According to the Assistant Secretary of State Union State Russia and Belarus Ivan Makushok, it can be easily resolved.

“Belarusians have all the military infrastructure of the times in perfect condition. Warsaw Pact, up to launchers missiles with nuclear warheads that were taken to Russia after the collapse of the USSR,”- said Ivan Makushok in an interview "To Kommersant". Right hand Palych Borodin fell, maybe he knew better. But "Belarusian News" on the issue " perfect condition“We are ready to argue with a Union official about the necessary infrastructure.

In the last years of the USSR, there were three unit headquarters in Belarus missile forces special purpose(Strategic Missile Forces): in Lida, Pruzhany and Mozyr. Within a radius of several tens of kilometers from these places, Topol missile launchers with intercontinental ballistic missiles were based on automobile chassis. The chassis for the Topol type ICBM is produced by the Minsk Wheel Tractor Plant. The people are for them a large number of wheels are called "centipedes".

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, ensured 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, mostly at night, periodically moved to starting positions.

In total, there were 81 launch sites in Belarus. According to the 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. Current state the remaining sites are far from ideal, but they could still be used for launching missiles - if modern technologies they were not allowed to do without them.

But most of the bases for storing nuclear warheads are now in disrepair. Nuclear charges for carriers were stored separately on special mobile missile technical bases (PRTB), and access to such storage facilities was available to a very limited circle of military personnel directly involved in servicing these charges. Before use, they were transported in special containers to the carrier locations (airfields, missile and artillery bases).

According to former boss headquarters of the Belarusian Military District, and then - the first Minister of Defense of Belarus Pavel Kozlovsky, nuclear weapons storage facilities 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 it once stood military equipment, are now occupied by small wood processing 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 technical battery. There were several firing points nearby for security. PTB at military bases is traditionally the most protected facility.

Many of the buildings located there are now destroyed. In conversations with me local residents They were surprised when I mentioned the nuclear weapons they had close by. There is nothing strange in this: even among the military men who served here, only a few knew what was behind the powerful earthen rampart.

At the site 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 warhead storage base after assuming the post of chief of staff of the Belarusian Military District. The storage facility itself, according to him, was located on the territory of a military unit in a concrete bunker underground at a depth of 1.5 meters, and had protective systems, including a high-voltage barbed wire fence. Soldiers guarded the vault conscript service this part. The storage facility maintained a certain temperature and humidity regime. The charges were located on several racks: missile warheads on one side, artillery warheads on the other.

“Like young piglets in stalls,- this is how Pavel Kozlovsky describes his impressions of his first visit to the storage facility. - Sleek, clean, nuclear warheads stood in neat rows. It is often described in books that if you put your hand on a nuclear charge, you will feel the heat from the slow decay of plutonium or uranium. I also put my hand on the smooth side. I didn’t feel any heat - the cold steel of a very durable case. While in the vault, I felt the enormous power hidden in the steel “pigs”.

According to Pavel Kozlovsky, in the early 1990s, a trained group of terrorists like the Chechens could, if they wanted, seize one of the nuclear weapons storage facilities in Belarus. The possibility of a surprise attack by trained terrorists was not seriously considered at that time. Of course, the army conducted exercises to protect important military installations from possible sabotage groups. During such exercises, the security 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 expensive business. Nuclear weapons require regular inspections and Maintenance. Belarus does not have its own service specialists, 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 only be carried out under the conditions of the manufacturer. Transporting nuclear weapons 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, you will again 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, the security and alarm systems, air conditioning, and utility systems of warehouses were already outdated and required replacement. Replacing all of this would consume a huge amount of money.”

Nuclear weapons in the form of operational-tactical, tactical missiles, artillery shells and aerial 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 were withdrawn from Belarus only in 1996, when Russia prepared the necessary conditions for their placement.

According to Pavel Kozlovsky, the main reason why the Belarusian authorities decided to get rid of nuclear weapons in the early 1990s is economic: poor Belarus could not afford to maintain nuclear weapons.

photos at the location
mobile rocket-technical battery near Lepel
were made in winter.

As a response to nuclear shield, which the United States is going to deploy over Eastern Europe, Russia may place part of its nuclear facilities on the territory of Belarus. This statement was made today by the Ambassador Russian Federation in Belarus, Alexander Surikov, clarifying, however, that this depends “on the political integration of the two countries.” Previously, Alexander Lukashenko emphasized that he regrets the removal of nuclear facilities from the territory of the republic in the early 90s and that now he would act differently.

Russian Ambassador to Belarus Alexander Surikov did not rule out the deployment of new Russian military facilities in Belarus as a response to the deployment of the Eastern European missile defense system by the United States. Moreover, Surikov especially emphasized that he was talking “about objects related to nuclear weapons,” the Interfax agency reports.

The statement was made by Surikov today. “It all depends on the level of our political integration,” the ambassador clarified, as well as “on the opinions of experts, diplomats and military personnel: necessary, possible, when, how.”

The words of the Russian ambassador have already caused a significant stir in the Belarusian media, and a number of politicians (albeit former ones) hastened to comment.

Thus, in an interview with the Belarusian resource “Charter’97” former minister Defense of the Republic Pavel Kozlovsky stated that he personally does not understand “what Mr. Surikov is basing this on.”

"Relations between Russia and Belarus in Lately are only getting worse. There is obvious disintegration underway. I think that Lukashenko, despite his previous regrets about the withdrawal of nuclear missiles, is not interested in the deployment of Russian nuclear facilities,” Kozlovsky emphasized.

Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus Andrei Sannikov commented on the diplomat’s words in even harsher intonations: “Ambassador Surikov apparently forgot that he is not somewhere in the Altai Territory, but in independent Belarus. Such statements, firstly, are not typical of diplomats, and secondly, they can be regarded as an encroachment on the sovereignty of the state.”

According to Sannikov, Russian ambassador could hardly make such a statement without sanction Russian leadership, which means that these statements must be taken very seriously, “to the point of revising the status of Russian military facilities on the territory of Belarus.” His country, according to the former deputy minister, “is trying to be drawn into the newly emerging confrontation and arms race.”

"Russia in Once again confirms that it is a source of reduced security for an independent state, both energy and military,” notes Sannikov, who in the early 90s participated in negotiations on the withdrawal of nuclear facilities from Belarus.

Let us recall that in 1990–1991, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, on whose territory some of the USSR’s nuclear weapons were located, transferred them to the Russian Federation, and after signing the Lisbon Protocol in 1992, they were declared countries without nuclear weapons.

This protocol is an addition to the Soviet-American Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

Thus, Russia became the legal successor of the USSR, retained its status as a nuclear power, its place as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and assumed many common obligations with the union republics, including the payment of debts.

Subsequently, Alexander Lukashenko expressed regret that all missiles were removed from the territory of Belarus. Last year, he even suggested the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons if there was an immediate threat to the Union State.

He also emphasized that his country at one time, without any preconditions, renounced the possession of nuclear weapons. However, if the question of giving up nuclear weapons “had been raised now,” he “wouldn’t have done that.”

However, he also noted that “now there is no need to place tactical nuclear weapons in the first strike zone” and “there are enough necessary weapons in the Russian Federation, which, if necessary, can be used in Belarus.”

All these words were spoken by Alexander Lukashenko in June 2006, that is, before relations between the union republics became noticeably more complicated due to the “oil and gas war.”

Nuclear forces may be deployed in Belarus.

During the visit of the head of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation to Belarus, Sergei Shoigu and Andrei Ravkov touched upon the topic of strategic military partnership between the two countries. It was mainly about the implementation of the Joint Action Plan to ensure military security Union State.

The main issue concerned the deployment of American military personnel in Poland, in connection with which Belarus and Russia should take appropriate measures to ensure security.

“The Polish government’s plans to permanently station a division of the US Armed Forces on its territory are counterproductive and do not contribute to maintaining stability and strengthening regional security. In these conditions, we are forced to take retaliatory measures and must be ready to neutralize possible military threats in all directions.” , - said Sergei Shoigu.

However, according to experts, tension at the Belarusian border, as well as at the border of the Union State, will continue to grow, and therefore, nuclear weapons may be deployed on the territory of Belarus, however, such a measure is an extreme measure, and it will only be implemented if subject to strong military pressure from the West.

“The answer could be the transfer to Belarus of one or more operational-tactical brigades missile systems"Iskander" with which they are armed ground forces Russian Federation in the Western Military District, and perhaps in the Central Military District. At a speed of 70 kilometers per hour with a power reserve of a thousand kilometers, in 12-15 hours, Iskander complexes from the territory of the Western Military District can arrive on the territory of Belarus under their own power and can be prepared for firing within a few tens of minutes.<…>If this is not a temporary raid, but placement on a permanent basis, then hangars will be needed to accommodate military equipment, repair areas will be needed, and most importantly, a barracks fund to accommodate personnel. The rest of the infrastructure is present in Belarus, which provides ample room for maneuver.” , said military expert Alexander Alesin.

However, the likelihood that Belarus will take such measures remains almost unrealistic, which is due to the intentions of this state to maintain partnerships not only with Russia, but also with the West.

“Belarus is a peace-loving state that tries to remain aloof, exclusively within the limits of its interests. The authorities of this country understand perfectly well that if nuclear weapons appear on the territory of Belarus, and the Iskanders have the ability to use nuclear warheads, then western weapons will be aimed not only at Russia, but also at Belarus" , - the site analyst emphasizes.

IN last years The classification of secrecy was removed from several documents containing plans for a US attack on the Soviet Union using nuclear weapons. They meticulously calculated how many bombs needed to be dropped on each city in order to destroy the population and industry. Belarusian cities also came under attack. the site looked at declassified plans for nuclear strikes that could end the history of our country.

List of apocalypse

From a list of targets for nuclear strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union declassified by the American National Archives and Records Administration and of Eastern Europe It became known that a number of Belarusian cities came under attack. The document was drawn up by the command of the American strategic aviation in 1956 and contained 800 targets.

The list included “population” as one of the goals for each city. The primary task was to destroy the infrastructure air force enemy, including 1,100 airfields in Soviet bloc countries. And here many cities came under attack. Two of which - Bykhov and Orsha - were number one and two on the list.

The top twenty of the list also included objects in Bobruisk, Minsk (Machulishchi), Gomel (Pribytki). Belarusian airfields, according to the CIA report, were used to base M-4 and Tu-16 strategic bombers. These planes could not reach the territory of the United States, but they could strike 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 intercontinental strategic bombers B-52 Stratofortress stationed in the United States, and SM- strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles were to take part in the destruction of the USSR. 62 Snark.

Optimal 204 nuclear bombs

According to secret document on September 15, 1945, the Pentagon envisioned destroying the Soviet Union with a coordinated nuclear attack aimed at large urban areas, BusinessInsider reported.

A document was published on the website, from which the classification of secrecy was removed. The list of the largest cities in the USSR included 66 strategic targets. The Americans calculated the area of each city and the number of bombs needed to destroy it. For example, one was allocated to Minsk atomic bomb, they planned to drop six bombs 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 caused the immediate death of 100,000 people in the first seven seconds.

The USSR 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. Tensions in the confrontation between the USSR and the USA increased. In November 1979, President Jimmy Carter issued a directive allowing the country to enter into a long conflict with the USSR.

One of the main authors of Directive No. 59 was General William Odom, who in 1980 served as assistant to Presidential National Security Advisor 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 secret that its full contents at the time of its creation were not known even to many members of the Carter government.

Directive No. 59 is, in some way, a set of rules and principles providing for the procedure for entry and conduct nuclear war, the result of which was to cause significant damage to the economic power of the USSR, up to its complete destruction. This document also significantly expanded the powers American President under the threat of a nuclear conflict.

And although some members of the US National Security Council expressed their opposition to the inclusion of a preemptive clause in the directive nuclear strike By Soviet Union, it was also included in the final version of the document.

Millions could have died

According to one of the American plans for an attack on the USSR, 1,154 targets were subject to destruction, including on the territory of 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 select a nuclear charge power ranging from 50 Kt to 10 Mt and assess the extent of radioactive contamination and casualties. For example, if a 1Mt warhead struck Polotsk, 53.2 thousand people would be killed, and 38.3 thousand would be injured of varying degrees of severity.

The radius of destruction of a 1Mt warhead during an attack on Vitebsk.

In a strike on Bobruisk, the losses would have been 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 power of 1 Mt and were launched in the air, then the casualties in the USSR and allied countries would be 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 be injured and exposed to varying degrees of radiation.

What else to read

Sauerkraut - very tasty classic recipes for the winter The sauerkraut according to this recipe turns out very tasty, crispy, and also cooks quite quickly! Knead your hands...

Sauce for stewing dolma. White sauce for dolma. Video recipes for making dolma sauce The fact that in modern conditions we have the opportunity to turn to recipes from traditional cuisines of the world is undoubtedly...

Meat under a coat Pork under a potato coat Using the oven for different dishes (from main dishes to dessert) has many advantages. Firstly, the products preserve...