TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / 121691 / 1216000.000 next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 9KB | 185 lines

<text id=91TT2765> <title> Dec. 16, 1991: Soviet Nukes On the Loose </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991 Highlights The End of the Cold War </history> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1991 Dec. 16, 1991 The Smile of Freedom </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> WORLD, Page 40 PROLIFERATION Soviet Nukes On the Loose </hdr><body> As the Kremlin's power shrivels, the West worries about who has control of the disintegrating superpower's vast atomic arsenal By GEORGE J. CHURCH -- Reported by James Carney/Kiev, William Mader/London and Bruce van Voorst/Washington The idea once seemed terrifying: tens of thousands of nuclear weapons of every size and range, all under the control of a dictator in Moscow who could order them launched at will. Now that seems like the good old days. The world gradually came to trust whoever ruled in the Kremlin to exercise caution lest a nuclear war annihilate the Soviet Union along with the rest of the planet. But suppose the arsenal was so split up that no one would even know who might be able to order the detonation of how much of it. It could happen soon, and there are no precedents for dealing with that prospect; never before has a nuclear superpower disintegrated. The situation holds promise as well as threat. Four republics -- Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belorussia -- stand to inherit all the long-range strategic warheads and perhaps 90% of the tactical weapons. The republics talk of dismantling many of these arms; Ukraine and Belorussia insist they eventually want no nukes whatsoever on their soil. But it is by no means certain that the republics can agree, among themselves and with what remains of Mikhail Gorbachev's Kremlin government, on any program for actually achieving those aims before the momentum of dissolution leads to far different results: bitter squabbles over who controls the strategic weapons and a possible leakage of tactical warheads into irresponsible hands. Says Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee: "We are on the verge of either having the greatest destruction of nuclear weapons in the history of the world or the greatest proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and the scientific know-how to make these weapons." What most concerns many experts in Washington is that President Bush has dallied inexcusably in developing any strategy to use the potentially critical influence of the U.S. to push the republics in the right direction. The task will not wait. The Dec. 1 referendum in which Ukrainians voted 9 to 1 to make their country a fully sovereign, independent nation -- and in effect proclaimed the old Soviet Union dead -- is bringing the problem to a head. In the wake of the vote, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Anatoli Zlenko is reportedly proposing that the four nuclear republics set up a joint command over "the Soviet nuclear force" -- which might imply cutting Gorbachev out of the action entirely. It would also leave 1,300 tactical warheads in the hands of the other eight republics. Though Zlenko might be grandstanding, other Ukrainian leaders are using the nukes as a kind of diplomatic weapon. If Western powers want to see destruction of the bombs and missiles in Ukraine -- as called for by the START treaty and an exchange of pledges between Gorbachev and Bush on tactical arms -- well then, the Ukrainians hint, the West will have to grant diplomatic recognition, find some way of adding Ukraine to the START treaty and negotiate any further reductions with Kiev as well as Moscow. All this will surely complicate U.S. Senate hearings, beginning in late January, on ratification of the treaty. Ukraine's demands are likely to meet stiff resistance. The Soviet armed services, and specifically the Strategic Rocket Forces, are almost the only institution left in the country still operating under genuine central control. Eighteenth century Prussia, according to an old wisecrack, was not a country with an army but an army with a country. The Soviet Union today could almost be defined as an army without a country. Gorbachev and his generals will hardly be eager to see their control diluted. Before the referendum, in fact, the Soviet Defense Ministry pointedly told troops in Ukraine, including those controlling nuclear weapons, that whatever happened, they would remain under Moscow's command, not Kiev's. Russian President Boris Yeltsin, according to British diplomats, has already grabbed a share of control of strategic nuclear weapons. He supposedly has custody of the codes for arming the warheads, though Gorbachev would still have to give the order to launch the missiles. Yeltsin wants more; he has proposed that all the old union's nuclear weapons be put under Russian authority alone. Ukraine objects -- it wants warheads moved to Russia only for purposes of having them destroyed, and then only if the destruction is verified by international inspectors. Western experts do not doubt the sincerity of Ukraine and the other republics in wanting to carry out massive nuclear disarmament -- for the moment. Their fear is that minds might change in six months or so if no satisfactory arrangements for control can be worked out and if republic leaders become enamored of the diplomatic and political clout that possession of nukes confers. Ukraine and some other republics fear they will be unable to resist Russian domination if they turn over responsibility for any of their nuclear arsenal to Yeltsin's government. The danger would become greater still if military or right-wing coups overthrew the present Kremlin and republic leaders, as could happen if winter food and fuel shortages touch off street riots. Talk of just such a coup is rampant these days in Moscow. Even then, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney judges "remote" the likelihood of intercontinental ballistic missiles coming under the thumb of anyone who would fire them at the U.S. The real menace, most experts believe, is a breakdown of the command structure that would put the easily mobile tactical weapons into dangerous hands. These nukes -- artillery shells, warheads on short-range missiles, nuclear mines -- are much easier to seize than ICBMs stored in underground silos. Already the southern republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan have "nationalized" all military property on their soil, prompting Moscow to announce that the army would shoot to repel any seizure. Nonetheless, local riot police in Azerbaijan have hijacked some army trucks full of ammunition. It is not inconceivable that future raiders or army mutineers might grab some nukes. In addition, economic chaos has fostered a sell-anything-you-can-get-your-hands-on mentality in the Soviet military. It is only too possible that some commanders could peddle tactical nuclear arms to foreign governments or even terrorist gangs. Even now, says Vladlen Sirotikin, a Soviet historian and political columnist, "give me a million bucks, and I'll have a nuclear-tipped missile stolen for you and delivered anyplace you want." Another threat is that some Soviet atomic scientists and weapons designers, either already unemployed or about to lose their job, will sell their bomb-building skills to foreign countries eager to become nuclear powers. "Just half a dozen could make a crucial difference" to the weapons program of a Third World nation, says Michael Dewar, deputy director of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. The White House last week dispatched Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Niles to Ukraine to talk about nuclear weapons; Secretary of State James Baker will follow next week. But Niles was instructed only to listen and not to broach any new American ideas. Congress voted just before Thanksgiving to put up $400 million to help the U.S.S.R. and its republics dismantle nuclear weapons, but the Administration has yet to plan how it will disburse that drop in the bucket. Far more should be done, and urgently. The U.S. and its allies could make recognition of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics, and distribution of badly needed economic aid, conditional on a prompt agreement to maintain effective control of nuclear weapons. The West should then offer to pay for, and send experts to supervise, the disabling of as many weapons as the republics want to shed. Great masses of warheads could quickly be rendered harmless by removing their tritium bottles and krytron triggers. And the key is to move immediately. The forces of dissolution in the former Soviet Union are picking up startling momentum, and the West must not be lulled by the fact that for the moment, the nuclear warheads remain under the hands of relatively responsible leaders like Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk. That could change all too quickly -- and disastrously. </body></article> </text>