SS-24 intercontinental ballistic missiles, nicknamed by the West as ‘scalpels’, were the proud of the former Soviet Union, and the last word in its science and technology. Each of them was intended to deliver with surgical accuracy at a distance of ten thousand kilometers ten nuclear warheads, capable of reducing ten American cities to ashes. Forty-six such ‘scalpels’ used to be deployed on the territory of Ukraine’s 43^rd Strategic-Purpose missile Army.

    Soviet collapse, the end of the cold war, the wings of disarmament, and the proclamation by Ukraine of the nuclear-free status have fundamentally changed the destiny of the missilemen and the missiles as such. Now the missilemen are busy destroying the weapon of their own, with the money provided by the Americans due to Senators Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, who decided that the best contribution to US security would be funding for nuclear disarmament of former Soviet republics.

    In keeping with international accords, Ukraine has already eliminated all of the 130 liquid engine missiles SS-18, once deployed on its soil. Now ‘scalpels’ turn has come. The missiles have been planned for the storage and elimination in the town of Pavlohrad. But how safe that would be for a densely populated industrial center? The more so because residents in Pavlohrad have a quick remembrance of a missile stage that exploded at the city-based chemical plant, destroying a good third of its facilities. Is it any use standing the hazard again? In 1997, joint meeting of the Foreign and Defense Ministries made a decision to further keep SS-24 missiles at a Defense Ministry’s remote missile depot in the vicinity of the village of Mykhailenky. For details, the author addressed to Pavlohrad-based chemical plant director Leonid Shyman.

    CACDS: Why did it so happen that the plans had been changed as to missile storage and elimination?

Leonid Shyman: Before we entered that program (the point at issue is the Ukraine-USA Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program – author’s note signed over a year ago), elimination works had been mostly done by the 43-rd Army. They did so proceeding from their own criteria. Thus, in particular, an idea came to them to stockpile the missiles in Mykhailenky, where they had planned to build eight missile depots to stockpile missiles bodily for five-seven years after the expiration of their warranty period.

    The missiles were designed at Yuzhnoye missile design bureau, and produced and assembled at Pavlohrad’s chemical plant and engineering works respectively. We warned the military that missile stockpiling bodily represents a serious danger, and recommended that the missiles should be taken apart for their safe keeping util the missile elimination program comes to an end. We told the same to the Americans, and they agreed with us. Therefore the work to build missile storage facilities at Mykhailenky was put on hold. The effort is currently in progress to remove from the facilities the missiles already in safekeeping. The missiles should be taken apart as soon as possible for their subsequent storage in knocked-down form.

    CACDS: But no decision “in your favor" has ever been made…

    L.S.: The Government made the decision to ban [missile storage facility] construction in Mykhailenky way back in 1998, while the military bypassed the ban, arguing the Americans into investing in the storage facility building projects.

    CACDS: Is there any guarantee that safe keeping will be secured for the missiles at Pavlohrad?

    L.S.: There are certain operating rules and standards… We are planning to have knocked-down the missiles by the end of 2001. None of the missiles will be kept for longer than eight months following the expiration of the warranty period, which is clearly less than originally planned five-seven years. The missiles will be further kept at the storage facilities originally planned to be their production sites. We used to put out up to one hundred missiles per year. Now this figure fell down to a meager 54 missiles. The Yuzhnoye bureau and Pavlohrad’s engineering works, and the chemical plant have appropriate facilities and personnel to safely do that work.

    L.S. The reports were about the 46 missiles on combat alert. Add to that amount the missiles stockpiled in our storage facilities. We (the Pavlohrad's chemical plant), for instance, keep eight and a half knocked down missiles.

    CACDS: What happens to a missile after it is taken apart?

    L.S.: The military suggested that the missiles should be burned up. The program did originally provide for that. All of the 54 and a half missiles were to be burned up, like Russia is presently doing.

    CACDS: But Russia is doing so because that country does not have a technology to eliminate SS-24 solid fuel…

    L.S.: We have prepared a feasibility study of our own, which shows inadvisability of burning up the missiles. Our resolution for that problem consists in the manufacture of industrial explosives out of missile fuel, which would be friendly to the environment. In Kryvy Rih, for example, over 70,000 [metric] tons of explosives are set off every year. Pure shimose accounts for a half of that amount. A kilogram of shimose produces 800 liters of gas. So the 70,000 tons of explosives produce 2,500 billion cubic meters of various gases, 70 percent of which account for harmful ones, such as NO, CO, smut etc. If part of the shimose is replaced with an explosive made of missile fuel, then each explosion will produce 900 liters of gases, of which only 0.5 percent will be harmful.

    CACDS: Is that has been done in theory or in practice?

    L.S.: We conducted a year-long investigation on that problem on order from the US Defense Department. It must be noted for that matter that that country does not burn missiles either. They developed a technology to process missile fuel either into components of other types of missile fuel, or into industrial explosives. So we conducted that study to prepare a feasibility report, which, by the way, was approved of by the Ukrainian Government, the US Defense Department, and, finally, by the US Congress. The best argument in defense of our project to eliminate SS-24 solid engine missiles is the fact that the American Congress is planning to invest $20-25 million in that effort.

    CACDS: But the plan to stockpile attack missiles in Pavlohrad meets with a highly negative reaction of the city public. So it turns out that you have failed to talk them over…

    L.S. We and representatives of American companies have more than once invited them to discussion of the strategic missile elimination program. Despite that they remain very concerned about that prospect (to keep the missiles within the city), and their concerns are quite understandable. We told them that the programs to eliminate the missiles comply with Ukraine’s legislation on labor protection and protection of the environment. Representatives of the public will have the access to the projects to be executed here [in Pavlohrad].