472 



76 



NATIONAL AFFAIRS 



FBIS-SOV.90-138 

 18 Jnly 1990 



miliiary reform is not taken into consideration. The 

 impression is that some people are obviously carried 

 away with the very process of putting fonwrd difreren> 

 proposals on miliiary reform. We. on the other han 

 believe that a more fruitful course is to adopt, in paranel 

 with the theoretical elaboration of all aspects of miliary 

 building, measures to implement these proposals. 



In this sense miliury reform is already a reality.'' 

 fundamentally new defensive grouping of our troops^ 

 within Soviet borders is being consistently created. 

 Twenty-one combined arms divisions as well as a 

 number of formations and units of other branches of the 

 Armed Forces and categories of troops have been dis- 

 banded. As for the miliury budget and the preparation 

 and discussion in organs of sute power of the program 

 for conversion and the renewal of the composition of the 

 Ministry of Defense leadership, these problems are also 

 today at the suge of practical solution. The. number of 

 control organs has decreased by 20 to 60 percent. More 

 Ihan 400 defense complex enterprises and 100 civilian 

 installations producing military output have undergone 

 conversion. The total savings in expenditure on defense 

 in the current five-year period with regard to the ratified 

 plan amounts to almost R30 billion. A system of contract 

 manpower acquisition for the Army and Navy is being 

 investigated. Surely all this cannot be classed as "cos- 

 metic changes"? 



We believe that the letterwriters have not managed to 

 protect the Army. The contrary is the case: By specu- 

 lating on real army pains and problems, they are willy- 

 oilly whipping up anti-Army hystena in society. 



So who will actually protect the Army? 



(Signed] USSR People's Deputies: E. Vorobyev. N. Kali- 

 nin. A. Kolinichenko. A. Kostenko. A. Makashov. N. 

 Moiseyev. N. Morozov. V. Osipov, S. Postnikov. B. 

 Pyankov. V. Semenov, M. Surkov 



RSFSR People's Deputies: V. Achalov. A. Voronln. A. 

 Kovtunov. I. Rymorov, V. Tarasov. 



Belorussian People's Deputy V. Dubynin 



28th CPSU Congress Delegates: A. Adivenov. V. 

 Arkhipov. B. Baranov. M. Belov. M. Burlanov. N. 

 Bykov. Ye. Vysoiskiy. S. Grechin. A. Demin. P. Deyane- 

 Bin. G. DonsKoy. V. Yefanov. Ye. Zarudnev. V. Zimin. 

 O. Zinchenko. G. Karunin. A. Kameneukiy. V. Karpov. 

 V. Kirilin. P. Kozlovskiy. P. Krasnov. V. Kremlev. V. 

 Kuznetsov. A. Lebed. N. Makarov. A. Makunin. N. 

 Maryashin, A. Maslov. Ye. Mikulchik. A. Novikov. V. 

 Novikov. V. Novozhilov. V. Ognev. I. Oleynik. F. Orlov. 

 V. Plekhanov. V. Rodin. V. Ryzhov. A. Saushin. V. 

 Safronov. a. Sibilev. V. Snetkov. C. Stogradskiy. A. 

 Stolyarov, I. Uriin. V. Filatov. S. Cheryukanov. A. 

 Chumakov. Ye. Shaposhnikov. B. Sharikov. V. Shary- 

 gin. 



Acadcmics:_y._Davydov. A. Kuzncisov. A. Kumsevich. 

 -A_Mcshchcryakov. V. Puzik. Yc. Rybkin. A. Sivachcv! 

 L. Ushakov. A. Shurygin. 



Assurances on Safety of Ni 



PMI707IJOJ90 Moscow IZl'Ei 

 17 Jul W Morning Eitilion p 6 



lear Subs Doubted 

 'lYA in Russian 



[Open letter to Fleet AdmirtI V.N. Chemavm. com- 

 ^— inder in chief of the Na*V. from V. Perovskiy. former 

 comrWand tr o f th e stlfvivability division of ihe Lenin- 

 skiy Komsomol, the first Soviet nuclear submarine. 



under the rubric "Follow-Up": "Danger 



Reactor!" — first paragraph is editorial introduction! 



[Text] IZVESTIYA (No. 166) published a piece about 

 the protests of residents of the city of Sovetskaya Gavan 

 at the Pacific Reet command's plans to unload spent 

 nuclear fuel from obsolete submarines in Postovaya Bay. 

 The commentary by Rcet Adm. V.N. Chemavin was 

 patently reassuring but. as subsequent events have 

 shown, did not eliminate the tension in Sovetskaya 

 Gavan. Moreover, there is also a difTereni view regarding 

 the safety of the nuclear submarine fleet. The letter that 

 we are publishing is about this. 



Esteemed Vladimir Nikolayevich! I undersund the sheer 

 delicacy of a situation in which a civilian ventures to give 

 advice to the top man in the country's Navy. Neverthe- 

 less, exceptional circumsunces prompt me. a reserve 

 officer, to address you in precisely that way because the 

 matters discussed in the IZVESTIYA piece— it talked 

 about safety in exchanging the charge of reactors in our 

 nuclear submarines — were for a long time pari of my 

 official duties in more than 25 years' service in the 

 Northern Reet. So I have a few remarks about your 

 commentary. 



Though you rightly speak of many years of experience of 

 operating nuclear submarine reactors, you fail to men- 

 tion that this experience has been paid for with people's 

 lives and losses of ships and. sad to say. is still being paid 

 for to this day. 



It is very difficult to agree that techniques for recharging 

 reactors are well organized and backed up with the 

 necessary resources. If they are organized, it is only in 

 the worst possible way and they are based solely on the 

 selflessness of officers and the patience of sailors. The 

 technological modus operandi laid down in I9S9-1960 is 

 totally obsolete. It is absurd, wasteful, and scarcely 

 capable of ensuring an appropriate standard of work in 

 the future. 



As for the technical equipment, there is always a disas- 

 trous shortage of it. Recharging equipment has remained 

 fundamentally unchanged (or decades and. sad to say. 

 the chief protagonist when cores are being removed from 

 reactors remains the sailor with a sledgehammer. 



Great hopes were pinned on the new technical support 

 and depot ships. However, the unpreparedness of the 



