Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08GENEVA612
2008-07-26 12:38:00
SECRET
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

JCIC-XXXII: RUSSIAN NON PAPER ON B-1 CONVERSION,

Tags:  KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
O 261238Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6880
CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE
DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MINSK PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY
S E C R E T GENEVA 000612 


DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LUTI
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/26/2018
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ

SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXII: RUSSIAN NON PAPER ON B-1 CONVERSION,
JULY 24, 2008

Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, United States
Representative to the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).

S E C R E T GENEVA 000612


DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LUTI
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/26/2018
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ

SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXII: RUSSIAN NON PAPER ON B-1 CONVERSION,
JULY 24, 2008

Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, United States
Representative to the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is JCIC-XXXII-026.


2. (U) Paragraph 3 below contains the text of the official
translation of a Russian Non-Paper, dated July 24, 2008, on
the "U.S. Conversion of B-1 Heavy Bombers to a Non-Nuclear
Variant." The non-paper refers to photographs that were
taken during an inspection on January 19, 2008. The
photographs cannot be included in this reporting cable and
have been e-mailed to Washington (State/VCI/SI).


3. (S) Begin text:

Official Translation

Non-Paper of the
Russian Federation
July 24, 2008

On U.S. Conversion of B-1 Heavy Bombers to
a Non-Nuclear Variant
(Materials Presented by the Russian Side at the
Working Group Meeting on July 22, 2008, during JCIC-XXXII)

The Russian side is presenting the text of the briefing
on the topic of U.S. conversion of B-1 heavy bombers (HBs)
equipped for nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear
ALCMs into HBs equipped for non-nuclear armaments.

First, we consider it necessary to remind you of some of
the provisions of the Treaty and its associated documents and
then to assess the results of the inspections conducted under
Article XI, paragraph 8, of the Treaty.

We will begin by enumerating certain facts, which we
will take into account later on.

-- The conversion of heavy bombers is regulated by
the START Treaty, and in fulfillment of its
obligations under the Coordinated Statement of
March 24, 2004, the U.S. informed the Treaty

Parties of its plans to modify the pylon attachment
joints and its overall plans for conversion of
B-1 heavy bombers (Russia received this document,
No. MFA/140/07 from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow,
on November 2, 2007).

-- The Conversion or Elimination Protocol and the
Inspection Protocol provide for verification
(through inspections under Article XI, paragraph 8,
of the Treaty) of compliance with the terms and
the declared conversion procedures.

We will respond to the following questions: what is the
(begin underline) objective of, and what are the terms and
procedures for (end underline) conversion?

Declared U.S. Objective (underlined).

To convert a B-1 heavy bomber equipped for nuclear
armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs into a heavy
bomber equipped for non-nuclear armaments.

Terms. (underlined)


The first and most important one is set forth in Section
VI, paragraph 11, of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol:
"A heavy bomber must be converted so that (begin underline)
it is no longer (end underline) equipped for nuclear
armaments."

Important Point. (underlined)

Russia proceeds from the understanding that the words
(begin underline) "is no longer equipped" (end underline)
mean that it will be impossible in the future to change the
conversion objective that has been achieved (i.e. to return
the bomber to its former status).

The (begin underline) conversion procedures (end
underline) (Section VI, paragraph 11, of the Conversion or
Elimination Protocol) stipulate that all weapons bays
equipped for nuclear armaments shall be modified so as to
render them incapable of carrying nuclear armaments. All
external attachment joints for nuclear armaments and all
external attachment joints for pylons for nuclear armaments
shall be removed or modified so as to render them incapable
of carrying nuclear armaments.

The conversion procedures are defined and declared by
the U.S. in the relevant notifications.

Verification that these declared procedures have been
carried out is provided by the relevant type of inspection
(Article XI, paragraph 8, of the START Treaty).

Let's look at the results of the inspections conducted
and assess them from the standpoint of the possibility of
verifying and confirming that the procedures and terms for
conversion have been carried out and that the ultimate
objective of the conversion has been achieved.

Using as an example the first inspection, which took
place on January 19, 2008, we will look at the results
obtained. The results of all of the subsequent ten
inspections of converted B-1 HBs were analogous.

Let's recall the salient points from the pre-inspection
procedures. The U.S. escorts declared the modification of
the weapons bays and pylon attachment joints and listed
additional arguments confirming, in the inspected Party's
view, the non-nuclear status of the B-1 heavy bomber:

- the B-1 heavy bomber has not carried nuclear weapons
since 1997;

- the infrastructure of B-1 bases does not support the
maintenance of nuclear weapons;

- software for nuclear weapons is not supported on the
B-1 heavy bomber;

- flight and technical staff are not being trained in
the use and maintenance of nuclear weapons.

Clearly, none of the information listed can be used in
the context of the START Treaty provisions.

In this connection, the Russian inspection team leader
stated that these additional arguments had nothing to do with
the START Treaty provisions and asked the following question:


will the elements removed from the B-1 heavy bomber be
presented to the inspection team?

The answer to this question was: no, they will not, and
all the removed elements have been eliminated.

Let's turn to the official inspection report.

Ambiguity No. 1. (underlined)

The inspected Party declared that two objects which it
considers to be cable connectors for nuclear armaments had
been removed from each of the weapons bays, i.e. the forward,
middle and aft weapons bays. The objects removed were not
presented to the inspecting Party. It is not clear to the
inspecting Party whether and where these objects were removed
and whether this procedure is consistent with the objective
stipulated in Section VI, paragraph 11, of the Conversion or
Elimination Protocol.

Photograph reflecting Ambiguity No. 1.

(Photograph in Russian text.)

The inspectors saw that in the location of two cable
connectors there were cannon plugs glued on. The cable
connectors that had been removed were not presented (i.e. the
inspectors did not have an opportunity to reliably confirm
the fact of their removal). The cable network that goes to
the box on which the connectors are located remained
unchanged (this is evident if one compares the photographs of
the forward weapons bay of the B-1 heavy bomber equipped for
nuclear armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMs),which
is illustrated by the photograph (all cables are in place).

The inspectors observed the very same situation in the
middle and aft weapons bays.

(Two photographs in Russian text.)

The cable network also remained unchanged. As before, a
multipurpose rotary launcher, which, in turn, is capable of
carrying nuclear aerial bombs, can be placed in the weapons
bays.

Results of declared conversion of the three weapons
bays: (underlined)

Taking into account that:

- the cable network in the weapons bays was unchanged;

- it was not shown how the cables attached to the
connector box terminated;

- the removed connectors for nuclear armaments were not
presented; and

- the possibility remains for installing a rotary
launcher capable of carrying nuclear weapons in the weapons
bays, the inspectors concluded that the modification of the
weapons bays carried out by the U.S. does not meet the
requirements of Section VI, paragraph 11, of the Conversion
or Elimination Protocol and that (begin underline, bolded
text. for the heavy bomber bays the objective of the
conversion was not achieved. (end underline, bolded text)


This has prompted the Russian Federation's concern, i.e.
that the modification of the weapons bays should be (begin
underline. more thorough and irreversible. (end underline;
para in bold text.)

In the U.S. response of May 28, 2008, to Russia's
Aide-Memoire of February 15, 2008, the U.S. informed us that
such modification of the weapons bays (which consists in
using cannon plugs to "seal" the sockets for the cable
connections) ensures they are "unsuited for the (begin
underline. operational deployment end underline.) of nuclear
armaments." Let's recall that the Treaty does not contain
the concept, the term, or the criteria (including time
criteria) for operational deployment of nuclear armaments.

Let's turn to the pylon attachment joints.

Ambiguity No. 2. (underlined)

The inspected Party stated that objects which it
considers to be collet receptacles for nuclear armaments were
removed from the forward and aft pylon attachment joints.
The objects removed were not presented to the inspecting
Party. It is not clear to the inspecting Party whether and
where these objects were removed and whether this procedure
meets the objective stipulated in Section VI, paragraph 11,
of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol.

The inspection team was shown the forward attachment
joint, as follows.

(Photograph in Russian text.)

The inspection team was faced with the following
question: was it modified?

As you know, in the past the inspectors never observed
an attachment joint prior to modification (it was closed off
by covers). Now the removed elements are not being presented
to the inspectors for purposes of comparison. That is a
statement of fact.

Question. On the basis of what can the inspection team
conclude that this joint is not compatible with a nuclear
ALCM pylon? It would seem that there is no basis for doing
so. In this connection, the inspection team declared
Ambiguity No. 2.

In addition, it should be noted that on July 10, 2008,
the Russian Federation conducted an inspection at
Davis-Monthan under Article XI, paragraph 3, of the Treaty.
From the results of that inspection, it was found that on one
B-1 heavy bomber (No. 84055) equipped for nuclear armaments
(which had been partially disassembled) one pylon attachment
joint for long-range nuclear ALCMs was in plain view. The
Russian inspectors were surprised that it looked (begin
underline. exactly the same as the modified forward
attachment joint. (end underline)

Ambiguity No. 3 concerns the aft pylon attachment joints.

The inspected Party presented the aft pylon attachment
joints to the inspecting Party with cylindrical metal sleeves
welded to the inside wall of the well. However, it is not
clear to the inspecting Party how this procedure corresponds
to the objective stipulated in Section VI, paragraph 11, of
the Conversion or Elimination Protocol.


Let's look at the photograph taken by the inspectors.

(Photograph in Russian text.)

(begin underline) In the past (end underline) the
inspectors (begin underline) never observed (end underline)
the "old" joints, and photographs of them were not provided
to the Treaty Parties. The collet receptacles that were
declared to have been removed were not presented. It is not
clear that the welded sleeve precludes the possibility of
attaching a pylon for nuclear ALCMs.

In notification ANC/STR 08-53/90 of January 26, 2008,
the U.S. stated (begin bold type) "that all the attachment
joints have been changed so as to be incompatible with
long-range nuclear ALCM pylons, but this was not demonstrated
either during the HB exhibition or during conversion
inspections." (end bold type) (Translator's Note:
Retranslation from Russian.)

The inspection team did not confirm that the objective
of conversion had been achieved as regards the pylon
attachment joints.

The circumstances listed do not allow the inspectors at
each conversion inspection to confirm the fact that a B-1
heavy bomber has been converted to a non-nuclear variant.

The inspection report (summary comments): "The
inspecting Party did not confirm the fact that the inspected
Party had completed the procedures for conversion of the B-lB
heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments other than
long-range nuclear ALCMs into a heavy bomber equipped for
non-nuclear armaments because, in the inspecting Party's
view, the modification of the weapons bays and external pylon
attachment joints that was carried out (begin underline) is
not sufficient (end underline) to render them (begin
underline) incapable of carrying nuclear armaments." (end
underline)

For the above reasons, the inspected Party's answers
contained in the reports of conversion inspections and in the
U.S. paper of May 28, 2008, (begin underline) cannot satisfy
(end underline) the Russian side.

Thus, the Russian side (begin underline) has the
following concern: (end underline) (begin bold text) "The
procedures declared by the U.S. for conversion of a B-1 heavy
bomber to a non-nuclear variant do not conform to the
requirements of the Conversion or Elimination Protocol. The
Russian Federation believes that after conversion the B-l is
still capable of carrying nuclear armaments." (end bold text)

End text.


4. (U) Taylor sends.
TICHENOR


NNNN




End Cable Text