Sarov
Gymnazia ¹2
The topic of project:
Nuclear
Weapons
and
Nonproliferation.
Student:
Teacher:
Denis Smetnyov
Yelena Chelakova
10 “A” grade
2006
Benchmark
I.
Part I.
The scientific definition of “nuclear weapon” that I
found is the following:
“Nuclear weapon is a blast weapon grounded on
application of intranuclear energy, freed at chain reaction of division of
high-gravity cores (atomic weapon) or thermonuclear reaction of synthesizing of
mild cores (hydrogenous or thermo-nuclear weapons).”
Thus,
all nuclear weapons can be grouped in one class. But, there is a large gap
between, for example, atomic bombs and thermonuclear bombs. They may have
different power, various levels of radiation and some other characteristics.
So, I can name several types of nuclear weapons that exist today. Each of them
is the most destructive power in the world. They are:
Fission
Weapons
These
are probably the most simplistic nuclear weapons in terms of design and build.
Pure fission weapons are ones that use just a fission reaction rather than a
combination reaction of fission and fusion. A fission reaction is the splitting
of an atomic nucleus, which then results in massive energy release. Fission
weapons also provide the fundamental design for more advanced weapons. These
fission weapons can be both tactical and strategic.
Boosted
Fission Weapons
This
type of nuclear weapon uses a combination of fission and fusion, thus
increasing the energy and power of the weapon. The fusion reaction increases
the speed at which fission takes place, and increases the effectiveness of the
weapon. The increase in energy and efficiency means that these weapons are also
lighter as well as more powerful than pure fission weapons.
Thermonuclear
Weapons
Also
known as a hydrogen bomb, this type of weapon also deploys a combination of
fission and fusion. A fission reaction is used to trigger the fusion reaction,
which provides the majority of the power and energy of this weapon.
Thermonuclear weapons are the most powerful nuclear weapons.
Enhanced
Radiation Weapons
This
type of weapon is also known as a neutron bomb, and is smaller type of
thermonuclear weapon which produces high levels of nuclear radiation.
There
are also some nuclear device ideas that have been discussed and researched but
have not yet been built as far as I know. These include:
Salted
Nuclear Weapons
Also
known as a cobalt bomb, this type of weapon is also thermonuclear and is
designed to produce intense radiation at long lasting and high levels. This
type of weapon is also known as a doomsday device as it could wipe out the
population of the planet. Salted nuclear weapons would cause mass destruction
and the effects of such a device would last for far longer than those of an
unsalted nuclear device.
Pure
Fusion Weapons
This
type of weapon is still undergoing research, and the idea is to create a
nuclear device that does not require any fission at all, relying instead on
pure fusion. These weapons, if created, will have very high levels of energy
and will be able to wipe out cities through the force of the explosion and
nuclear radiation.
Whether used for tactical or strategic warfare, all of
these nuclear devices harness vast amounts of energy and power that can wipe
out anything from a small village to the entire population of the planet. That’s
why it’s quite easy to understand that any nation wishes to have such kind of
weapon for many purposes, such as winning the war or local conflict, gaining
influence in international community, simple defence.
Modern bombs have more in common with airplanes and
rockets than with simple bombs. It is a large system, every component should work properly.
The main sub-systems of a bomb are made in various places and their collapsing
is running in other places, like manufacturing cars.
To
successfully blast a bomb, it ought to have devices capable of doing the
following:
- Generating energy;
- Initiating of
chemical blasting components;
- Blasting;
- Preventing from
occasional blasts;
- Targeting;
- Stabilizing.
A
lot of mechanic and electrical mechanisms provide these actions.
Other
important and necessary parts are chemical fuel and nuclear (thermonuclear) fuel.
All
these materials and sub-systems are located in a ballistic body and are
connected with each other.
There are two possible ways of detonating nuclear
fuel: gun method and implosion one. In the first method one subcritical mass of
fissionable material would be fired as a projectal at a target consisting of
another subcritical mass of fissionable material. When projectile met target,
the two together would constitute a supercritical mass. The other assembly
method is implosion, in which a slightly subctitical mass of fissionable
material is surrounded by high explosives. When these explosives are detonated,
they compress the fissionable material, thereby increasing its density, thus
rendering it supercritical.
Not less important part of an airbomb is its tale that
provides a falling object with stability. There may also be a parachuting
system to provide greater accuracy during targeting.
Now I can paint a schematic model of a bomb, for
example, a thermonuclear one.
|
Device |
Where
will obtain? |
|
Tale,
body |
Carbuilding
company; |
|
Parachuting
system |
Parachuting
company; defence country complex; |
|
Neutron
generator, reflector |
Devicebuilding
company; electro-mechanic company |
|
Plutonium,
nuclear fuel, heavy water |
Research
and power reactors; black market |
|
U-235 |
Enrichment
facilities; from abroad |
Bombs are mainly using U-235 and Pu-239. There are
different ways to produce them:
Gaseous
diffusion process
Commercial
uranium enrichment was first carried out by the diffusion process in the USA.
It has since been used in Russia, the UK, France, China and Argentina as well.
Today only the USA and France use the process on any significant scale. At
present the gaseous diffusion process accounts for about 40% of world
enrichment capacity. However, though they have proved durable and reliable,
most gaseous diffusion plants are now nearing the end of their design life and
the focus is on centrifuge enrichment technology which seems likely to replace
them.
Centrifuge
process
The
gas centrifuge process was first demonstrated in the 1940s but was shelved in
favor of the simpler diffusion process. It was then developed and brought on
stream in the 1960s as the second-generation enrichment technology. It is
economic on a smaller scale. It has been deployed at a commercial level in
Russia and in Europe by Urenco, an industrial group formed by British, German
and Dutch companies. Russian four plants at Seversk, Zelenogorsk, Angarsk and
Novouralsk account for some 40% of world capacity. Urenco operates enrichment
plants in UK, Netherlands and Germany and is participating in a proposal for
one in the USA.
Laser
processes
Laser
enrichment processes have been the focus of interest for some time. They are a
possible third-generation technology promising lower energy inputs, lower capital
costs and lower tails assays, hence significant economic advantages. None of
these processes is yet ready for commercial use, though one is well advanced.
Enrichment
of reprocessed uranium
In
some countries ( Dessel plant, Belgium, Marcoule plant, France, Sellafield
plant, the UK) spent fuel is reprocessed to recover its uranium and plutonium,
and to reduce the final volume of high-level wastes. The plutonium is normally
recycled promptly into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, by mixing it with depleted
uranium.
Ttoday world tries to refuse from using nuclear
weapons for military purposes and agreed not to proliferate nuclear weapon
technology and nuclear materials for bombs. That is why if country still wishes
to have an atomic bomb, it ought to solve a lot of problems, political and
material. And the first of them is gaining the necessary nuclear materials.
The enrichment problem appears to be quite important,
I think. A
lot of countries have nuclear plants to achieve the needed materials for their
reactors, but no one is sure that it would not use them for military purposes.
I see one way to prevent countries from making up the bomb on their own: making
nuclear fuel should be taken out of the hands of individual nations and put
into multilateral groups in order to keep countries from secretly developing
atomic weapons. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), says quite the same. The world cannot continue allowing
countries to develop the ability to make nuclear fuel that can also be used to
make atomic bombs, ElBaradei told AFP in an interview in January, 2005.
"We just cannot continue business as usual that every country can build
its own factories for separating plutonium or enriching uranium. Then we are
really talking about 30, 40 countries sitting on the fence with a nuclear
weapons capability that could be converted into nuclear weapons in a matter of
months," ElBaradei said. (AFP Feb. 23, 2005).
So,
today a fuel problem for a country wishing to have nuclear weapons may turn to
be an unsolvable one. Also, a lot of technological problems should be solved as
well. But few existing countries will help because most of them have accepted
non-proliferation treaties since 1970 and aim to refuse from nuclear power.
The
fact of possessing nuclear weapons, I think, divides the world into three
parts: nuclear countries, nuclear capable states and suspected nuclear states.
Nuclear
states:
The United
States (1) developed the first atomic weapons during World War II out of the
fear that Nazi Germany would first develop them. It tested its first nuclear weapon
in 1945 ("Trinity"), and remains the only country to have used
nuclear weapons against another nation, during the atomic bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki (see: Manhattan Project). It was the first nation to develop the
hydrogen bomb, testing it ("Ivy Mike") in 1952 and a deployable
version in 1954 ("Castle Bravo"). As of January 2006, the U.S.
stockpile contains almost 10,000 nuclear warheads. This includes 5,735 active
or operational warheads: 5,235 strategic and 500 non-strategic warheads.
Approximately 4,225 additional warheads are held in the reserve or inactive
stockpiles, some of which will be dismantled. Under plans announced by the
Energy Department in June 2004 (and possibly revised in spring 2005), some 4,365
warheads are scheduled to be retired for dismantlement by 2012.
The USSR
(2) tested its first nuclear weapon ("Joe-1") in 1949, in a crash
project developed partially with espionage obtained during and after World War
II (see: Soviet atomic bomb project). The direct motivation for their weapons development
was the development of a balance of power during the Cold War. It tested a
primitive hydrogen bomb in 1953 ("Joe-4") and a megaton-range
hydrogen bomb in 1955 ("RDS-37"). After its dissolution in 1991, its
weapons entered officially into the possession of 
Russia. Russia has approximately
7,200 operational nuclear warheads in its active arsenal.
The United
Kingdom (3) tested its first nuclear weapon ("Hurricane") in 1952,
drawing largely on data gained while collaborating with the United States
during the Manhattan Project. Its program was motivated to have an independent
deterrence against the USSR, while also remaining relevant in Cold War Europe.
It tested its first hydrogen bomb in 1957. Judjing by official numbers, the UK
posseses “less than 200 warheads” today. Since Britain withdrew its last WE177
gravity bomb from service in March 1998, it has relied on a single nuclear
weapon system, its fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines
(SSBNs), and their accompanying Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles
(SLBMs). Though the fleet is expected to be in operation until 2020 or beyond,
attention is now turning to the question of whether Britain requires a new
generation of nuclear weapons. The debate is in its early stages, but it has
already proved contentious.
France (4)
tested its first nuclear weapon in 1960, also as an independent deterrence and
to retain perceived Cold War relevance (Force de frappe). It tested its first hydrogen bomb
in 1968. France has near 350 operational warheads today.
The
People's Republic of China (5) tested its first nuclear weapon in 1964, much to
the surprise of Western intelligence agencies. It had long sought assistance in
becoming a nuclear power from an uneasy USSR, but assistance stopped after the
Sino-Soviet split and the weapon was developed as a deterrent against both the
USA and the USSR. It tested its first hydrogen bomb in 1967. The country is
currently thought to have had a stockpile of 400 warheads since the early
1980s, though with considerably fewer than this actually deployed. China
operates approximately 120 ballistic missiles of four types: the DF-3A, DF-4,
DF-5/5A, and DF-21A. Each missile carries a single nuclear warhead.
India (6)
tested a "peaceful nuclear device", as it was described by their
government, in 1974 ("Smiling Buddha"), the first test developed
after the creation of the NPT, and created new questions about how civilian
nuclear technology could be diverted secretly to weapons purposes (dual-use
technology). It
appears to have been primarily motivated as a deterrent against China. It
tested weaponized nuclear warheads in 1998 ("Operation Shakti"), and
also claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb (though the truth of this is
debated). In July 2005 it was officially recognized by the United States as a
"responsible nuclear" state and agreed to full nuclear cooperation
between the two nations. This is seen as an "official" entry into the
nuclear club of the above nations. India is in the process of becoming a
full-fledged nuclear power with a wide variety of weapon systems deployed
within three branches of the armed services. India's emerging triad of nuclear
forces consists of the army's land-based ballistic missiles, the air force's
air-delivered weapons, and the navy's sea-based surface-launched ballistic
missiles, which may soon be deployed on its warships. The government of Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh appears committed to continuing the policies of the
previous government, which saw Pakistan and China as the main drivers for
India's nuclear development, though national prestige may also be a factor.
Pakistan
(7) covertly developed its nuclear weapons over many decades, with active
Chinese assistance, beginning in the late 1970's, and tested its first fission
devices in 1998. It
seems to have been motivated primarily in creating a deterrence against India.
The country's proliferation record is gravely suspect. The chief scientist who
worked on the Pakistani bomb, A.Q. Khan, confessed in 2004 to illicitly
distributing nuclear-enabling technology to many other countries, including
Iran, Libya and North Korea. It is extremely difficult to estimate the number
and types of nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal. Outside experts estimate
the country has between 24 and 48 nuclear weapons. The weapons are based on an
implosion design that uses a solid core of highly enriched uranium, requiring
an estimated 15--20 kilograms per warhead. Seismic measurements of the tests
conducted on May 28 and 30, 1998, suggest that the yields were on the order of
9--12 kilotons and 4--6 kilotons respectively, lower than Islamabad announced.
Chinese tests in the 1960s used similar designs, and it is suspected that the
Chinese assisted Pakistan's program in the 1970s and 1980s. Its nuclear ambitions
turn to be very dangerous, because Pakistan didn’t sign the NPT and may provide
nuclear technologies for non-nuclear states (as it happened in North Korea, as
suspected), thus violating non-proliferation.
These
countries really have nuclear weapons and can use it for their purposes, they
investigate “plans of attack” and eager to use their power if necessary. This
fact places them quite higher that other states, because one should think
carefully before affecting them in one way or another.
Countries
believed to have at least one nuclear weapon, or programs with a realistic
chance of producing nuclear weapons in the nearest future, so becoming a part
of a nuclear community:
Israel (1)
- Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to
officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed
nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims
that Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on
work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the
program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986.
Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and
launch sites in satellite photographs. It is suspected to possess nuclear
weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a
nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979 (Vela Incident). According to
the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American
Scientists, they may possess 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them
above the median in the list.
Iran (2) -
Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and says its interest in
nuclear technology, including enrichment, was for civilian purposes only, but
the CIA claim this to be a cover for a nuclear weapons program. The former Iranian Foreign
Minister Kamal Kharrazi stated on the intentions of his country's nuclear
ambitions: "Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized
by the international community as a member of the nuclear club. This is an
irreversible path."
North
Korea (3) - On January 10, 2003 North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. In February 2005 they claimed to possess functional
nuclear weapons, though their lack of a test has led many experts to question
whether or not they have a working weapon. They have recently a treaty with the
United States, promising to give up all of the supposed nuclear weapons and
programs.
Ukraine
(4) - signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine inherited about 5,000
nuclear weapons when it became independent from the USSR in 1991, making its
nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world . It transferred all of these to
Russia by 1996. However recent news has surfaced that
due to a clerical error, Ukraine may still possess several hundred warheads
which were not accounted for in the armaments repatriation move 14 years ago.
In any case, even if Ukraine does possess these weapons, they are technically
missing and not in a deployed state or any part of Ukraine's defense posture.
Virtually
any industrialized nation today has the technical capability to develop nuclear
weapons within several years if the decision to do so were made. Nations
already possessing substantial nuclear technology and arms industries could do
so in no more than a year or two, perhaps even as fast as a few months or
weeks, if they so decided to. The larger industrial nations (Japan and Germany,
for example) could, within several years of deciding to do so, build arsenals
rivaling those of the states that already have nuclear weapons. This list below
mentions some notable capabilities possessed by certain states that could
potentially be turned to the development of nuclear arsenals. It should also be
noted that this list represents only strong nuclear capability, not that any
political will to develop such weapon would exist. All of the listed countries
signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Canada (1)
- Canada has a well developed nuclear technology base and large uranium
reserves. While
Canada has the technological capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, there is
no hard evidence they have done so, nor has Canada ever shown the intention to
join the nuclear club outright. Canada has been an important contributor of
both expertise and raw materials to the American program. Canada accepted
having American nuclear warheads under dual key control on Canadian soil in
1963 to be used on the Canadian BOMARC missiles. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
declared Canada would be a nuclear weapon free country in 1971, and the last
American warheads were withdrawn in 1984. Before this time Canada also carried
a compliment of AIR-2 Genie nuclear tipped air to air missiles.
Japan (2)
- While Japan has no political will for the acquisition of nuclear weapons, the
country does make extensive use of nuclear energy in nuclear reactors,
generating a significant percentage of the electricity in Japan. Japan has the third
largest nuclear energy production after the U.S. and France, and plans to
produce over 40% of its electricity using nuclear power by 2010. Significant
amounts of plutonium are created as a by-product of the energy production, and
Japan had 4.7 tons of plutonium in December 1995. Experts believe Japan has the
technology, raw materials, and the capital to produce nuclear weapons within
one year if necessary, and some analysts consider it a "de facto"
nuclear state for this reason. Others have noted that Japan's most advanced
space exploration rocket, the M-5 three-stage solid fuel rocket, is in fact a
close copy of the U.S. LG-118A Peacekeeper ICBM. Japan has been quietly
reconsidering its nuclear status because of the ongoing crisis over North
Korean nuclear weapons.
Italy (3)
- Italy has operated a number of nuclear reactors, both for power and for
research. The
country was also a base for the GLCM nuclear-armed ground-launched variant of
the Tomahawk cruise missile during the 1980s, despite strong public outcry.
While no evidence suggests that Italy intends to develop or deploy nuclear
weapons, such a capability exists - estimates from as far back as the
mid-Eighties show that Italy could begin and complete a nuclear weapons program
in as little as 2 to 3 years.
Lithuania
(4) - Nuclear power reactors produces 77% of Lithuania's electricity. It has 2 of the world's
most powerful reactors in its territory, although one was shut down on 31
December, 2004. Lithuania has the means of legally acquiring fissile materials
for power plants. Lithuania also has former launch sites for Soviet Union
missiles. However, there is no political will at present to develop nuclear
weapons in Lithuania.
Netherlands
(5) - Operates a power reactor at Borsele, producing 452 MW, which satisfies 5%
of its electrical needs. Several Dutch companies are key participants in the
tri-national Urenco uranium enrichment consortium. By the year 2000 the
Netherlands had about 2 tonnes of separated reactor grade plutonium. There is
no evidence for nuclear weapon programs in the Netherlands.
Saudi
Arabia (6) - In 2003 members of the government stated that due to the worsening
relations with the USA, Saudi Arabia was being forced to consider the
development of nuclear weapons. However, so far they have denied that they are making any
attempt to produce them. I’ve heard that Pakistan has transferred several
nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia, but this is unconfirmed. A former Saudi
diplomat, Mohammed Khilewi,
alleged in 1994 that Saudi Arabia provided $5 billion in funding for
Iraq's nuclear program during the 1980s in exchange for a nuclear weapon, and
that Saudi Arabia had two undeclared nuclear research reactors. Those facts
weren’t proved. It seems that Saudi Arabia doesn’t run a nuclear weapons
program and has no research power reactors.
So,
I can name several facts that may make a country produce nuclear weapons or lie
that it already possesses them (so strengthening the misunderstanding and
quarrels between nations). These are bad relations with some strong and
powerful country (as it happened in Saudi Arabia), a desire to gain influence
in the world community (Iran’s and North Korea’s aim), a wish to protect its
territories and political and social stability (the US and the USSR; Chinese
plans against both of them, India-China war for territory), some international
misunderstandings may result in the same effect.
During
looking through these facts I mentioned that a situation when one country
begins nuclear researches trying to follow its neighbor is not a surprise.
Those were India and Pakistan, France and the UK, North Korea had a nuclear
neighbor (China), and Iran’s attempts to create a nuclear device are forced by
Pakistan’s nuclear warheads. So, the situation is quite the same with a simple
neighborhood, where some men possess guns, and others do not. In a modern world
a man with a gun is a country with nuclear weapons, and a neighbor is a
non-nuclear state. Today it may happen that even without any permission some
state will have nuclear weapons, making no sense to a neighbor’s protest. Of
cause “the victim” feels unsafe – what can “the neighbor” do? How can he
react to some issues connected with their international problems? The last one
can also use its powers to force the victim to accept some issues that do not
fit its political and social life. But where’s the solution?
One
can guess of taking away the neighbor’s weapons and not letting him possessing
them again. It can be good, but who knows whether he revealed all his
stockpiles or not, whether he would repeat its attempts again and again or not.
It would be important, I’m sure, to make some sort of agreement (treaty), that
can promise a needed level of protection to a victim and prevent a nuclear
country from using its powers.
But
another problem appears at the moment - the former victim may try to possess
the same weapon or even more deadly. And no one is sure it doesn’t. The best
idea is to use another country’s influence, not neighbor’s or victim’s, to play
its role in their relations, for example suggest some treaties and activities,
give a heavy protection to victim’s interests and territories, ask the world
community for some help and build up a strict database, allowing some upper
limit of weapons for both the countries. This way countries will prevent one another
from using their powers – they will be afraid of doing this, though it
contradicts traditional views and international desire to disarm the world.
Not
bad idea is making some sort of enclave, I believe. There should be countries
possessing weapons (countries with good economic capabilities) and countries
without them. They should relay on each other and not be afraid of their
neighbor. May be some territory or economic issues should unite them, don’t
know, but that’s a realistic suggestion. It will also improve international
trust and understanding and decrease nuclear proliferation – no need in
more nuclear states for protective purposes.
Possible
enclaves, divided by territorial feature (one color – one enclave,
“white” countries – untouchable countries, with no nuclear region at all)
The
problem can be also solved from inside, nowadays a nuclear issue is heavily
used in political discussions of any country, and a region will start its
nuclear project only if a pro-nuclear party or leader runs the country, only
the government may make the necessary decisions. So, the idea is to prove the
society that nuclear weapons are bad, they would not lead a state to any good
results, and the pro-nuclear leader will not gain enough power to run the
nuclear project. To act this way, the community should understand WHY a leader
supports nuclear proliferation, and I’ll try to understand it.
There
are two main views on a nuclear problem in the world, and politicians of any
country choose one of them for their political program (I will call them “the
advocates” and “the opponents” of a nuclear program). But in honor to succeed
both of them should carefully think of a lot of important questions.
First,
one should understand the world’s perception of the nuclear powers and nuclear
issues generally. Today most countries, their governments and public society
are in favor of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. But, countries that
already possess some power, understand that nuclear weapons are crucial to its
status as a political power and vital for the protection of its security
interests (none of them aims to disarm itself at once, only after two-sided
treaties and agreements and extremely unwillingly, the number of dismantled
warheads proves it; for more than 20 years the world’s stockpile was reduced
from approximately 65000 devices to 20000, a bit more than 60% reduction).
But
we understand that a nuclear status is not a determinant of great power status,
cause there are many countries without it, still they play a great role in a
modern politic and economic world. We can name Japan, Saudi Arabia, Germany,
South Korea, est. A strong economic and infrastructure give a country even more
than a simple possession of nuclear weapons, new fields of science may provide new
ways of progress and protection.
A
real power that a nuclear state really has is quite ordinary – it gives a
heavy protection for country’s interests, a lot of stability in its political
life, though may even prevent other countries from dealing with it.
One
should think carefully before accepting nuclear weapons, it may cause great
problems connected with achieving the needed materials, building up the
infrastructure, taking a lot of scientists away from their work in other fields
of science, producing the bomb itself and then testing it, saving it, and so
on, and so on.
Let’s
think, what good and bad sides has the possession of nuclear weapons:
|
+ |
- |
|
Others
listen to country’s ideas and suggestions, or make an impression of it |
Others
are quite afraid of the country’s using its powers, so stop dealing with it,
stop any commercial and political activities |
|
The
country is heavily protected in case of war and may defend itself and its
neighbors from being attacked |
The
country may annihilate the whole world in case of war, including itself and
its neighbors and friends |
|
The
country invests a lot in a nuclear brunch of science and that may result in
developing some new, clear source of energy or bomb |
The
country spends a lot of money on the nuclear program and loses a chance to
develop science and produce even better weapons |
|
The
country builds a good infrastructure to achieve the bomb, but the effect is
mainly shown in quantity, not quality |
The
country loses a chance to improve the quality of its infrastructure and
economic growth, social atmosphere |
|
People
may enjoy the idea of possessing the bomb, great protection and the social
life will stable |
Social
life may be unstable, people may be afraid of possessing nuclear weapon,
pollution of their environment, risk of being attacked |
These
are not the only problems that may appear. Though some good things may happen,
even worse are possible, too. So one should analyze carefully all the issues
and build up an understanding of the problems and current atmosphere in social,
political and economical life of his country and just then decide, whether he
would like to possess nuclear weapons or not.
Everybody
should remember that nuclear states have some responsibilities to non-nuclear
ones. They are mainly listed in various international nuclear treaties, but
everyone understands the most simple: the nuclear country SHOULD NOT use its
powers against other countries or use it to force them to achieve their aim,
the nuclear country should save their weapons carefully and accurately, not
pollute the environment. Nowadays the world met another great problem –
that is terrorism, so country should protect its stockpiles carefully from
stealing a single bomb or missile. Existing treaties prevent non-nuclear
countries from becoming nuclear, try to stop proliferation and inventing new
nuclear weapons. Today it is unlikely to create a bomb, because a lot of
agreements suggested stopping any development in this field of military
services.
If
a leader still wishes to have nuclear weapons – then he ought to change a
lot of treaties to make it legally. We all know how North Korea tried in 2003,
but later retired because was alone and other countries forced it to shut down
any nuclear weapons programs. I suppose people understood that nuclear war will
result in the whole destruction of the planet, and today the world tries to put
a nuclear problem away. But, atomic bombs still may play a great role in
country’s world status, so attempts to achieve it continue even now. Those have
been Iran, India, and Pakistan recently. Who else? Every single man ought to
understand the impossibility of using nuclear weapons in any form.
I
personally agree with anti-proliferation views, because their position prevents
any possibility of a nuclear war and destruction of the whole humanity, but
only accepting the fact that EVERY country refuses from its nuclear
possibilities. Another chance to achieve such aim is international trust and
understanding, but such a situation seems impossible when countries develop “plans
of attack” and suspect each other in coward actions (the production of
“Poplar-M” rockets in Russia, scenarios of nuclear wars and anti-rocket
complexes all over the world).
But
even a peaceful anti-nuclear view needs proves and should be defined to the
society.
To
prove that nuclear weapons are very expensive it is possible to use some
numbers(even old ones, to show how much money could be used in peaceful
purposes), it will also give a wise understanding what damage could occur in
case of war (if only all existing bombs blasted). For example such kind of an
article may be created:
|
Costs
of U.S. Nuclear Weapons 1.
Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000 2.
Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500 3.
Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos,
and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000 4.
Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680 5.
Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966 6.
Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more
than 70,000/65 types 7.
Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty
that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against
unforeseen future threats: 4,900 8.
Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of 9.
Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities:
15,654 square miles 10.
Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey:
15,357 square miles 11.
Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers
and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing
activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000 12.
Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954
"Bravo" test: $15,300,000 13.
Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the United States to Marshallese
Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least
$759,000,000 14.
Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act
of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 15.
Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961:
$7,000,000,000 16.
Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility
for use after a nuclear war: more than $2,000,000,000 17.
Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear
testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests) 18.
Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and
"Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000 19.
Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons
activities: 104,000,000 20.
Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated
Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986)
and 2,500 (1995) 21.
Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including
two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in
the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000 22.
Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs.
$2,600,000,000 23.
Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related
programs: $35,100,000,000 Just
imagine how many lives could be saved, how many schools built and plants
grown up. Then what DO YOU wish? Living in peace and wealth OR in the world
full of deadly weapons eager to blast off? Decide and choose
non-proliferation way. |
An
anti-nuclear leader may make a TV advertisement, using these true words of
Mohammed ElBaradei’s nobel lecture on 10 December, 2005. They are:
|
” Ladies and Gentlemen.
Today we can better understand the changing landscape in nuclear
non-proliferation and disarmament. There are three main
features to this changing landscape: the emergence of an extensive black
market in nuclear material and equipment; the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and sensitive nuclear technology; and the stagnation in nuclear
disarmament. Today, with
globalization bringing us ever closer together, if we choose to ignore the
insecurities of some, they will soon become the insecurities of all. Equally, with the spread
of advanced science and technology, as long as some of us choose to rely on
nuclear weapons, we continue to risk that these same weapons will become
increasingly attractive to others. I have no doubt that, if
we hope to escape self-destruction, then nuclear weapons should have no place
in our collective conscience, and no role in our security. We must see to it that
nuclear-weapon states take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament. And we must put in place
a security system that does not rely on nuclear deterrence“. |
The
scares of a nuclear fallout can be shown through frightening photos of scenes
of destroyed cities and radiation effects, even a radioactive cloud means a
lot. The most effective and understandable image is the following (dark colors
add to picture’s atmosphere, the cross protests against any nuclear
explosions):
Even
these activities can’t prevent countries from relying on nuclear weapons,
because, as I mentioned, it’s hard to refuse from nuclear weapons if you
already possess them, very few countries disarm themselves willingly. History
knows only one region that disarmed itself on its own. That was South Africa.
Let’s discuss it a little.
South
Africa’s quest for a nuclear deterrent began with research into peaceful
nuclear explosives (PNEs) in 1969. Although Pretoria initially would not
confirm it was developing, or possessed, nuclear weapons, it had large natural
deposits of uranium, as well as uranium enrichment facilities and the necessary
technological infrastructure. In addition, until the late 1980s South Africa
had the deeply entrenched fear of its adversaries and the insecurity about its
borders that were important incentives in other nations' nuclear programs.
South
Africa was isolated from interactions and activities with most of the developed
countries for many years because of its nuclear weapons development program and
the practice of apartheid. This isolation was especially true in the areas of
nuclear energy and its applications. South Africa developed a complete nuclear
fuel cycle, including advanced waste management techniques. South Africa
operates two nuclear power reactors (built by the French, but based on a
Westinghouse design) at Koeberg near Cape Town.
South
Africa also acquired the technology to build nuclear weapons. South Africa
developed at least six nuclear warheads, which it later acknowledged, along
with a variety of missiles and other conventional weapons. These projects were
undertaken with some cooperation from Israel -- another technologically
advanced, militarily powerful, nuclear-capable nation surrounded by hostile
neighbors.
In
1987 President Botha announced that South Africa was considering signing the
1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and would begin discussions with
other countries toward that end. South Africa signed the NPT on 10 July 1991.
In addition, the government banned any further development, manufacture,
marketing, import, or export of nuclear weapons or explosives, as required by
the NPT.
South
Africa's nuclear parastatal, the Atomic Energy Corporation (AEC), which in 1990
changed its emphasis from nuclear deterrence to industrial and economic needs,
assists in the marketing of more than 150 products and services in the
mid-1990s. These products have applications in mining and aerospace development,
food production, transportation, and environmental preservation. Some examples
are air filters for motor vehicles, a measuring device for minerals industry
flotation processes, radio-isotopes for medical and industrial use, and a
biogas unit to recover methane from refuse for use as vehicle fuel. These sales
generated more than US$28 million between March 1993 and March 1994, according
to official reports.
This
country gives a wonderful example of a nation, that “understood”. And gives
answers to many common questions. First, why would a country want nuclear
weapons?
Because
it has good opportunities, such as natural deposits and technological progress,
the needed facilities. But that only gives a chance to build a device. The
government then understands that its hostile neighbors can press them, they are
afraid of being beaten – and start suggesting different ideas. And the
easiest way – constructing a devise that his enemy has and afraid of
himself. That’s like “you know I don’t have it and try to use your chance, but
wait a little – and we see who is the best”.
But
when everything goes on very well – other countries start worrying, those
without uranium and facilities, and unite all together to protect themselves
against their new “enemy”, accept some agreements and leave the new nuclear
country alone on half-way. And the country has no other way except giving up
its programs and accepting the game rules. Of cause its nuclear program leaves
a lot of new technologies and that gives it a chance to earn a lot… But just
think of technologies that have been lost. Other countries didn’t give it any
latest achievements, tried to stop its economic growth and didn’t help to
stabilize the social and political atmosphere.
One
can think that starting a nuclear weapon program is bad. Today, when science
and military technologies achieved great results, yes, it’s bad. But we should
remember World War II. If the US hadn’t initiated its program, the Nazi could
have built up a bomb and destroyed others. If later the Soviet Union didn’t
invent its own atomic device – the US could suddenly become the only
nation in the world. We know that a lot of different plans of attack have been
suggested and could occur. Even now if a nation has no other choice it can be
correct to invent its own nuclear weapons, aiming freedom and independence from
others. Simple fear will play its role – nowadays no one will blast a
device trying to destroy a nuclear state, cause a nuclear war will start and
destroy the whole world.
Concerning
these facts, it’s easy to understand that any nation wishes to possess a
nuclear bomb, though the world community won’t allow this to happen. Though
such a situation will guarantee safety from a nuclear war, a little risk still
remains – even the smallest mistake will result in mass destruction. That
is why the world would be a safer place only when no nation would have any
atomic devices. This way no exploitation would be possible at all and no chance
to use country’s powers in its political and international life would exist.
Though
every nation understands that everybody should refuse from using nuclear
weapons, they still don’t trust each other and continue playing their own game.
Even today they relay on nuclear forces more than on any other and believe that
country’s defense would be thick without atomic devices. That is why it’s
impossible to refuse from using nuclear weapons in the nearest future, though
some countries think of some non-nuclear scenarios of the country’s defense,
leaving some quantity of bombs in their stockpiles. Today politicians
understand that every country must refuse from nuclear devices. On The
Disarmament Commission 2000 substantive session SERGEY LAVROV (Russian
Federation) said that all five nuclear-weapon Powers should launch a
comprehensive, forward-based, phased program for disarmament without artificial
delays or other tactics. It was important for States to be an organic part of a
democratic, peaceful world order based on global trust. As had been underscored
at the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) Conference,
Russia was attached to the commitments related to nuclear disarmament and
intended to follow through on those goals in the future for the preservation of
nuclear stability. The more relevant treaties were strengthened, the stronger
would be the foundation for disarmament.
The
treaties Sergey Lavrov spoke about are already running, though they are not
very successful, because it’s hard to suggest a reasonable number of weapons
for all nuclear states, though their current amount is not a secret. The US has
near 1000 warheads, Russia – near 7200, the UK – 200, France
– 350, China – 400, India – near 70, Pakistan – near
40. It’s clear that two nations possess the most part of the world’s stockpile
of nuclear weapons, and that is de facto. It is quite possible to reduce the
amount of their bombs by running international conversations and agreements.
May be it is better to leave near 500-600 warheads to give a full protection to
state’s interests and boundaries. China, India and Pakistan are already having
a reasonable level of weapons, but should not increase it, better decrease. A
country that wishes to have nuclear weapon should understand that enormous
stockpiles are left in the past and today simple possession already protects
the country’s independence better than thousand of tanks. The same idea
motivated Iraq’s and North Korea’s programs, but others were afraid of them
gaining influence. Today their programs have been closed, and they promised not
to have any nuclear weapons in the future by signing the NPT. That should
persuade any country wishing nuclear devices not to have them, because modern
world anticipates nuclear power and tries to refuse from that type of weapons.
It won’t let one more region have such a deadly weapon in an arsenal for
frightening others. New community accepts great economic and scientific
civilizations that lead the world to a progress and development, stability and
peace.
Part
II.
I’ve
told about political and social aspects of nuclear proliferation topic, but
there is another, not less important – a country wishing to possess
nuclear weapons needs a lot of special physical and intellectual knowledge. I
am to find it out. To understand them I have to analyze previous nuclear
projects of different countries.
The
first countries, created nuclear weapons were the US and the USSR. Scientific
and technical attempts to create it in the USSR and the US are quite common,
though differ a little. The US scientists knew nothing about fission reactions
in the early 40th, thus had to begin from a blank list. The progress was very
rapid, because the nation was afraid of Hitler’s attempts to create an atomic
device. A lot of special laboratories were created to study processes and their
aim was a creation of a nuclear bomb in short terms, solely on their own. A lot
of brilliant minds were affected in this project.
First,
a scientific secret laboratory was created in Los Alamos to investigate the
going processes. Top-secret activities took place there. Many difficult
problems had to be solved. No one new HOW to proceed U-235 and Pu-238, thus the
gaseous diffusion method appeared to enrich U-235, and later Fermi suggested
enriching plutonium in nuclear reactors.
But
the bomb itself couldn’t wait, though there was not enough plutonium or uranium
for a single bomb in 1943, when the work started. Thus scientists had to work
with little quantities of materials for their experiments.
During
hard work a reflecting envelope (a tamper, to reflect neutrons) and initiators,
gun and implosion methods of assembly appeared, the understanding of “crucial
masses” and “cross section” came. In the first months such programs as
“Measurement of the fission spectrum of neutrons from U-235” and “Research on
projectile and target materials for the gun program” started, and later
resulted in the first atomic bomb that was blasted on May 7, 1945.
The
USSR met not less difficulties than the US during its work. It was
extremely difficult to build up a nuclear technology in 1942 – 1945
because of World War II, but a lot of work was done after the victory when the
government could devote enough time and resources to this problem. It is true that in
1942-1945 our scientists mainly used the espionaged data from the US laboratories,
thus needn’t inventing some special devices. But a lot of problems still
existed. It was vital to make initiators, automation devices, aggregates for
studying quick-going processes, bomb body, work with its ballistics and a
hanger. A lot of work should have been done to create a special testing place. A small
city Sarov, formerly the site of the Sarov monastery, was chosen to become a
center of KB-11, a special division engaged in making up the first USSR bomb. A lot of various
laboratories were created there, brilliant scientists and workers, such as
Chariton, Kurchatov and others worked there for the sake of peace in the world.
During 1946-1949 our laboratories used mainly its own sources, and after hard
work our first bomb appeared, too.
Our
two nations laid the first stone in the nuclear weapon science, it was made for
the sake of piece in the world, but who knows what result it can give in the
future.
These
are the two nations showing us
best of all the materials needed
to create a nuclear device on its own.
But
later, even after the appearance of Non-Proliferation Treaty, some countries
also tried to gain nuclear weapons. Those were, for example, India and
Pakistan. Let’s discuss their activities.
India
started its nuclear project for peaceful purposes (as every country was sure,
because India’s government stated this fact). It obtained important
technologies, such as nuclear power reactors, from other countries. At first
the US helped them to create nuclear facilities and provided heavy water for
them. Later the USSR played the same role. This way India could produce weapon
plutonium for research and military activities. But suddenly, after
Indian-Pakistan War for territory and the US’s withdrawing of military aid from
the region, India refuses to sign the NPT and declares that can produce nuclear
weapons within 18 months. It had nuclear technologies and wanted to use the
possibility to protect itself from nuclear China. So, the process of nuclear
weapons creation in India was quicker than in original nuclear states. The
theory was already known, the only question was a bomb design, even weapon fuel
was unwillingly produced by other countries (for peaceful purposes, as they
thought). To create it India built the nuclear infrastructure and made a large
pool of trained personnel. It is the similar part of India’s and the US’s
process of bomb creating.
Pakistan
also used foreign help and materials. At first Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, who used to work at URENCO enrichment
facility, stolen uranium enrichment technologies from Europe that were used to
create vast facilities in Pakistan under Khan’s command. Later, Pakistan has
been supported with Chinese technologies and designs of some nuclear warheads
in 1990th (according to Anthony Cordesman of CSIS).
After
looking through the history of Indian and Pakistani nuclear projects, I’ve
mentioned that they used help from abroad. Less work has been done on their
own, though they had to invent some warhead designs and vast facilities have
been built there, skilled people trained in great amount. Espionage and
international assistance played a great role in the creation of their atomic
devices.
Recently
the same scenario has taken place in North Korea. It is suspected of using
Pakistani technologies to enrich plutonium in nuclear reactors, though both
sides reject those facts.
Now I can draw a conclusion what is needed to create a
nuclear bomb. There
are two possible ways. One is solving every problem on your own, the second
– using the espionaged and traded information.
If
a country chooses the first way, then it has to meet great problems. First, the
country needs to have a place for gaining natural uranium in large quantities.
Second, an enrichment plant should exist to proceed warhead U-235 or Pu-239 in
enough quantities. Today this problem is not too important – many
countries possess nuclear reactor to gain nuclear energy, and plutonium can be
gained there. But, that is only a materialistic issue. Other, even greater
problems exist. A large administrative and politic structure should be created
to control the explorations in the important fields of science. For example in
the USSR nine ministries and thirteen institutions were engaged in this
project, among them:
- Academy of Sciences
USSR;
- Institute of Chemical
Physics;
- Institute of Physical
Chemistry;
- Geophysics Institute;
- Institute of Physical
Problems
and
others.
Then, a vast scientific fundament ought to be made
before the creation of the bomb. Hundred problems and works have been completed in the US
and the USSR on their way towards the trinity, thousands of important devices
have been invented. Thus, a country needs great technical and scientific level
to achieve the aim. Bomb’s design and production involves metallurgy and
materials science, and the process includes typical industrial processes like
casting, forming, and precision machining. Great scientists should work hard to
overcome all the difficulties. I think today this problem is not an unsolvable
one, because the level of science is very high, and the needed investigations
can be made quite quickly.
Every country that achieved atomic devices had to build
up vast infrastructure, even cities with their own facilities, provide them
great secrecy and protection , study a lot of qualified scientists, lab workers,
engineers. Those
had to explore a lot in the field of atomic physics, thermodynamic,
electromagnetism, high pressures and temperatures, ballistics and engineering,
and just then they could create a bomb.
A
country that chooses another way meets fewer difficulties, but has to work in
secrecy, or international associations will try to stop nuclear proliferation
in the region. It still needs an enrichment facility and warhead designs, and
can obtain them only from its abroad partners.
Even
after providing some bombs, the last step remains. Each
country should try and test their weapon first, and just then it can say: “We
have done it!” Tests
are important even now, because they prove that country really possesses a
working bomb to others (many specialists don’t believe that North Korea has a
working nuclear device – it had no official tests).
Tests
can be mainly divided into two groups:
"weapons
related" (verifying that a weapon works, or examining exactly how it
works)
"weapons
effects" (how weapons behave under various conditions, and how structures
behave when subjected to weapons).
Often,
though, testing has also been a demonstration of the possessing nation's
military and scientific strength.
Nuclear
weapons tests are generally classified as being either "atmospheric"
(in or above the atmosphere), "underground," or
"underwater." Of these, underground testing contained in deep shafts
poses the least health risk in terms of fallout. Atmospheric testing which
comes in contact with the ground or other materials poses the highest risk.
Nuclear weapons have been tested by dropping them from planes (an
"airdrop"), from the tops of towers, hoisted from balloons, on barges
at sea, attached to the bottom of ships, and even shot into outer space by rockets
(for the latter see below).
Today
any tests are not allowed, because the world moves towards non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons, but if a country really wishes to demonstrate its nuclear
power – it should make an underground test to check the device. But, the
role of tests itself today is not so crucial. The world understood the danger
of nuclear weapon, the horrible effects that appear after the blast (such as
radiation and fallout), and new tests will bring nothing new except extra
pollution. The era of tests ended in 1950th, when nuclear explosions were new
and unknown. Moreover, tests can be simulated with the help of computer
programs. They can simulate an underground test quite good, thus there is no
need in carrying such nowadays. These “tests” are already running at Los
Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia laboratories.
But
even completed stockpile needs great care to keep it working and not detonated.
Different high-explosives are used in bombs, and can suddenly blast, though
they are mainly insensitive. Some organic parts because of their nature are
less stable, have weaker boundaries, and are affected by radiation. Even
plutonium, uranium and gold exhibit surface corrosion. That is why a nation
needs a testing program without any blasts to control their warheads in an
“active” form, ready for action. In the US it is called “Stockpile
stewardship.” They use modern technologies to check their devices, such as
laser triggering and computer simulation. Other countries also possess such
programs.
In
1990th Russia couldn’t provide a required level of safety to its stockpiles,
but last years showed that the situation is changing rapidly. Great work has
been done – all nuclear weapons have been driven from former Soviet
states, current bombs and nuclear materials are kept in well-protected areas
with strong garrisons, only authorized persons can activate existing warheads.
In case of conflict works a system, based early working satellites and sensors
that would warn political and military leaders. They can use the communication
links to consult each other and to transmit messages authorizing the use of
nuclear weapons to commanders in the field. These messages would contain the
authorizing and enabling codes needed to “unlock” the permissive action links
and other technologies used to make sure that nuclear weapons could not be
armed and launched without authorization from the central command authority.
That is important not to make any unaccepted blast, because it can cause a lot
of international questions and even nuclear war. Though this structure is not
good enough, it provides the required level of safety.
The
Russian government provides a great support to the stockpile program, prepares
qualified inspectors and tries to free some regions from nuclear stores or
build up protected stores, utilizes old warheads and radioactive products. For
this purpose exist utilizing factories, they can also work with resources from
abroad. Russia participates in international agreements, and foreign countries,
especially the USA, provide us a lot of useful devices, such as super
containers, controlling systems, polygraphs, computer technologies and others.
Sources:
- Nuclearweaponarchive.org
- http://www.survive-nbc.org
- http://en.wikipedia.org
- http://intergate.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/physics.htm
- http://www.uic.com.au/nip33.htm
- http://www.answers.com/topic/nuclear-testing
- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuke-stockpile.htm
- http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/design.htm
- http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf06norris
- http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/archives/nuclear-weapons.htm
- http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM
- http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2005/12/10_elbaradei_nobel-lecture.htm
- http://www.globalsecurity.org/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/webinator/search/?query=sarin+australia&pr=default&order=r&cmd=context&id=42b611bd19e
- http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/
- http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/nuchist.htm
- http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB6/
- http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/country/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1000090
- http://npc.sarov.ru/issues/coretaming/section6p3.html
- Chak
Chansen “Nuclear weapons in the US”, 1992, “Binom”, Moscow
- Los
Alamos laboratory, “Los Alamos 1943-1945; The Beginning of an Era”, July
1986
- Juri
Zavalishin, “Object 551”, 1996, ”Red October”, Saransk
Benchmark
II.
In Benchmark I I tried to analyze the motivations that
may drive a nation state to want to possess nuclear weapons. And in Benchmark
II I do my best to investigate issues of nuclear weapons in the world today.
Nowadays the nuclear non-proliferation problem is
vital, and has as many “stable spots” as “unstable” ones. They are referred to different
nations, “old nuclear” and “new nuclear”, “denuclearized” and “possible” nuclear
states.
Among
old nuclear states the most important problems are the problems of disarmament
and nuclear non-proliferation. Though every year the Disarmament Commission
works, the nations still can’t come to a solution of disarmament issues. They continue
relying on nuclear power more than on international trust. But a lot of ideas have
already been suggested.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies still
worries the international community. One of the possible “dangers” is the achieving of
nuclear weapons by terrorists. This problem is connected with “black
markets”, that appeared in the nuclear field. To solve it, it’s important to
invent proliferation-stable technologies. Countries wishing to possess “stable”
power reactors may be supported with them freely.
One
more issue is the proliferation of bomb materials, such as uranium and
plutonium. On the NPT Commission 2005 some possible steps have been suggested,
among them there are heavy control of nuclear materials in the world and the
investigation of proliferation-stable technologies.
The
problem of the XXI century is terrorism, and it’s vital to prevent terrorists
from gaining a single nuclear device, other way it may turn into great
troubles. In this aspect one more troubling fact is that not all countries
accepted the NPT, so they may provide some nuclear technologies and even weapon
to illigal organizations. They may also give nuclear weapons technologies to others
(as made Iran). This is the main problem, I think, that exists today.
It is strengthened with some bad points of the NPT. Mainly it aims to remove
any nuclear weapons from the region, but not to defeat the root of the problem.
That is why
some countries, such as India and Pakistan, still try to prove their nuclear
ambitions.
In Benchmark I I analyzed political issues of nuclear
proliferation and now my task is to understand scientific and technical
requirements.
Let’s
discuss Iran and North Korea. First of all I would like to build up the
history of their projects.
Iran formerly wanted to possess nuclear technology,
because “Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn”, as Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, said. Iran’s nuclear program met a lot of difficulties. On its
early steps it got some help from abroad, because Iran signed the NPT and it
was its right to possess peaceful nuclear reactors. But later the US started
fearing Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, though there is no direct
publicly available evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Unlike
Iran, North Korea tried to prove its nuclear ambitions in 2003. North
Korea’s nuclear facilities give the possibility of running the complete nuclear
fuel cycle, with most of these facilities concentrated in Pun’gang-chigu, Yongbyon-kun,
North P’yong’an Province. This area contains a number of research and
development institutes, as well as educational facilities to train the human
resources to sustain North Korea’s nuclear program, for both civilian and
military purposes. Among them:
|
Iran |
North
korea |
|
|
After looking through this data, I formulated, what
scientific and technical requirements are needed to transform a nuclear power
program into a nuclear weapons program (if we accept the fact of Iran’s
possession of nuclear weapons program).
Firstly, a country needs its own source of natural
uranium. If
it can’t provide itself with it, the countries that give it ore may compare the
numbers and find out that the country “steals” some quantity of uranium for
other purposes.
Secondly, a country needs its own enrichment
facilities to convert ore into a form usable by plants. It will give a chance not to
depend on others and enrich uranium secretly.
Thirdly, a country needs some research reactors to run
the studies connected with nuclear weapons and gain plutonium at the same time.
Fourthly, if a country wishes to create
plutonium-filled or thermonuclear bombs, it ought to possess heavy water
reactors to gain heavy water and plutonium from them.
Fifthly, a country ought to create a vast amount of
specialized scientists and workers to run the project. If a nuclear power program may be
supported with foreign specialists, nuclear weapon program may use only its own
resources to keep it in secrecy.
But these are only material resources needed to
transform a nuclear power program. A lot of diplomatic work should be done. And many facts
may affect the process. I shall list the timetable of Irani and North Korea’s
nuclear projects and then analyze them:
|
Iran |
North
Korea |
|
|
After looking through these facts, I can name some
diplomatic actions needed to transform a nuclear power program. They are:
1.
A country needs to run an accurate game. It can accept some
international treaties, even non-proliferation ones, and act as it has no
illigal facilities and projects to win some time. To achieve this result, it
ought to hide all the nuclear weapons facilities and operate them attentively.
This game is quite the same with North Korea’s actions: it was involved in
several agreements, but often broke them by not accepting these and those
issues and illigaly running a nuclear war program.
2.
A country needs to fool others and achieve some
enrichment technologies from them. That process is running in Iran (if we
accept that it has a nuclear weapons project). For several years it tries to
begin enrichment actions legally and to use its right to do it for peaceful
purposes. The same scenario took place in North Korea (that’s how they got
their first research reactor).
3. A
government ought to create scientific labs and universities to make experiments
and train the specialists for their nuclear program.
But
even the most accurate game may fail. The rest of the world is afraid of
one more nuclear weapon country, that it will monitor any suspicious state
extremely attentively.
And how may others find out about a new nuclear
project?
1.
The community should carefully look after states with
uranium ores and count all international trade of nuclear ore and fuel. It’s mainly correct that a
nation runs a nuclear weapons project if it tries to hide some of its resources
or obtain them illigally.
2.
All nuclear related technologies and facilities should
be under strict control. A country, formerly gaining enriched uranium from others,
trying to achieve enrichment technologies itself, is at 70% tries to start a
nuclear weapons program.
3. If a
country refuses from light water technologies (that are proliferation-stable)
and accepts heavy water reactors, it may be trying to create a weapon-usable
fuel and should be checked.
4. It’s quite
clear that a region that often withdraws from some treaties plays some dirty
game and ought to be mentioned (as North Korea).
But it is possible that a country runs its project
clear and has no political and international mistakes. In this case science and
technology ought to be used.
International
safeguards ought to use the most advanced devices to check nation’s stockpiles
and military and nuclear facilities. The espionaged data play a great
role, they may be obtained with the help of satellites. Different photoes may be compared
and analyzed, so revealing the changes made at some objects.
If a nation turns to running a nuclear weapon program
or is suspected of doing this, the rest of the world ought to stop it. The
process should be peaceful.
One of the possible steps is preventing country from
gaining enrichment facilities and heavy water reactors. Two possible actions are accepted. One is suggesting that a
country should enrich the fuel somewhere abroad, for example in some former
nuclear countries that already have weapons. That gives a chance to count the
quantity of delivered fuel. One more way is providing a country with light
water reactors that create less plutonium and no heavy water.
If a country is obtaining enrichment facilities and
proliferation-unstable reactors, they should be under strict control of
safeguards. By
examining the waste stockpiles, it’s possible to find out the quantity of
plutonium and enriched uranium obtained on the reactor or plant. It’s
possible that the country doesn’t interact with others and prevent them from
monitoring. Then there is no other way except putting some sanctions on the
country, such as trade and scientific isolation. They may be useful, but mainly
make the country much more cross and result in its coward actions: it may boost
the program and then announce its own demands. That is why the best way to act
is running an international conversation and relying on international trust. It
is better to persuade a country that there are other ways to protect itself and
gain energy. It’s a pity but we see that Iran still wishes to have its own
enrichment technology, though great assistance has been offered by different
countries, such as alternative ways of getting energy and light water reactors.
They continue running projects that may result in obtaining weapon-graded
uranium.
But
a single nation cannot and mustn’t play the role of a single ruler that
indicates each of those issues. To achieve the aim, countries accept various
treaties and arrangements. The first treaty to appear was the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty that laid the stone of international understanding.
Then the Non-Proliferation Treaty followed, and every further arrangement uses
some of its issues to build up the text and often refers to it. All nuclear treaties have
some similar ideas and are similar a little. Among similarities:
·
Treaties
aim to prevent states from nuclear weapons proliferation;
·
Treaties
help moving towards nuclear disarmament (SALT series, START series);
·
Treaties
guarantee safety to non-nuclear states that accept it;
·
Trearies
always provide control for nuclear operations,
and so on.
International treaties rely on each other and never
contradict one another, and mainly they are wider forms of the NPT.
Also
quite every treaty accepts the using of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), the main organization of the NPT. It can be shortly described in the
following way:
Roles
and Duties of IAEA:
|
The IAEA is ruled by the following organizations and
meetings:
|
1. General Conference 2. Elect members of the
Board of Governors 3. Approve States for
membership 4. Consider the annual report
of the Board; 5. approve the budget of
the Agency 6. Approve any agreement or
agreements between the Agency and the United Nations and other organizations 7. Approve amendments to
the Statute 8. The Board of Governors 9. shall prepare an annual
report to the General 10.
prepare for submission to the General Conference such reports as the
Agency is or may be required to make to the United Nations or to any other
organization the work of which is related to that of the Agency 11.
rewises the IAEA budget 12.
determines the quantities of fissionable materials provided by
members 13.
The Director General 14.
The Staff 15.
The Safeguards |
The IAEA is capable of:
|
·
examining the design of specialized equipment and facilities,
including nuclear reactors, and to approve it only from the view- point of
assuring that it will not further any military purpose, ·
To require the observance of any health and safety measures
prescribed by the Agency; ·
To require the maintenance and production of operating records to
assist in ensuring accountability for source and special fissionable
materials used or produced in the project or arrangement; ·
To call for and receive progress reports; ·
To approve the means to be used for the chemical processing of
irradiated materials solely to ensure that this chemical processing will not
lend itself to diversion of materials for military purposes ·
To send inspectors who shall have access at all times to all places
and data dealt with materials, equipment, or facilities which are required by
this Statute to be safeguarded. ·
In the event of non-compliance and failure by the recipient State to
take requested corrective measurement, to suspend or terminate assistance and
withdraw any materials and equipment made available by the Agency or a member
in furtherance of the project. |
The understanding of the roles of the IAEA gives me a
chance to view real steps made by the community towards the solution of the non-proliferation
problem. That also helps me to point the importance of such international
organizations: they are engaged in doing everything to stop nuclear weapons
proliferation, from monitoring nuclear facilities to running conversation and
accepting and suggesting new, more effective treaties.
But during looking through the text of the Statute,
especially “The Projects” paragraph, I mentioned some disadvantages of the
organization and the aims of the Agency.
In my opinion, the Agency mainly plays the role of “a
storage” for nuclear technologies and materials. Such feeling appears after
reading the text of the Statute. But even the best door may be opened, and the
only way to stop a burgular is to teach him not to steal. And the only way to
stop nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism is to start fighting against the
roots of the problem, that means running not only technology projects, but also
social and political ones. The IAEA only struggles against the results of
nuclear proliferation, trying to control all aspects of nuclear world. A more
important thing to be done is strengtherning international trust and
understanding. So, the IAEA should extend its sphere of interests and work more
effectively in the line of non-proliferation.
Also, the Board of Governors of the IAEA today
consists only of nations which are well-developed in the field of nuclear
technologies, and they mainly suggest new plans and projects, and the interests
of non-nuclear states are less important for them than their own. May be I’m wrong, but I
suppose that inviting other countries to the Board of Governors will make its
work more effective and the sphere of their influence will be extended.
It’s important to know the things that a nation state sacrifice
and gain by joining each of them to analyze their effectiveness.
|
Sacrifices |
Gains |
|
The
NPT:
The
CTBT:
|
The
NPT:
NWFZ:
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material:
|
That helps me to say when a country wishes to accept
anti-nuclear treaties and when does not. It unites:
1. If it
claims to disarm itself or others;
2. The
country’s society comes to an understanding of non-proliferation;
3. When it
wishes to gain some of nuclear technologies;
4. When it
wishes some kind of defense against nuclear danger and security to its borders
and political interests with the help of treaties;
5.
Aims to international cooperation.
The
country refuses:
1. If it
wishes to run nuclear weapon program;
2. Wishes to
be independent on others, to show its strength;
3. Have some
secrets in the nuclear sphere;
4. The social
atmosphere doesn’t accept interaction with other countries;
5. Wishes to
leave its nuclear arsenal.
The last point has a real approvement: India and
Pakistan refuse to sign the NPT without accepting them as nuclear countries and
letting them leave all produced weapons. That proves that the NPT doesn’t work
properly: it can’t control every aspect of nuclear activity of all the existing
states.
I see only two possible solutions: one is accepting
India and Pakistan as nuclear countries, and so expanding a willing to produce
weapons in others (North Korea, for example), or absolute disarmament of the
five original nuclear states. That will show others an example, so they will
stop any possible nuclear weapons projects. Today their possessing of nuclear
devices turns to be “an apartheid”, it may lead to misunderstanding between
nations of the NPT. That issue should be revived, I’m sure.
But instead of analyzing the occasions of violation of
the NPT, modern society thinks of various punishments for those who break the
rules. That may be from economic and political sanctions to open war actions.
Possible activities:
- Banning
nation’s products (machines, resources, food, etc.);
- Prohibiting
nation’s participation in various summits and international conversations;
- Withdrawal
of foreign specialists and assistance from country’s territories;
- Shutting
up any economical activity with the country, closing foreign companies on
its territory or nation’s firms in other states;
- Freezing
nation’s bank actives in foreign countries;
- Starting
propaganda against country’s interests;
- Refuse
from any assistance in the field of nuclear energy;
- Beginning
of war actions against country (in case of extremely circumstances);
Even more steps may be made if a country that accepted
a treaty breaks some of its issues. Some of these sanctions have been accepted
against North Korea. When it was suggested building LWR instead of graphite-moderated
there, North Korea before ending all works said about its nuclear ambitions. Any
assistance has been stopped and not continued before North Korea’s agreement to
stop any nuclear activity. Some economic sanctions have been accepted, too. Iran
that is suspected of clandestine nuclear activity may obtain some sanctions,
too.
Most of the states think countries that don’t accept
the NPT are not to be punished. In 1998 India and Pakistan ran several tests
and there was sanction politics against these countries, organized by the UK
and the USA (for example: in educational sphere the UK didn’t let 238 people
continue their studying in the magistrates), but it was only imitation which
was stopped quickly.
This shows one more important aspect: if a country
wishes to complete its nuclear program in a modern world successfully, it ought
to withdraw from any nuclear treaty before starting it. If not, it may be
forced to shut down all the activity. Also the text of the NPT should be revised,
I suppose: it should cover such situations when non-member states start nuclear
programs to play the Agency’s role effectively. If such situations happen
– who knows whether one more state will run a nuclear project?
Cofi Annan, the general secretary of the United
Nations, said about revising the text of the NPT: “It’s clear that the NPT
regime doesn’t supply the rate of technical progress and globalization. Earlier
the only task for the NPT was nuclear non-proliferation among the nation
states, but revealing that Chan and others have been engaged in illegal
proliferation of nuclear technologies and know-how demonstrated the weakness of
the non-proliferation regime against the actions of non-country people. Those
who created the document couldn’t imagine that we should work hard to prevent
terrorists from gaining and using nuclear weapons and materials. Though there
is some progress towards disarmament, 27 thousand warheads are still stored in
the world, most of them are ready to be used even now.”
Analyzing all the listed facts I can say why India,
Israel and Pakistan haven’t signed the NPT: India and Pakistan have nuclear
weapons, and can join the Treaty only after deploying their arsenals. That is
unsuitable for them. And they can’t join it as nuclear countries, because it
would destroy the organization of the treaty itself.
Israel is suspected of possessing nuclear weapons, and
others would like to check it through and disarm if it joins the NPT. Israel
refuses to accept the fact of its possession of nuclear weapons, and doesn’t
want anybody to know the truth. So, it doesn’t want to lose its nuclear
potential by joining the NPT.
The beginning of nuclear researches may start under
the influence of religion conditions. That is why I will try to build up the
understanding of various views on war in different religions.
|
Buddhism |
Buddhism anticipates war in any
forms for any purposes (according to the religious books). BUT, it appeared
in the East, where theory wasn’t popular, that is why eastern cultures
justify waging wars for the sake of political success. So, Kautilja’s book
“Arthachastra” (Kautilja was a buddhist) not only accepts this fact, but also
has some practical ways of how to make war more effective. |
|
Christianity |
Christians also have some
confrontation between accepting and negotiating wars. From one side, Jesus
says not to fight, “to open the left cheek when the right is beaten,… Love
your enemies…”. From another side He says: “Don’t think that I came to bring
peace to this land; not peace, but a sword…” Today that problem also exists: the
Russian Church says that a war is an evil, but accepts using strength to
protect relatives and the Motherland. |
|
Islam |
Islamic conception about war has
found its expression in jihad, a “holy war”. Islamic community accepts any
war as a holy war in sake of religion. Today jihad is actively used in
political purposes. |
These three “world” religions show best of all the
human’s conception about wars: war is acceptable, and war is important to
protect your home, your family and your country. And, it’s a pity, it’s
impossible to convince people to refuse from wars according to their religion:
all of them accept wars in one way or another.
After analyzing all the facts related to nuclear
treaties, I may express my opinion on them.
I don’t believe that modern treaties may be trusted,
judging by the occasions that happened in India and Pakistan, North Korea and
Israel in different years. They could run their programs secretly, “quietly”,
breaking all accepted points, and fooling even international organization,
created specially to control such issues.
Though their “real” purpose is a full disarmament of
every nation, former nuclear states don’t want to do it very quickly, relaying
on nuclear arsenals very much. So they try to slow down the going processes and
leave as many warheads as possible, making an impression of a movement.
Moreover, some of the nuclear countries suggested that their status should guarantee
them a right to have weapons, and instead of deploying their old devices they
develop new, even more dangerous.
Another problem is that if even it turns out that a
country runs a nuclear program, there is no real punishment prescribed in
treaties, because all the treaties are only arrangements based on international
trust. The breaking of rules can’t lead a country to some dangerous situation
– there is always a state that can provide help, running its own
political game. The same fact makes all economical and political sanctions
useless: as we saw, only the USA and the UK used them against India and
Pakistan, others continued their relations.
One more problem about current treaties is that
decisions accepted by all the participants some years ago and started processes
later say that don’t follow them, because those decisions have no real power
(because only the points prescribed in treaties themselves are vital to be
followed, the sub-issues are only “recommended”).
I can suggest some methods that may make an arms
control successful.
· It is
vital to control the situation from the local level. I mean, there is always any
strong leader-country in the region that may unite others and ask them for help
and assistance. It is always trusted, so other nations in the region will try
to follow their closest “friend” and neighbor. The idea may be called “from
world to local”. All further treaties should mention this method, I suppose.
· Another
problem is that non-nuclear countries are not really protected by various
treaties (the situation with Iraq is extremely picturesque and dangerous for
the politics of treaties). That is why countries may try to hide the
information about their activity, fooling others and violating a treaty. So,
following all treaty issues is necessary to control the situation.
· One more
problem is that today countries start programs trying to protect themselves,
that is why the only possible way of solution it is providing the nation state
with strong defence, both in political and territorial meanings. They try to
put their nuclear weapons in opposite of other nuclear weapons. The solution is
intensive moving towards disarmament. No need to worry – no need to
protect.
· Less
effective way of strengthering an arms control is a “force” method. That
doesn’t mean running any war action, but includes strengthening abilities of
safeguards and providing them with the latest equipment. Among these abilities
there may be checking ALL reports and decisions accepted in every country, if
the country wishes it or doesn’t. But that may cause a lot of international
problems and break a country’s right to keep its own secrets in other spheres
of life. But I don’t think that such method reflects modern situation in the
world.
· One more idea
is advancing checking technologies. That should be done not by one country, but
with the assistance of all nations. The program may work at different levels,
from laboratories indicating the uranium isotopes to complexes that cover a
large sector of the planet and notice any changes in radiation level.
· But even
this will not guarantee a success. The only exact way to achieve the result is
changing current relations between the states. They should run social programs
that make people refuse from any thought about possessing nuclear weapons and
pursue them to run international talks and assistance in the field of nuclear
power and weapon programs.
Sources:
- http://www.mint.gov.my/policy/p_treaty_nuclear.htm
- http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1015.html
- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm
- http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=ma03norris
- http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=188
- www.iaea.org/
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAEA
- www.armscontrol.org/trearies
- http://www.nti.org/h_learnmore/npttutorial/index.html
- “Nuclear control”, PIR Center, ¹1,
Spring 2005
- “DipKurjer”, ¹9,
June 6, 2005.