Orinda Academy CIF Benchmark 1

MONTEREY INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

CENTER FOR NONPROLIFERATION STUDIES

Critical Issues Forum (CIF)

Spring 2006 Project

“Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation”

Benchmark I

Presented by:

Orinda, California

United States of America

Benchmark I

Contributors

Student Writers:

Sarah Anthony

Galen Borson

Marie Etheridge

Alix Friedman

Alex Helt

Ben Ivory

Keoni Gist

Abe Harder-Cattell
Austin Heier Ross

Steven Kastenbaum

Ji Eun Kim

Sarah Jimison

Monte Melnick

Semir Muratovic

Marc Poore

Jane Quigley

Lake Raymond

Dustin Slack

Kevin Varela-O’Hara

Sam Woodruff

Student Editors:

Marie Etheridge

Monte Melnick

Semir Muratovic

Jane Quigley

Teacher Advisors:

Bob Shayler

Starfire

Benchmark I

Table of Contents

I. Anatomy of Nuclear Weapons

II. Introduction to Nuclear Testing

III. Q & A: Developing a Nuclear Weapons Program

IV. Nuclear Weapons Fact Sheet

V. Pseudo - Campaign Speech: North Korean Candidate for Nuclear Weapons

Anatomy of Nuclear Weapons

Fission Weapons

The Basics:

Nuclear fission occurs when a heavy element such as plutonium or uranium is split into lighter elements by a crash with neutron. This can produce heat or cause a chain reaction. As the heavy element splits, it releases some more neutrons, which then go on to hit more atoms and so on. A chain reaction is a process that causes it to repeat and grow in intensity. Fission bombs are more commonly referred to as atom bombs (A-Bombs) and work differently than the fusion bomb.

In order to understand how an atom bomb works, one must grasp the concept of fission. According to Webster’s Dictionary, fission is the act or process of splitting into parts. When this term is applied in the nuclear sense it refers to an atom splitting into two or more parts. The splitting of these atoms (when used in a nuclear weapon) creates such a chaotic release of energy that a massive explosion occurs. The final days of World War Two (WWII) saw the powers of fission bombs, as they were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Fission bombs become even more deadly when you consider how much power a surprisingly small bomb has. For example, “Little Boy” (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima) weighed about 4 tons, 60kg of which contained nuclear fuel. When the bomb exploded it had the same force as over 15 thousand tons of dynamite. The scary part is, fusion bombs are even more powerful.

Gun-type Weapons

The gun-type weapon is the simplest type of nuclear weapon. In a gun-type weapon, the Uranium 235 is at almost critical mass, so when the Uranium “bullet” is fired into the larger HEU (highly enriched uranium) the HEU reaches critical mass, causing a release of energy and a nuclear explosion. In Figure 1 below you can see the Uranium Bullet and how it fits into the larger HEU. Gun-type weapons are the simplest type of nuclear weapon to design and manufacture, because gun type weapons do not require sophisticated explosive or electronic components, and they use uranium instead of plutonium. Because of the lack of plutonium, they require a large amount of HEU making them large and heavy and thus more difficult to hit a precise target. Figure 2 below shows the inside of a Gun-type weapon.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Implosion-type Weapons

Implosion-type fission weapon is a more a sophisticated fission weapon then gun-type weapon. In an implosion-type weapon, such as the one shown in Figure 3, uses Plutonium, but it also uses uranium. Around the Plutonium in an implosion type weapon, there is TNT, which are built to go off simultaneously and compress to two-thirds its original size, reaching critical mass.

Implosion-type weapons are much more difficult to design and build than gun-type weapons and require advance explosive components and sophisticated fusing systems. A well-designed implosion weapon would require only about 8kg of highly enriched uranium or 4kg of plutonium. Because it requires less uranium, implosions weapons can be smaller and lighter in weight than gun-type weapons, and therefore would be better for hitting a direct target, then a gun-type weapon. The diagram below shows the inside of an implosion weapon, which is still simpler to build then fusion weapons.

In order to make a plutonium bomb, plutonium needs to be produced at first. Plutonium is produced from exploded uranium. It is also rarely found in uranium ores. Plutonium is highly unstable and has high rate of spontaneous fission, so that it can cause an explosion. It is safe to use a very small amount of plutonium and crush it down until its atoms become tightly packed in the sphere where it starts to begin a chain reaction. The plutonium bomb is more safe than the uranium bomb as long as its initiator does not works. However, the plutonium bomb releases so much energy. Therefore, it is essential to surround a sphere of plutonium with beryllium which reflects plutonium’s neutrons back into the fission process.

The design of the fission bomb has sphere of plutonium at the center. Plutonium is surrounded by beryllium and explosives inside casing where the detonator is placed. First initiators explode at the center of the sphere and explosives are detonated, later. This destroys the sphere and holds neutrons, so that neutrons cannot escape. A chain reaction starts and causes the explosion after sudden release of energy.

A fission boosted weapon uses nuclear fusion to increase the explosive power of a fission weapon. A boosted fission weapon is fission weapon with a small amount of deuterium placed inside the weapon’s core. When the fissile material inside the weapon is compressed into a critical mass, the deuterium and tritium under go nuclear fission, in this process both neutrons and explosive energy are released. The neutrons from this process the neutrons cause more fissile material in the weapon to fission before it is dispersed by the explosion. Tritium in nuclear weapons can lessen the amount of fissile material required, increase, or “boost” the yield of the weapon, like a catalyst.

Facts about Plutonium

Plutonium is not a natural element. It is made from bombarded uranium 239. People extract uranium all over the world by underground mining, but only a small fraction of them is found in concentrated ores.

It takes time and energy to make or find plutonium. Interestingly, people have saved huge amount of stockpile of plutonium for commercial issues. France has been a depository for nuclear fuel and plutonium from foreign countries such as Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Japan. There are civilian stockpiles of plutonium in Japan, France, Britain, India, and Russia which are growing much faster than the military stockpiles. There is plenty of stockpiled plutonium in the United States. The U.S. plutonium inventory has 85 tons, and about 64 tons are used for weapons or stored. The remaining amount is stored in Energy Department sites in form of solutions for research.

The following graph is from Washington Times in the July 9, 1999, by journalist Bill Gertz who gathered information from leaked Energy Department documents and published the U.S. government's estimates of world plutonium stockpiles.

Plutonium stockpiles, 1999
	Weapon-grade	Commercial-grade
Argentina	0	6 metric tons (t)
Belgium	0	23-31 t
Brazil	0	0.6 t
Britain	7.6 t	98.4 t (~51 t separated)
China	1.7-2.8 t	1.2 t
France	6-7 t	151-205 t (~70 t separated)
Germany	0	75-105 t (~17 t separated)
India	150-250 kg	6 t (< 1 t separated)
Israel	300-500 kg	0
Japan	0	119-262 t (~21 t separated)
Kazakhstan	2-3 t*	0
North Korea	25-35 kg	0
Pakistan	0	0.5 t (0 separated)
Russia	140-162 t	65 t (~30 t separated)
United States	85 t	257.2 t (14.5 t separated)
Total	242.3 t-267.4 t	802.4 t-1037.4 t (~203.5 t)
T = metric ton (2,200 pounds); kg = kilogram *Describing Kazakhstan's plutonium as "weapon grade" is an Energy Department misclassification. It was produced in a breeder reactor and it is therefore civil plutonium that would require reprocessing.

U.S. Forward-Cost Uranium Reserves by State, December 31, 2003
State(s)	$30 per pound			$50 per pound
State(s)	Ore (million tons)	Grade^a (percent U₃O₈)	U₃O₈ (million pounds)	Ore (million tons)	Grade^a (percent U₃O₈)	U₃O₈ (million pounds)
Wyoming	41	0.129	106	238	0.076	363
New Mexico	15	0.280	84	102	0.167	341
Arizona, Colorado, Utah	8	0.281	45	45	0.138	123
Texas	4	0.077	6	18	0.063	23
Other^b	6	0.199	24	21	0.094	40
Total	74	0.178	265	424	0.105	890
^aWeighted average percent U₃O₈ per ton of ore. ^bIncludes California, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington. Notes: Uranium reserves that could be recovered as a byproduct of phosphate and copper mining are not included in this table. Reserves values in forward-cost categories are cumulative: that is, the quantity at each level of forward-cost includes all reserves at the lower costs. Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding.

Fusion Weapons

A thermonuclear weapon derives most of its explosive force from nuclear fusion, in a thermonuclear weapon; radiation from a fission explosion will heat and compress the deuterium and tritium, which then undergo fusion. The fission component of thermonuclear weapon is called the “primary”. The fusion competent is called the “secondary”. Thermonuclear weapons are significantly more difficult to design, build, and maintain than fission weapons.

Introduction to Nuclear Testing

The first nuclear testing was done in the United States on July 16^th 1945, at the Trinity site. The bomb was tested to see is the theorized implosion nuclear weapon would even work. Then the United States planned to use it against Japan. However the effects of the actually bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not what the scientist had anticipated. In the testing at Trinity there was no parameter set for the nuclear toxins that would travel with the bomb. After the war between the years of 1946-1962 many of the nuclear testing was conducted on the Marshall Islands a.k.a. “Pacific Proving Grounds”. The first nuclear test conducted abroad was five years later in the Soviet Union with their bomb “Joe 1”. Then the UK tested their first nuclear fission weapon in 1952. Early testing primarily observed the military effects of the nuclear weapon and also assured that the theoretical design worked in real life. However the production of nuclear bombs and the testing of such bombs soon began a “war” between the United States and the USSR.

Trinity Site explosion

Socially nuclear weapon testing was new and innovative. Many scientist thought that there could be “clean bombs”, yet with the increase of mortality in those exposed to the radioactive materials those views were soon altered. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the two world powers the USA and USSR to the verge of global thermonuclear war. Yet an eleventh hour compromise prohibited the ideological, economic, power struggle of the Cold War from becoming an “atomic Armageddon”. In light of the even of the Cold War the two countries began to see nuclear weapons for what they really were, creating a new advancements in safety.

Society was not the only thing that was affected by nuclear testing. The environment was also a victim to these new weapons of mass destruction.

An example of the environmental effects of nuclear bombs was the incident at Bravo. The testing site had been used many times prior to that particular test, yet like the bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII parameters were not considered. The blast took place with a yield of 15 Mt which was double the predicted yield. In addition to the increased yield the bomb also produced huge amounts of nuclear fallout. That was not good on its own but with the assistance of a change in the weather pattern the fallout was about to spread more than 100 miles. This signal blast contaminated islands that were inhabited and had not been evacuated.

The immediate effects on the people were radiation burns but in the long run there was a high rate of cancer development and defects in birth. In recognizing this tragedy the danger of the atmospheric nuclear weapons testing and the rise in the numbers of countries doing so there was a treaty that was put into action in 1963, Partial Test Ban Treaty. This eliminated the countries, who signed the treaty, the ability to test nuclear bombs in the atmosphere. The two main counties who signed were of course those who were most directly effected, and did the most nuclear testing, the Soviet Union and the United States. The elimination of those two counties alone dramatically reduced the fall out by 86%.

The advantages of testing nuclear weapons in the late 1940’s, 1950’s & 1960’s were to advance in military warfare. The testing provided the countries with information on how there nuclear weapon reacted in a most efficient way and how to best use them in war.

Crater from the 1962 "Sedan" nuclear test as part of Operation Plowshare. The 104 kiloton blast displaced 12 million tons of earth and created a crater 320 feet deep and 1,280 feet wide
Q & A:

Developing a Nuclear Weapons Program

Q: Why would a country want nuclear weapons?

A: Countries want nuclear weapons because they are afraid of other countries’ nuclear weapons. However it is not just fear: countries want nuclear weapons as deterrence against other countries that have nuclear weapons, or countries they suspect of having nuclear weapons. For example, the United States organized the Manhattan project during World War II because it feared that Nazi Germany would be able to created nuclear weapons and win the war. The United States also wanted a way to quickly end to war. Another example of a nation being influenced to develop nuclear weapons based on the fact that a rival country has them or is suspected of developing them is the Soviet Union. Once the United States demonstrated its nuclear capability at Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Soviet Union was spurred to develop nuclear weapons of its own, which developed into the nuclear arms race of the “Cold War.” Because of the pressures of the Cold War, a desire to have nuclear weapons as deterrents to nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, and a desire to become independent of the United States in terms of nuclear capacity, both Britain and France designed and tested nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s.

Q: Why have some nations with the capacity chosen not to develop nuclear weapons and others to arm themselves and then disarm themselves? How should a government considering nuclear weapons view these decisions?

A: The dropping of the nuclear bombs by the United States on Hiroshima & Nagasaki was so abhorrent that Japan decided against the development of a nuclear weapons program, and its constitution forbids the production of nuclear weapons. Germany did not have a nuclear program at the end of World War II, because after the war they had to be involved in rebuilding the country. Germany, like Japan, does have a nuclear energy industry, which could be converted to nuclear weapons should the countries decide to go in that direction. Although they have not yet chosen to develop nuclear weapons, they do apparently have the technology, which itself serves as a deterrent. Switzerland had a nuclear weapons development program, but chose to abandon it due to costs, and due to its decision to sign the non-proliferation treaty. Both Argentina and Brazil had nuclear weapons programs in the 1970s while both countries were under military dictatorship, but both countries ceased the development programs once civilian rule was returned. South Africa is the only country to disassemble its nuclear weapons after having had a nuclear program where it developed weapons. The dismantling of South Africa’s nuclear program was concurrent with the dismantling of the apartheid regime, and the institution of democratic reforms in the country. A government considering nuclear weapons should consider the situation that each of these countries was in, and look at their own political situation to see if there are similarities. Such a government should also consider that the abandonment of nuclear programs seems to be more likely with the abandonment of dictatorial regimes and the flowering of liberty and democracy.

Q: What might motivate a country to change direction and begin a nuclear weapons program?

A: Because most countries who have developed nuclear weapons programs did so because of the nuclear weapons programs or potential nuclear weapons programs of rival countries, the most likely motivation for a country to begin a weapons program is the existence of a weapons program in a rival or even just nearby country, or the fear that such a weapons program may be developed there. For example, Pakistan developed a nuclear weapons program after India, and China developed nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union did. Governments considering nuclear weapons programs should seriously consider the nuclear arms race that can be set off by such a program. If they commence a nuclear weapons program, rival countries with the technological capability will most likely initiate programs as well.

Q: Would the world be a safer place if no nation had nuclear weapons? If all nations had nuclear weapons? What would be a realistic goal?

A: The world would not be a safer place without nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are so powerful and devastating that they could literally destroy a large country in a matter of minutes. This is the exact reason that they make the world safer. World powers that have nuclear weapons will not go to war because of the destruction it would cause. This is why WW II, WW I, the wars between Britain and France, will never happen again. As long as there are nuclear weapons, democratic societies will never fight militarily. Also, having nuclear weapons is just a natural technological progression. Technological advances in warfare are just a natural progression of the world, and nuclear weapons were a natural progression. Once the technology is discovered, groups are going to try to get their hands on it, whether it's against international laws or not, so the idea that we could have a world without nuclear weapons is somewhat foolish. The key to keeping this state of mutual fear, and preventing hegemonic war, is keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of non-democratic nations. If a nation that is so radical, and doesn't care about their own destruction, as long as their enemy is destroyed, gets their hands on nuclear weapons it could disrupt the whole balance and create a lot of destruction on the earth. In general, nuclear weapons will keep the world a very safe place as long as radical nations, and terrorist groups, don't get their hands on them.

Q: What would be considered a reasonable number of weapons for the U.S. and Russia to maintain? For China? India? Pakistan? How should a government considering nuclear weapons view these numbers?

A: It is seen in countries that have nuclear weapons, China, Israel, America, that they maintain anywhere from 40-400 in their arsenal. A more recent addition to the nuclear family like China will have the lower end, and America would be on the higher end. Of course these numbers are very rough estimations; these countries would never disclose an exact number. A reasonable number of weapons for a country to maintain would be however many they feel necessary to strike potential enemies if the time for war ever came. This would give reason for a country like Israel to have more nukes than Russia. This is an optimistic view of things, but in reality a country is going to try to have the strongest and largest arsenal possible because of the idea that strong arms prevent war, and a country would like to be able to have unlimited striking capability.

Q: Should Iran or North Korea have any nuclear weapons? How should the world react to nuclear weapons development in either country? How should a government considering nuclear weapons view these facts?

A: Iran and North Korea should absolutely not be able to obtain nuclear weapons. These are countries that have publicly expressed ill intentions towards other countries. Also, these countries are run by pathological dictators. Iran is controlled by an Islamic radical leader, and North Korea an equally pathological dictator. The whole balance that nuclear weapons creates of mutual fear would be disturbed by these countries getting nukes because they have no morale qualms about the destruction they could cause, and just as little care about the welfare of their people. They have religious and ideological agendas against Western Civilization, and have publicly shared them, so there is no reason to think they wouldn't come after western cultures with their nuclear weapons. If either of these countries obtained nuclear weapons the world would become extremely worried and determined to disarm them because of the possible intentions to use them against western civilizations. Israel especially would be concerned because Iran has specifically made threats towards them. This is why Israel would never allow Iran or Iraq to get nuclear weapons, and if they got close they would take military action. A democratic, western society, which feels it necessary and feasible to get nuclear weapons shouldn't really have a problem developing them. Of course there are precautions and such that the country would have to follow. It would be very difficult for a Middle Eastern society, or any society that is a theocracy, dictatorship, more or less anything other than a democracy, to get nuclear weapons because allowing a radical country to get nuclear weapons would disrupt the world balance and create a lot of turmoil-and every country realizes this.

Q: How will nuclear weapons affect the international status of a country? Can a country truly be considered a great civilization today without having nuclear weapons?

A: If a country were to go from a non-nuclear power to a state that had nuclear weapons, it would most likely come under scrutiny from the rest of the world. Such a move would probably cause an international organization, like the United Nations or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to investigate the motives and validity of this move. Most countries that are nuclear powers have already been established for quite some time. Some have been this way since the Cold War (i.e. Russia or the United States) or have received technological aide from those previous countries (i.e. much of Western Europe, Israel). Two perfect examples of countries today that are interested in developing nuclear weapons are Iran and North Korea. Iran, which is an Islamic theocracy, has begun to develop facilities to produce enriched uranium. Enriched uranium is not needed for nuclear power use, but is definitely necessary for nuclear weapons research. With Iran as one of the many aggressors of Israel in the Middle East, many governments are weary of what Iran’s intentions are. Another example is the country of North Korea, which is a communist dictatorship. The government has stated it has developed nuclear weapons, but no tests have taken place. North Korea has violated several international agreements with the IAEA in the past several years, some of which include expelling inspectors and not disclosing information. A country does not have to be nuclear power to be a great nation in this day and age. Because of heightened tensions during the Cold War, nuclear weapon technology was looked upon as an advantage, but today it is often not the case. Countries that provide the greatest amount of democratic reforms to their citizens are truly great nations.

Nuclear Weapons Fact Sheet

· Argentina	Has never produced nuclear weapons and does not possess them today.
· Belarus	When Belarus gained independence in December 1991, there were 81 road-mobile SS-25s on its territory stationed at three missile bases, and an unknown number of tactical nuclear weapons. Belarus transferred its nuclear weapons to Russia. No nuclear forces have been stationed in Belarus.
· Brazil	From the 1960s to the early 1990s, Brazil pursued an ambitious program of nuclear energy and technological development, which included construction of an unsafeguarded uranium enrichment facility under Navy direction. However, Brazil has since disavowed nuclear weapons.
· China	400 warheads are estimated to be in the Chinese nuclear arsenal. More specifically, there are only about 120 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles are deployed on four different types of ballistic missiles: 18-20 Dong Feng-5 (DF-5) inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), 12 DF-4 intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), and approximately 40 DF-3A and 48 DF-21A medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs).[1] While China possesses 12 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs)--the Ju Lang-1 (JL-1).
· Egypt	Egypt Has no Nuclear weapons.
· France	France maintains approximately 350 nuclear warheads on 60 Mirage 2000N bombers. Four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).
· India	New Delhi's stock of weapons-grade plutonium is estimated to be between 240-395kg 40-90 simple fission weapons.
· Iran	Iran has no Nuclear Weapons at the moment.
· Iraq	Iraq has no nuclear weapons.
· Israel	Israel has approximately 100-200 nuclear explosive devices.
· Japan	Japan has no Nuclear Weapons.
· Kazakhstan	Kazakhstan turned over all of its nuclear weapons.
· Libya	Libya eliminated its nuclear program.
· North Korea	North Korea is testing Nuclear weapons.
· Pakistan	Pakistan has the capability to produce thirty to forty fission bombs.
· Russia	Russia is estimated to now have around 20,000 nuclear weapons.
· South Africa	South Africa dismantled its nuclear program.
· South Korea	South Korea has an active ballistic missile program and several nuclear reactors.
· Syria	Syria is capable of pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
· Taiwan	Taiwan has no nuclear program.
· United Kingdom	The UK's current stockpile is thought to consist of less than 200 strategic and "sub-strategic" warheads on Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).
· United States	The United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, of which nearly 6,000 are operational and the remainder in reserve or inactive stockpiles. Approximately 1,700 warheads are deployed on land-based missile systems, 1,098 on bombers, and 3,168 on submarines.

Pseudo - Campaign Speech:

North Korean Candidate for Nuclear Weapons

North Korea has been teetering on the brink of complete and total breakdown for quite some time now. This has to change. That said, no one in the world will respect our communist way of life, but they will respect the communism of China. There are two major reasons for that. One being China’s strong manufacturing trade, and the other being that China is a Nuclear power. We already have a strong and dedicated military, but we do not have the power to back it up.

The nuclear powers of today feel that it is fine for those countries that have nuclear weapons to keep them, but that other countries, especially countries that do not subscribe to their way of thought or could conceivable pose a threat are not allowed to have them. We cannot be beaten down by pressure; we must prevail and have power equal to that of the other great nations of the world to be considered one! We must make ourselves equal to the great nations, not stand by and listen to their rhetoric of equality while we are oppressed.

Communism is at constant risk from the west now. Attacks on communist states such as North Vietnam by the United States prove that we do not have what we need to defend ourselves from the full power of the west. We not only have the responsibility to protect ourselves, to protect other countries that share our belief in the greater equality, not the elitism of the west.

From our new nuclear program we stand to gain the greatest power source in the world, which can greatly improve our economy and gain our rightful place on the world stage. The small risks of nuclear power are insignificant compared to the rewards. I know that our people are too great to let self-doubt stop them!

Plutonium stockpiles, 1999

U.S. Forward-Cost Uranium Reserves by State,

December 31, 2003

Total