Nuclear Weapons 5 PDF

www.fas.
org
The Basics of Nuclear Weapons:

Physics, Fuel Cycles, Effects and Arsenals
Hans M. Kristensen
Director, Nuclear Information Project
Federation of American Scientists
Phone: 202-454-4695
Email: [email protected]
Presentation to
Introduction to WMD Nonproliferation Course
James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Washington, D.C.
February 8, 2016
www.fas.org
Nuclear Chain Reac.ons: Fission and Fusion

A nuclear weapon is a explosive device that uses a controlled uncontrolled
nuclear chain reac4on to release huge amounts of energy.
Nuclear weapons make use of one or two forms of

interac4ons between atoms:
Fission: uses a neutron to split a nucleus to release

neutrons that split more nuclei to create a
supercri4cal fission process.
Fusion: the opposite of fission, combines (melts)

two light nuclei into one heavier nucleus. The
released neutron can, if necessary, be used to
drive another fission event.
A nuclear weapon uses one or a combina4on of

these two processes.
Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 2

www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

All bomb fuel comes from the ground (Uranium) but...
Uranium ore typically contains less than 1% uranium
Of that 1%, only 0.7% is U-235:

www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Nuclear weapons fuel cycle is focused
on processing the fuel to those
isotopes most effec4ve in weapons.
Uranium weapons require simpler and

shorter fuel cycle than plutonium
weapons.
Plutonium weapons require

processing of spent reactor fuel and
extrac4on, purifica4on, and
engineering of plutonium.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Three basic types of uranium enrichment

www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Enrichment effort (energy expenditure) is measured in

terms of “separa4ve work units” (SWU):
•  About 4 SWU ! 1 kg of LEU (~3%) from about 6 kg of

natural uranium*
•  About 200 SWU ! 1 kg weapons-grade HEU from
about 200 kg of natural U*
•  About 5,000 SWU ! 1 weapon (25 kg) from about Grades of Uranium:
5,000 kg of natural U*
•  About 100,000 SWU ! fuel for 1,000 MW(e) LWR for Depleted uranium (DU): <7% U-235
1 year’s opera4on (e.g. Iran’s Bushehr reactor) Natural uranium: 7% U-235
Low-enriched uranium (LEU): >7% but <20% U-235
Important to realize that much of the SWU/kg work to
produce weapons-grade HEU is already done in Highly-enriched uranium (HEU): >20% U-235
producing LEU from natural U; star.ng from LEU would Weapons-grade uranium: >90% U-235
give a proliferator a huge head start
*Assumes a nominal waste assay of 0.25% uramium.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Pu-239 is readily fissionable and more so than U-235.
Pu-239 also has a much higher rate of spontaneous
fission than U-235.
Grades of Plutonium:
Plutonium buion (lej) allegedly used in Nagasaki bomb.
For weapons purposes the Pu-239 percentage should be Plutonium ring (right) used for storage.
as large as possible:*
•  Weapon-grade: < 6% Pu-240 and other non-Pu-239
isotopes;
•  Fuel-grade: from 6 to 18% Pu-240;
•  Reactor-grade: > 18% Pu-240.
•  “Super-grade”: < 3% Pu-240.
•  “Weapon-usable” refers to plutonium that is in
separated form and therefore rela4vely easy to fashion
into weapons. Plutonium core produc4on model allegedly photographed by
Mordechai Vanunu inside the Israeli Dimona reactor complex
* But all plutonium is poten4ally useable for a weapon.
www.fas.org
Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The IAEA defines the amounts of fissile material “required for a single nuclear device” as 8 kg of plutonium, 8 kg
of U-233, and 25 kg of U-235. But that apparently depends on the skills and technical capability of the producer:
Approximate Fissile Material Required for Pure Fission Nuclear Weapons*

Weapon-Grade Plutonium (kg) Highly-Enriched Uranium (kg)
Yield Technical Capability Technical Capability
(kt) Low Medium High Low Medium High
1 3 1.5 1 8 4 2.5
5 4 2.5 1.5 11 6 3.5
10 5 3 2 13 7 4
20 6 3.5 3 16 9 5
* Reproduced from Thomas B. Cochran and Christopher E. Paine, The Amount of Plutonium and Highly-Enriched
Uranium Needed for Pure Fission Nuclear Weapons, Nuclear Weapons Databook, Natural Resources Defense
Council, Revised April 13, 1995, p. 9.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Warhead Types

A bomb is a bomb is a bomb is a…
Gun-type fission weapon: uses chemical explosives to

combine two subcri4cal masses of HEU into one
supercri4cal mass of HEU. 50-60 kg (110-132 lbs)
Example: Hiroshima bomb (yield: ~13.5 kt).
Single-stage, fission weapon: uses chemical explosives

to compress HEU (12-18 kg; 26-39 lbs) or Pu (4-6 kg;
8-13 lbs) subcri4cal mass into supercri4cal mass.
Example: Nagasaki bomb (yield: ~22 kt).
Can be “boosted” by deuterium-tri4um gas to ~80 kt.
Two-stage, thermonuclear weapon: combines fission

device (primary or trigger) with fusion device
(secondary or Canned Sub-Assembly). All US nuclear
weapon designs current are of this type. Yields range
from 0.3 to 1,200 kilotons; most yield comes from
secondary.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Weapons Effects

Not just a bigger bomb…
The destruc4ve effect of nuclear weapons is unlike any

other created my human beings.
100% fission of 1 kg Pu-239 or U-235 can produce an

explosion equivalent to more than 18,000 tons of TNT. (Above) The most powerful U.S. conven4onal bomb – the
GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) – has an
explosive yield of approximately 0.011 kt TNT, roughly 30 4mes
less than the lowest yield serng (0.3 kt) on the B61 nuclear
bomb (below). The B61-12 weighs 850 lbs (385 kg), nearly
thirty 4mes less that the MOAB’s 22,600 lbs (10,300 kg).
Downtown Hiroshima days ajer air burst of 13.5 kt HEU gun-type bomb

www.fas.org

Main types of effects from nuclear weapons detona4on:
•  Fireball: x-rays instantly create large sphere tens of

millions of degrees hot
•  EMP: instantaneously crates electromagne4c pulse that
can destroy or disrupt electronic equipment
•  Heat and light wave: causes fires and burns in seconds
(fires can significantly add to effects)
•  Prompt radia.on: harmful to life and damaging to
electronic equipment
•  Air blast wave (lower atmosphere): hundreds of miles
per hour winds
•  Shock wave (surface or near-surface burst): causes
damage to underground structures
•  Residual radia.on: emiied over extended period of
4me
•  Electronic: extended interference of communica4ons
equipment

www.fas.org
Nuclear tests (atmospheric before 1963) were used to

study effects of nuclear weapons – and to develop more
effec4ve nuclear weapons.
Grable test (15 kt), Opera4on Upshot-Knothole, Nevada, May 25, 1953

www.fas.org

Strike planning seeks to maximize effec4veness of
nuclear blast against different targets to kill target
by detona4ng the weapons at the op4mum height
of burst (HOB). The interac4on
between the blast
Surface targets are destroyed by combina4on of (incident) wave and
heat and blast wave. reflected wave creates
a precursor wave that
reinforces the incident
wave traveling along
Fireball the ground. Because
of this, air blast is
maximized with a low-
Blast wave air burst rather than a
surface burst.
Blast wave bouncing
back from surface
Tanks and trucks

www.fas.org

Destruc4on of underground
facili4es require ground- or shallow
sub-surface bursts to ensure shock
wave causes an underground
fracture or “damage zone”.
In a sub-surface burst the shock

wave moving upward is trapped by
the surface material and reflected
downward where it reinforces the
original chock wave. This “coupling”
effect enables an earth-penetrator
to destroy underground targets 2-5
4mes deeper than ground burst
weapons.
1 kt: destroys to a few 10s of meters

1 MT: destroys to a few 100s of meters
B61-11 drop test into frozen soil

www.fas.org

With a penetra4on capability in hard rock (top
right) of 10 feet (3 meters), the damage zone
from a 400-kt B61-11 blast would extend to
around 500 feet (150 meters).
In wet soil (boiom right), the damage zone

from a 400-kt B61-11 blast at 25 feet (8
meters) would reach 1,200 feet (365 meters).
Source: Countering ProliferaMon of Compounding It?, NRDC 2003

www.fas.org

Radioac4ve contamina4on area is significant for the
yields required to be effec4ve against hard and deeply
buried targets (~2,000 sq km for B61-11).
Radioac4ve fallout would also contaminate allies.
Source: Countering ProliferaMon of Compounding It?, NRDC 2003 Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 16
www.fas.org
Nuclear Weapons Effects: Strategies

(Very) Simply speaking, there are two general types of nuclear employment strategies:
Counter-force: employs nuclear nuclear forces “to destroy the military capabili4es of an enemy or
render them impotent. Typical counter force targets include: bomber bases, ballis.c missile
submarine bases, intercon.nental ballis.c missile (ISBM) silos, an.ballis.c and air defense
installa.ons, command and control centers, and weapons of mass destruc.on storage facili.es.
Generally, the nuclear forces required to implement a counter-force targe.ng strategy are larger and
more accurate than those required to implement a counter-value strategy. Counter-value targets
generally tend to be harder, more protected, more difficult to find, and more mobile than counter-
value targets.”
Counter-value: directs the “destruc4on or neutraliza4on of selected enemy military and military-
related targets such as industries, resources, and/or ins.tu.ons that contribute to the ability of the
enemy to wage war. In general, weapons required to implement this strategy need not be as
numerous nor as accurate as those required to implement a counter-force targe.ng strategy because
counter-value targets tend to be sojer and less protected than counter-force targets.”
Obama administra4on did not change counter-force focus: The 2013 Nuclear
Employment Strategy “requires the United States to maintain significant counterforce
capabili4es against poten4al adversaries. The new guidance does not rely on a ‘counter-
value’ or ‘minimum deterrence’ strategy.”

www.fas.org

There is no “clean” nuclear war.
Even “limited” counter-force aiacks

would have create extensive
collateral damage.
Limited counter-force aiacks are

important scenarios in post-Cold
War planning.
Source: Nuclear Deterrence, Nuclear War Planning, and Scenarios of Nuclear Conflict, FAS/NRDC, 2014

www.fas.org

Large-scale aiacks, even purely counterforce, would have
devasta4ng civilian consequences and cause clima4c effects
and famine on a global scale.
Source: The Nuclear War Plan: A Time For Change, NRDC 2001

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Global Inventories

More than 125,000 warheads produced since 1945
Peak of 64,500 stockpiled warheads in 1986 (70,300 if
including re4red warheads)
• US stockpile peaked early (1967)
• Russian stockpile peaked late (1986)
Enormous reduc4ons since 1986 peak:
• ~54,000 warhead stockpile reduc4on
• ~47,000+ warheads dismantled
~10,000 warheads in stockpiles (~15,000 if coun4ng

re4red warheads awai4ng dismantlement)
US and Russia possess 90% of global inventory (94% if
coun4ng re4red warheads); each has more than 4
.mes more warheads than rest of world combined;
15 4mes more than third-largest stockpile (France)
Decreasing: US, Russia, Britain, France
Increasing: China, Pakistan, India
Israel rela4vely steady; North Korea trying

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Trends With more than 90% of world inventory, US and Russia have
special responsibility to reduce
Reduc4on of deployed strategic warheads from some

23,000 in 1989 to 3,500 in 2015 (New START counts 3,185)
Readiness level of remaining strategic forces is high: about

1,800 warheads on prompt alert
No official de-aler4ng, but significant reduc4on of overall

alert numbers: heavy bombers de-alerted, US ICBMs and
SLBMs downloaded, non-strategic forces de-alerted
Trend: pace of reduc.on is slowing
Note: re4red, but s4ll intact, warheads awai4ng dismantlement are not shown US cut only 396 warheads in 2010-2014, compared with
3,457 warheads cut in 2005-2009
Russia cut an es4mated 1,100 warheads in 2010-2014,

compared with 2,600 in 2005-2009
Instead of con4nuing pace or increasing reduc4ons, US and

Russian stockpiles appear to be leveling out for the long
haul; new emphasis on moderniza4on
New ini4a4ves needed to prevent stalling of arms control

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Non-Strategic

•  U.S. and Russian combined stockpiles of non-strategic
nuclear warheads reduced by roughly 90 percent since
1991. Neither side has disclosed actual numbers
•  Russia: two public declara4ons:
2005: Russian “non-strategic nuclear forces” have been

reduced “by four 4mes” since 1991.
2010: “the Russian arsenal of non-strategic nuclear weapons
is reduced four 4mes [75%]* in comparison with the USSR
arsenal.” All are in central storage
* Note: PNI declara4ons do not add up to 75%
•  United States: two public declara4ons:
2010: "The number of U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons

•  Some 2,500 warheads remain assigned to
declined by approximately 90 percent from September 30,
non-strategic forces (Russia ~2,000; United States ~500)
1991 to September 30, 2009.”
•  Several thousands addi4onal re4red, but s4ll rela4vely intact, 2014: "The number of U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons
warheads in storage are awai4ng dismantlement has declined by approximately 90 percent since September
30, 1991.”
•  Stockpiles will likely con4nue to decline in next decade
with or without arms control agreements ~180 US B61 bombs forward-deployed in Europe

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia Diverse Nuclear Forces
Gradual phase-out of soviet-era systems and par4al Strategic

replacement with “new” systems by early-mid 2020s
ICBM: 3 types being replaced by 2
Replacement began two decades ago
in 6 versions
SLBM: 2 types being placed by 1
Old New System MIRV First Deployed Bombers: 2 types being replaced by 1
System
Non-Strategic
SS-18 Sarmat (RS-28) Yes 2020-2025?
SS-19 SS-27 Mod 1 (Topol M) No 2097 Navy: SLCM, SAM, ASW missiles,
SS-27 Mod 2 (RS-24) Yes 2014 torpedoes, depth bombs
SS-25 SS-27 Mod 1 (Topol-M) No 2006 Air Force: cruise missile, bombs
SS-27 Mod 2 (RS-24) Yes 2010 Army: short-range ballis4c missiles,
SS-27 Mod 3 (RS-26) Yes 2016? intermediate-range cruise missile
SS-27 Mod 4 (Rail) Yes 2020?
Defense: ballis4c missile defense, air-
SS-N-18 SS-N-32 (Bulava) Yes 2016-2018? defense, coastal defense
SS-N-23 SS-N-32 (Bulava) Yes 2020-2030?
Tu-95MS PAK-DA 2020-2030?
Tu-160 PAK-DA 2020-2030?

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia

ICBM
•  SS-27 Mod 2 (mobile): replacing SS-25s at Novosibirsk, Tagil, Yoshkar-Ola
•  SS-27 Mod 2 (silo): replacing SS-19s at Kozelsk
•  SS-27 Mod 2 (rail): planned but uncertain
•  RS-26 (compact SS-27): to replace SS-25s at Irkutsk and Vypolzovo
•  RS-28 (Sarmat): to replace SS-28s at Dombarovsky and Uzhur
SSBN / SLBM
•  SS-N-23 SLBM life-extension (Sineva/Layner) in Delta IV SSBN
•  Borei SSBN: 8 planned (possibly 10-12)
•  SS-N-32 (Bulava): fielding
Bombers
•  Upgrades of some Tu-160 (Blackjack) and Tu-95 (Bear)
•  New bomber (PAK PA) in development
•  ALCM (Kh-102) in development
Tac4cal
•  Tu-22M (Backfire) upgrade underway
•  Su-34 (Fullback) fielding
•  Yasen (Sverodvinsk) SSGN fielding
•  SLCM (SS-N-30, Kalibr) fielding
•  GLCM test-launched; not deployed
•  SSM (SS-26, Iskander) fielding
•  SAM (S-400/SA-21) fielding (nuclear?)
•  ABM (A-135) upgrade planned Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 24
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (ICBM)

www.fas.org

Third SS-27 unit (39 Guards Missile Division).
SS-27 Mod 2 TEL under camouflage (top) and
upgrade of first of several regiment bases.
First regiment with 9 SS-27 Mod 2 (RS-24) placed on
“experimental combat duty” in 2013; second in 2014;
third in 2015.
Satellite images show upgrade of regiment base and

media photos show SS-27 Mod 2 launchers.
Remaining SS-25s are being phased out.

www.fas.org
Fourth SS-27 unit (42 Missile Division).

Construction of SS-27 Mod 2 base (bottom); camouflaged vehicles at supply
Part of first regiment with 6 SS-27 Mod 2 base (top left); upgrade to warhead storage (top right). Image: 2 Jun 2014
(RS-24) placed on “experimental combat
duty” in 2013; second regiment in 2014;
third in 2015.
Satellite images show complete

reconstruc4on of regiment base (boiom)
with 9 TEL garages for 3 SS-27 Mod 2
baialions, as well as upgrade of warhead
storage and newly arrived camouflaged
vehicles at supply base.
Remaining SS-25s being phased out.

www.fas.org
Fijh SS-27 unit (28 Guards Missile Division).
Deployment of first regiment with 10 SS-27 Mod 2

(RS-24) underway. First 4 became opera4onal in
December 2014; first regiment done in 2015.
Upgrade to SS-27 Mod 2 at Kozelsk missile
News media photos show upgrade of silos. field in 2012 (bottom) and 2013 (top).
Planned numbers are unknown, but there were 60

SS-19s in 2006 and 60 SS-27s were deployed at
Ta4shchevo.
Previously with SS-19 (possibly all gone).

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (SSBN)

Moderniza4on from Delta to Borei:
6 Delta IV, each with 16 SS-N-23 (Sineva modifica4on)

Will likely be replaced by Borei SSBN in late-2020s
2-3 Delta III, each with 16 SS-N-18

Being replaced by Borei, star4ng in 2015
Russia’s SSBN fleet is based at Yagelnaya (Gadzhiyevo) on the
Kola Peninsula in the Barents Sea (top) and Rybachiy on the
8 Borei (planned), each with 16 SS-N-32 (Bulava) Kamchatka Peninsula in the Pacific.
A Borei SSBN captured in the Kola Bay on 20 July 2014 with the aircraj carrier
Admiral Kuznetsov. Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 29
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (SSBN)

Implica.ons of moderniza.on: Weapons System Missiles Warheads Missiles Warheads
(2014) (2014) (2024) (2024)
SSBN fleet will remain rela4vely stable SS-N-18 48* 144 0 0

around 8-10 opera4onal SSBNs. SS-N-23 (Sineva) 96** 384 32 128
SS-N-32 (Bulava) - - 112*** 672
SLBMs stable at some 144 missiles. Total 144 528 144 800
* It is possible that only two Delta IIIs with 32 SS-N-18s are opera4onal.
Significant increase in warheads ** Not all six Delta IVs are opera4onal any given 4me; normally 1-2 boats are in overhaul.
*** Assume 7 of 8 planned Borei SSBNs have entered service.
capacity from 528 to 800.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (Bombers)

A new subsonic, low-observable long-range bomber (PAK-
DA) is under development. A Tupolev design apparently
was selected in 2013. Expected deployment in the
mid-2020s to replace:
Tu-95MS (Bear): roughly 60 lej of which perhaps 50 are
opera4onal. Carries AS-15B ALCM and bombs. Being
upgraded to increase conven4onal capability.
Tu-160 (Blackjack): roughly 15 lej of which perhaps 13 are
opera4onal. Carries AS-15A ALCM and bombs. Upgrade to
increase conven4onal capability. Reproduc4on announced.
Su-22M3 (Backfire): Intermediate-range but some4mes
considered strategic. Carries AS-4 ALCM and bombs. Being
upgraded to increase conven4onal capability.
A new nuclear ALCM (Kh-102)

has been under development
for some 4me, possibly to
replace the aging AS-15 on the PAK-DA bomber
Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers.
(subsonic, stealthy)
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (Tac.cal)

•  Widely dispersed forces in four Services: tac4cal air
force, navy, defense, and army (see map)
•  Warheads not on bases but in central storage
•  Yet some upgrades of nuclear-storage sites at bases

(Shaykovka Tu-22 base, boiom lej; Kaliningrad
boiom right)
May 2007 July 2007 October 2009

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide32
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (Tac.cal)

Weapons System Remarks Large lejover warhead inventory of almost
Air Force en4rely Soviet-era weapons.
AS-4 ALCM 1967: 47 years old. For Tu-22M3
Reduced by at least 75% since 1991.
Bombs For Tu-22M3, Su-24M, Su-34
Most es4mates vary from 1,800 to 2,000
Navy
warheads. DOD men4ons unofficial es4mates of
SS-N-9 (Malakhit) 1969: 45 years old. For ships.
2,000-4,000.
SS-N-12 (Bazalt) 1976: 38 years old. For subs.
SS-N-15 (Vyuga) 1969: 47 years old. For subs/ships. All warheads in central storage; not with/on
SS-N-16 (Vodopad) 1981: 33 years old. For subs. delivery vehicles.
SS-N-19 (Granit) 1980: 34 years old. For ships. Of current force, only three types are being
SS-N-21 (Granat) 1987: 27 years old. For subs. modernized. Future plans are unknown.
SS-N-22 (Moskit) 1981: 22 years old. For ships.
SS-N-30 (Kalibr) (2015). For subs. Replacing SS-N-21?
Torpedoes (550/650 mm) For subs. “The general purpose forces – to include dual-use
Depth Bombs For ASW aircraj and helicopters. nonstrategic nuclear forces – will continue to
acquire new equipment for the near-term, but
Army
deliveries will be small and largely consist of
SS-21 (Tochka) 1981: 33 years old. modernized Soviet-era weapons.”
SS-26 (Iskander-K) 2005: Replacing SS-21.
US Defense Intelligence Agency, 2013
Defense
S-300/A-135/coastal Nuclear status of newer systems uncertain.
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Russia (Tac.cal) Over the past three years Russian exercises
“include simulated nuclear aiacks on NATO
Allies (eg, ZAPAD) and on partners (eg, March
2013 simulated aiacks on Sweden)…”
NATO Secretary General Annual Report 2015
Because they are dual-capable, non-strategic nuclear forces are quickly

drawn into conflicts: Russian deployment of S-300 air-defense and Su-24
bombers in Crimea (above); Russian Tu-22 bomber intercepted over Bal4c
Sea by French Mirage fighter (right).

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: USA

Stockpile peaked in 1967; deployed strategic warheads peaked in 1986
Stockpile and deployed strategic warheads have not changed significantly since 2009

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals
ICBM
•  Minuteman III life-extension comple4ng
•  Warhead fuzes/interoperable warhead planned
•  GBSD (ICBM replacement) in development
SSBN / SLBM
•  Trident II D5 SLBM life-extension development
•  SSBN replacement development (12 planned)
•  W76-1 warhead life-extension deploying
•  W88-1 warhead life-extension development
Bombers
•  Upgrade of B-2 and B-52 underway
•  LRS-B next-genera4on bomber in development
•  B61-12 guided standoff bomb in development
•  LRSO (ALCM) replacement in development
Tac4cal
•  F-35A nuclear capability in development
•  B61-12 guided standoff in development
Infrastructure
•  Uranium Processing Facility (secondaries) construc4on
•  Plutonium produc4on facili4es (primaries) construc4on
•  Warhead surveillance/simula4on facili4es upgrade

www.fas.org

Next 10 years:
$350 billion for maintaining and
modernizing nuclear forces and
infrastructure.
Comprehensive moderniza4on:
•  All three legs of strategic triad
•  Tac4cal dual-capable aircraj
•  Warhead produc4on complex
Consolida4on and modifica4on of
warhead types.
Some delays happening; more
expected.
Extending nuclear deterrent
through 2080.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: USA Alleged advantages:

•  Fewer warhead types permit
reduc4on of hedge
•  Modified warheads with increased
safety, use control, and performance
margin
•  Fewer warheads will be cheaper to
maintain and deploy
Possible risks:
•  Modified warheads further from
tested designs; reliability issues?
•  Reduced stockpile diversity
•  Complex and expensive programs
prone to delays and cost overruns
•  Modified warheads “new”?
•  Costs highly uncertain and es4mates
probably underrated
Fundamental ques4ons:
3+2 strategy: reduc4on from 12 warhead versions (8 basic designs) to 5 types: •  Why is hedging necessary for missile
3 “Interoperable” or “adaptable” warheads on ICBM and SLBM warheads but not bomber weapons?
IW-1 (W78/W88-1), IW-2 (W87/W88-1), IW-3 (W76-1) •  Why must US hedge when Britain and
France do not?
2 non-interoperable warheads on bombers and fighters •  Why is “deployed” warheads the
ALCM (LRSO) with W80-1 or W84 same in the future?
B61-12 guided standoff bomb
www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: USA (Tac.cal)

•  180 U.S. B61 bombs scaiered in 87 underground
vaults underneath 87 aircraj shelters at six bases
in five European countries:
•  Addi4onal bombs in the United States for

extended deterrence missions elsewhere.
•  50 French ASMPA cruise missiles at three bases

for 3 squadrons (2 air and 1 naval).

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: China

ICBM / MRBM
•  DF-31A (CSS-10 Mod 2) fielding
•  DF-5B (CSS-4 Mod 2) with MIRV
•  DF-26 introduced
•  New mobile ICBM test-launching
•  Development of new mobile ICBM capable of
delivering MIRV
SSBN / SLBM
•  Jin (Type-094) SSBN fielding (4-5 expected)
•  JL-2 (CSS-N-14) SLBM in development
•  Type-096 SSBN possibly in development
Cruise Missiles:
•  ALCM (CJ-20 on H-6 bomber) in development*
•  GLCM (DH-10/CJ-10) fielding**
Note: China is the only of the P-5 (NPT declared) nuclear-

armed states that is increasing its nuclear arsenal.
* Listed in 2013 AFGSC briefing.

** Listed by NASIC as “conventional or nuclear,” the same designation
as the Russian nuclear-capable AS-4 Kitchen ALCM.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: China (ICBM)

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: China (MRBM)

Approximately 80 nuclear (DF-21 and DF-21A).
Almost completely replaced DF-3A.
Vast training area in Delingha and Da Qaidam.
DF-21C and DF-21D conven4onal versions deploying.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: China (MRBM)

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals:
China (MRBM)

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: China (SSBN)

Building class of 4-5 Jin SSBNs
Each with 12 JL-2.
First seen in 2007 on commercial

satellite photos.
4 in service, but JL-2 not yet fully

opera4onal.
All 4 said to be based at South Sea

Fleet.
Big unknown: will China begin to

deploy nuclear warheads on
launchers in peace4me?

www.fas.org

Expansion of Hainan submarine base.
First Jin SSBN presence in 2008.
Base includes demagnetization facility,

underground submarine pier, SLBM
handling and transportation system.

www.fas.org

Important new capability, but…
Jin SSBN noisy compared with Russian SSBNs.
To target USA, a Jin SSBN would have to sail far into

Pacific or Sea of Japan.
Command and control capability is limited.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: France

SSBN / SLBM
•  TNO warhead on M51.2 SLBM.
•  M51.3 SLBM development.
Bombers
•  Rafale K3 to replace Mirage 2000N at Istres Air Base.
•  Next-genera4on ALCM in development.
Infrastructure
•  Megajoule at CESTA development.
•  Airix/Epure hydrodynamic test center at Valduc development
(partly Joint French-UK warhead surveillance tes4ng center).

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Britain

SSBN / SLBM
•  SSBN (Vanguard replacement) in development (3-4 planned).
•  SLBM (Trident II D5LE) in development (USA).
•  Mk4A/W76-1 type warhead fielding.
Infrastructure
•  Joint UK-French warhead surveillance tes4ng technology center development.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Pakistan

MRBM / SRBM
•  Shaheen III MRBM (Ha•-6) in development
•  Shaheen II MRBM (Ha•-6) fielding
•  NASR SRBM (Ha•-9) in development
•  Abdali SRBM (Ha•-2) in development*
Cruise Missiles
•  GLCM (Babur/Ha•-7) in development
•  ALCM (Ra’ad/Ha•-8 on Mirage) in development
•  SLCM (naval version of Babur) in development?
Infrastructure
•  Khushab-IV reactor #4 construc4on
•  Uranium enrichment facility upgrade
* Listed by Pakistani ISPR but not by 2013 NASIC report

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Pakistan
Shaheen-II mobile launcher. Detected TELs firng out at Na4onal Defense Complex. Not yet deployed in 2009, but probably
now part of 110-130 warhead es4mate. Extended-range Shaheen-III in development.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: India

ICBM / IRBM / MRBM
•  Agni VI ICBM development (MIRV?)
•  Agni V ICBM in development
•  Agni IV IRBM in development
•  Agni III IRBM fielding
SSBN / SLBM
•  Arihant SSBN development (3+ expected).
•  K-15/K-4 SLBM development.
•  Dhanush SLBM fielding.
Cruise Missiles
•  GLCM (Nirbhay) development*
Infrastructure
•  One plutonium produc4on reactor developing.
•  Breeder reactors?
* Reported by news media but not listed in 2013 NASIC report.

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: Israel

IRBM
•  Jericho III IRBM development?
SSG / SLBM
•  Dolphin SSG fielding
•  SLCM (Popeye Turbo/Harpoon) rumored*
Bomber
•  F-35A acquisi4on
* Reported by news media but denied by officials. US public intelligence reports omit
references to Israeli nuclear forces

www.fas.org
Nuclear Arsenals: North Korea

ICBM / IRBM / MRBM
•  No Dong MRBM fielding
•  Musudan IRBM in development
•  Hwasong-13 (KN-08) ICBM in development (fielding?)
•  Taepo Dong 2 SLV/ICBM in development
SSBN/SLBM
•  SSBN/SLBM in early development
•  Faked SLBM launch
Cruise Missiles
•  KN-09 coastal defense cruise missile in development ?**
Infrastructure
•  Yongbyon plutonium produc4on reactor re-start
•  Uranium enrichment produc4on construc4on
Big unknown: Does North Korea have miniaturized and weaponized

warhead that can be delivered by ballis4c missile?
* Despite three underground nuclear tests, there is no known public evidence that North Korea has miniaturized its test
devices sufficiently for delivery by ballis4c missiles
** Listed by 2013 AFGSC briefing but not in 2013 NASIC report. 2014 update of AFGSC does not list KN-09

www.fas.org
QUESTIONS?

Nuclear Weapons 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Weapons 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Weapons 5 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.fas.

The Basics of Nuclear Weapons:

Nuclear Chain Reac.ons: Fission and Fusion

Nuclear weapons make use of one or two forms of

Fission: uses a neutron to split a nucleus to release

Fusion: the opposite of ﬁssion, combines (melts)

A nuclear weapon uses one or a combina4on of

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 2

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Uranium ore typically contains less than 1% uranium

Of that 1%, only 0.7% is U-235:

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 3

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Uranium weapons require simpler and

Plutonium weapons require

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 4

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 5

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Enrichment eﬀort (energy expenditure) is measured in

• About 4 SWU ! 1 kg of LEU (~3%) from about 6 kg of

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 6

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Approximate Fissile Material Required for Pure Fission Nuclear Weapons*

(kt) Low Medium High Low Medium High

5 4 2.5 1.5 11 6 3.5

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 8

Nuclear Warhead Types

Gun-type ﬁssion weapon: uses chemical explosives to

Single-stage, ﬁssion weapon: uses chemical explosives

Two-stage, thermonuclear weapon: combines ﬁssion

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 9

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

The destruc4ve eﬀect of nuclear weapons is unlike any

100% ﬁssion of 1 kg Pu-239 or U-235 can produce an

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 10

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

• Fireball: x-rays instantly create large sphere tens of

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 11

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

Nuclear tests (atmospheric before 1963) were used to

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 12

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 13

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

In a sub-surface burst the shock

1 kt: destroys to a few 10s of meters

B61-11 drop test into frozen soil

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 14

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

In wet soil (boiom right), the damage zone

Source: Countering ProliferaMon of Compounding It?, NRDC 2003

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 15

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

Radioac4ve fallout would also contaminate allies.

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects: Strategies

Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists, 2016 | Slide 17

Nuclear Weapons Eﬀects

•  About 4 SWU ! 1 kg of LEU (~3%) from about 6 kg of

•  Fireball: x-rays instantly create large sphere tens of

•  Russia: two public declara4ons:

•  United States: two public declara4ons:

•  Warheads not on bases but in central storage

•  Yet some upgrades of nuclear-storage sites at bases

•  Addi4onal bombs in the United States for

•  50 French ASMPA cruise missiles at three bases