Journal of Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Waste Technology(JNFCWT) (방사성폐기물학회지)

Korean Radioactive Waste Society (한국방사성폐기물학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Reconsideration of Significant Quantity (SQ) for Pu Based on the Strategic Impact Investigation of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapon (NSNW) Using Monte-Carlo Simulations

  • Received : 2021.07.07
  • Accepted : 2021.09.17
  • Published : 2021.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present multidisciplinary study, which is a nexus of engineering and political science, investigates how the modernization of Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons (NSNWs) affects the IAEA safeguards system based on the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons. To this end, this study examines the characteristics of modernized NSNWs using Monte Carlo techniques. The results thus obtained show that 10 kt NSNWs with a Circular Error Probability (CEP) of 10 m can destroy the target as effectively as a 500 kt weapon with a CEP of 100 m. The IAEA safeguards system shows that the Significant Quantity (SQ) of 1 of plutonium is 8 kg, a parameter that was established when strategic nuclear weapons were dominant. However, the results of this study indicate that in recent years, low-yield nuclear weapons such as NSNWs have been more strategically interesting than strategic nuclear weapons as NSNWs require less plutonium than strategic nuclear weapons. Therefore, we would like to conclude that reducing the SQ of plutonium can result in more robust safeguards and non-proliferation strategies.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by the 2021 scientific promotion program funded by Jeju National University.

References

  1. T.B. Cochran, "Plutonium: The International Scene", Nuclear Energy, 35(4), 211-222 (1996).
  2. B. Zala, "How the Next Nuclear Arms Race Will Be Different From the Last One", Bull. At. Sci., 75(1), 36-43 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1555999
  3. U.S. Department of Defense. February 2018. "Nuclear Posture Review." U.S. Department of Defense. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF.
  4. A. Woolf. July 15 2021. "Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons." Congressional Research Service RL32572. Accessed Jun. 20 2021. Available from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf.
  5. H.M. Kristensen. Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons, Federation of American Scientists Special Report No 3, https://fas.org/_docs/Non_Strategic_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf, (2012).
  6. P. Sonne. February 6 2018. "Mattis: Plans for New U.S. Nuclear Weapon Could be Bargaining Chip With Russia." The Washington Post. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mattis-plans-for-new-us-nuclearweapon-could-be-bargaining-chip-with-russia/2018/02/06/198a6d14-0b68-11e8-baf5-e629fc1cd21e_story.html?utm_term=.d5af048d4c7b.
  7. D. MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, MIT Press, Cambridge (1993).
  8. K.A. Lieber and D.G. Press, "The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence", Inter. Secur., 41(4), 9-49 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a_00273
  9. B. Heuser and K. Stoddart, "Difficult Europeans: NATO and Tactical/Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons in the Cold War", Dipl. Statecraft, 28(3), 454-476 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2017.1347446
  10. P. Schulte. Tactical Nuclear Weapons in NATO and Beyond: A Historical and Thematic Examination, In Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute Report, 13-74 (2012).
  11. J.W. Kipp. Russian Doctrine on Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Contexts, Prisms, and Connections, In Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute Report, 127-142 (2012).
  12. J.W. Kipp. Russian Doctrine on Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Contexts, Prisms, and Connections, In Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO, U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute Report, 116-154 (2012).
  13. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. November 7 1991. "The Alliance's New Strategic Concept." NATO E-Library. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://www.nato.int/cps/em/natohq/official_texts_23847.htm.
  14. H.M. Kristensen and R.S. Norris, "Russian Nuclear Forces, 2018", Bull. At. Sci., 74(3), 185-195 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912
  15. E. Colby. January 30 2015. "Nuclear Weapons in the Third Offset Strategy: Avoiding a Nuclear Blind Spot in the Pentagon's New Initiative." Center for a New American Security. Accessed Jul. 14 2021. Available from: https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/nuclear-weapons-in-the-third-offset-strategy-avoiding-a-nuclear-blind-spot-in-the-pentagons-new-initiative.
  16. T. Goorley et al. "Initial MCNP6 Release Overview", Nucl. Technol., 180(3), 298-315 (2012). https://doi.org/10.13182/NT11-135
  17. D. Kimball. July 2020. "The Nuclear Testing Tally." Arms Control Association. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nucleartesttally.
  18. C. Sublette. August 6 2001. "Gallery of U.S. Nuclear Tests." The Nuclear Weapons Archive. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/index.html.
  19. J. Malik. Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report, LA-8819 (1985).
  20. R.L. Elder, An Examination of Circular Error Probable Approximation Techniques, Master's Thesis of Air Force Institute of Technology (1986).
  21. Z. Keck. June 22 2018. "Russia Keeps Testing Nuclear Missiles That Could Kill Millions." The National Interest. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-keeps-testing-nuclear-missiles-could-kill-millions-26388.
  22. H.M. Kristensen. June 2011. "The B61 Life-Extension Program : Increasing NATO Nuclear Capability and Precision Low-Yield Strikes." Federation of the American Scientists. Accessed Jun. 18 2021. Available from: https://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/publications1/IssueBrief_B61-12.pdf.
  23. G.I. Taylor, "The Formation of a Blast Wave by a Very Intense Explosion. I. Theoretical Discussion", Proc. of the Royal Society A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 201(1065), 159-174, The Royal Society, London (1950).
  24. G.I. Taylor, "The Formation of a Blast Wave by a Very Intense Explosion-II. The Atomic Explosion of 1945", Proc. of the Royal Society A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 201(1065), 175-186, The Royal Society, London (1950).
  25. H.L. Brode, "Numerical Solutions of Spherical Blast Waves", J. Appl. Phys., 26(6), 766-775 (1955). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1722085
  26. C.N. Kingery. Air Blast Parameters Versus Distance for Hemispherical TNT Surface Bursts, U. S. Army Materiel Command, Ballistic Research Laboratories Report, 1344 (1966).
  27. J.I. Ryu, Detonation Initiaion, Propagation, and Suppression, Ph.D. Thesis of University of California, Berkeley (2018).
  28. J.I. Ryu, X. Shi, and J.Y. Chen, "Modes of Detonation Wave Propagation in Water Vapor Concentration Gradients", Combust. Sci. Technol., 192(10), 1910-1930 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/00102202.2019.1630615
  29. A.A. Broyles, "Nuclear Explosions", Am. J. Phys., 50(7), 586-594 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.12783
  30. R. Serber, The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How to Build an Atomic Bomb, University of California Press, Berkeley (1992).
  31. Demographia. Demographia World Urban Areas 14th Annual Edition (Built-up Urban Areas or Urban Agglomerations), Demographia, 22-23 (2018).
  32. International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Safeguards Glossary: 2001 Edition-International Nuclear Verification Series 3, IAEA Report (2002).