Nuclear weapon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation,
search
"A-bomb" redirects here. For other
uses, see A-bomb
(disambiguation).
The mushroom cloud of the atomic bombing
of Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945 rose some 18 kilometers
(11 mi) above the bomb's hypocenter.
|
Nuclear weapons
|
 |
|
Background
|
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device
that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination
of fission and fusion.
Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts
of matter. The first fission
("atomic") bomb test released the same amount of energy as
approximately 20,000 tons of TNT.
The first thermonuclear
("hydrogen") bomb test released the same amount of energy
as approximately 10,000,000 tons of TNT.[1]
A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing little
more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can produce an explosive force
comparable to the detonation of more than 1.2 million tons (1.1 million tonnes)
of TNT.[2] Thus, even a small nuclear device no
larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire and radiation. Nuclear weapons
are considered weapons of mass
destruction, and their use and
control have been a major focus of international
relations policy since their debut.
Only two nuclear
weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United
States near the end of World War II.
On 6 August 1945, a uranium
gun-type fission bomb
code-named "Little Boy"
was detonated over the Japanese
city of Hiroshima.
Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type
fission bomb code-named "Fat Man"
was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan.
These two bombings
resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people—mostly civilians—from
acute injuries sustained from the explosions.[3]
The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and their ethical status, remain the
subject of scholarly and popular debate.
Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing purposes
and demonstrations. Only a few nations
possess such weapons or are suspected of seeking them. The only countries known
to have detonated nuclear weapons—and that acknowledge possessing such
weapons—are (chronologically by date of first test) the United States,
the Soviet Union
(succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia),
the United Kingdom,
France,
the People's
Republic of China, India,
Pakistan,
and North Korea.
In addition, Israel
is also widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it does not
acknowledge having them.[4][5][6]
One state, South Africa,
fabricated nuclear weapons in the past, but as its apartheid regime was coming
to an end it disassembled its arsenal, acceded to the NPT
and accepted full-scope international safeguards.[7]
The Federation of
American Scientists estimates there are more than 17,000 nuclear
warheads in the world as of 2012, with around 4,300 of them considered
"operational", ready for use.[4]
|
Contents [hide]
1 Types
1.1 Fission weapons
1.2 Fusion weapons
1.3 Other types
2 Weapons delivery
3 Nuclear strategy
4 Governance, control, and law
4.1 Disarmament
4.2 United Nations
5 Controversy
6 Non-weapons uses
7 See also
7.1 Aftermath
7.2 History
7.3 More technical
details
7.4 Popular culture
7.5 Proliferation and
politics
8 References
8.1 Notes
8.2 Bibliography
9 External links
9.1 General
9.2 Historical
|
Types
The two basic fission weapon designs
Main article: Nuclear weapon
design
There are two basic types of nuclear weapons:
those that derive the majority of their energy from nuclear fission reactions
alone, and those that use fission reactions to begin nuclear fusion reactions
that produce a large amount of the total energy output.
Fission weapons
All existing nuclear weapons derive some of
their explosive energy from nuclear fission reactions. Weapons whose explosive
output is exclusively from fission reactions are commonly referred to as atomic
bombs or atom bombs (abbreviated as A-bombs). This has long
been noted as something of a misnomer,
as their energy comes from the nucleus of the atom, just as it does with fusion
weapons.
In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled
into a supercritical
mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain
reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into
another (the "gun" method) or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of
material using chemical
explosives to many times its original density (the
"implosion" method). The latter approach is considered more
sophisticated than the former and only the latter approach can be used if the
fissile material is plutonium.
A major challenge in all nuclear weapon designs
is to ensure that a significant fraction of the fuel is consumed before the
weapon destroys itself. The amount of energy released by fission bombs can
range from the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards of 500,000
tons (500 kilotons)
of TNT.[8]
All fission reactions necessarily generate fission products,
the radioactive remains of the atomic nuclei split by the fission reactions.
Many fission products are either highly radioactive (but short-lived) or
moderately radioactive (but long-lived), and as such are a serious form of radioactive
contamination if not fully contained. Fission products are the
principal radioactive component of nuclear fallout.
The most commonly used fissile materials for
nuclear weapons applications have been uranium-235 and plutonium-239. Less
commonly used has been uranium-233.
Neptunium-237 and a number
of isotopes of americium
may be usable for nuclear explosives as well, but it is not clear that this has
ever been implemented, and even their plausible use in nuclear weapons is a
matter of scientific dispute.[9]
Fusion weapons
The basics of the Teller–Ulam
design for a hydrogen bomb: a fission bomb uses radiation to
compress and heat a separate section of fusion fuel.
Main article: Thermonuclear
weapon
The other basic type of nuclear weapon produces
a large proportion of its energy in nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion
weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more
colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they
rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). All such weapons
derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from
fission. This is because a fission weapon is required as a "trigger"
for the fusion reactions, and the fusion reactions can themselves trigger
additional fission reactions.[10]
Only six countries—United States, Russia,
United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France and India—have conducted
thermonuclear weapon tests. (Whether India has detonated a "true",
multi-staged thermonuclear
weapon is controversial.)[11]
All thermonuclear weapons are considered much more difficult to successfully
design and execute than primitive fission weapons. Almost all of the nuclear
weapons deployed today use the thermonuclear design because it is more
efficient.
-LLNL.jpg){kind=small}
Edward Teller, often
referred to as the "father of the hydrogen bomb"
Thermonuclear bombs work by using the energy of
a fission bomb to compress and heat fusion fuel. In the Teller-Ulam design, which
accounts for all multi-megaton yield hydrogen bombs, this is accomplished by
placing a fission bomb and fusion fuel (tritium, deuterium, or lithium deuteride) in
proximity within a special, radiation-reflecting container. When the fission
bomb is detonated, gamma rays
and X-rays emitted first
compress the fusion fuel, then heat it to thermonuclear temperatures. The
ensuing fusion reaction creates enormous numbers of high-speed neutrons, which can then
induce fission in materials not normally prone to it, such as depleted uranium. Each of
these components is known as a "stage", with the fission bomb as the
"primary" and the fusion capsule as the "secondary". In
large, megaton-range hydrogen bombs, about half of the yield comes from the
final fissioning of depleted uranium.[8]
Virtually all thermonuclear weapons deployed
today use the "two-stage" design described above, but it is possible
to add additional fusion stages—each stage igniting a larger amount of fusion
fuel in the next stage. This technique can result in thermonuclear weapons of
arbitrarily large yield, in contrast to fission bombs, which are limited in
their explosive force. The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated—the Tsar Bomba of the USSR,
which released an energy equivalent of over 50 million tons (50 megatons) of TNT—was a
three-stage weapon. Most thermonuclear weapons are considerably smaller than
this, due to practical constraints from missile warhead space and weight
requirements.[12]
Fusion reactions do not create fission
products, and thus contribute far less to the creation of nuclear fallout than
fission reactions, but because all thermonuclear weapons contain at least one
fission stage, and many high-yield thermonuclear devices have a final fission
stage, thermonuclear weapons can generate at least as much nuclear fallout as
fission-only weapons.
Other types
There are other types of nuclear weapons as
well. For example, a boosted fission
weapon is a fission bomb that increases its explosive yield through
a small amount of fusion reactions, but it is not a fusion bomb. In the boosted
bomb, the neutrons produced by the fusion reactions serve primarily to increase
the efficiency of the fission bomb.
Some weapons are designed for special purposes;
a neutron bomb is a
thermonuclear weapon that yields a relatively small explosion but a relatively
large amount of neutron radiation;
such a device could theoretically be used to cause massive casualties while
leaving infrastructure mostly intact and creating a minimal amount of fallout.
The detonation of any nuclear weapon is accompanied by a blast of neutron radiation.
Surrounding a nuclear weapon with suitable materials (such as cobalt or gold) creates a weapon known as a salted bomb. This device
can produce exceptionally large quantities of radioactive
contamination.
Research has been done into the possibility of pure fusion bombs: nuclear
weapons that consist of fusion reactions without requiring a fission bomb to
initiate them. Such a device might provide a simpler path to thermonuclear
weapons than one that required development of fission weapons first, and pure
fusion weapons would create significantly less nuclear fallout than other
thermonuclear weapons, since they would not disperse fission products. In 1998,
the United States
Department of Energy divulged that the United States had,
"...made a substantial investment" in the past to develop pure fusion
weapons, but that, "The U.S. does not have and is not developing a pure
fusion weapon," and that, "No credible design for a pure fusion
weapon resulted from the DOE investment."[13]
Most variation in nuclear weapon
design is for the purpose of achieving different yields for
different situations, and in manipulating design elements to attempt to
minimize weapon size.[8]
Antimatter, which consists
of particles resembling
ordinary matter particles in most
of their properties but having opposite electric charge, was once
considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons.[14] A major obstacle is the difficulty of
producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that
it is feasible.[15]
However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began
considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the
explosive itself.[16]
Weapons delivery
The first nuclear weapons were gravity bombs, such as
this "Fat Man"
weapon dropped on Nagasaki,
Japan. They were very large and could only be delivered by heavy bomber aircraft
Main article: Nuclear weapons
delivery
Nuclear weapons delivery—the technology
and systems used to bring a nuclear weapon to its target—is an important aspect
of nuclear weapons relating both to nuclear weapon
design and nuclear strategy.
Additionally, development and maintenance of delivery options is among the most
resource-intensive aspects of a nuclear weapons program: according to one
estimate, deployment costs accounted for 57% of the total financial resources
spent by the United States in relation to nuclear weapons since 1940.[17]
Historically the first method of delivery, and
the method used in the two nuclear weapons used in warfare, was as a gravity bomb, dropped from
bomber aircraft. This is usually
the first method that countries developed, as it does not place many
restrictions on the size of the weapon and weapon miniaturization
requires considerable weapons design knowledge. It does, however, limit attack
range, response time to an impending attack, and the number of weapons that a
country can field at the same time.
With the advent of miniaturization, nuclear
bombs can be delivered by both strategic bombers and tactical
fighter-bombers, allowing
an air force to use its current fleet with little or no modification. This
method may still be considered the primary means of nuclear weapons delivery;
the majority of U.S. nuclear warheads, for example, are free-fall gravity
bombs, namely the B61.[8]
A Trident II SLBM launched from a Royal Navy Vanguard class
ballistic
missile submarine.
More preferable from a strategic point of view
is a nuclear weapon mounted onto a missile, which can use a ballistic trajectory to
deliver the warhead over the horizon. While even short range missiles allow for
a faster and less vulnerable attack, the development of long-range intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles (SLBMs) has given some nations the ability to
plausibly deliver missiles anywhere on the globe with a high likelihood of
success.
More advanced systems, such as multiple independently
targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs), can launch multiple warheads at
different targets from one missile, reducing the chance of a successful missile defense. Today, missiles
are most common among systems designed for delivery of nuclear weapons. Making
a warhead small enough to fit onto a missile, though, can be difficult.[8]
Tactical weapons have involved
the most variety of delivery types, including not only gravity bombs and
missiles but also artillery
shells, land mines,
and nuclear depth charges
and torpedoes for anti-submarine
warfare. An atomic mortar was also tested at
one time by the United States. Small, two-man portable tactical weapons
(somewhat misleadingly referred to as suitcase bombs), such as
the Special Atomic
Demolition Munition, have been developed, although the difficulty of
combining sufficient yield with portability limits their military utility.[8]
Nuclear strategy
The United States' Peacekeeper missile
was a MIRVed delivery system.
Each missile could contain up to ten nuclear warheads (shown in red), each of
which could be aimed at a different target. These were developed to make missile defense very
difficult for an enemy country.
Main article: Nuclear warfare
Nuclear warfare strategy is a set of policies
that deal with preventing or fighting a nuclear war. The policy of trying to prevent
an attack by a nuclear weapon from another country by threatening nuclear
retaliation is known as the strategy of nuclear deterrence. The
goal in deterrence is to always maintain a second strike capability (the
ability of a country to respond to a nuclear attack with one of its own) and
potentially to strive for first strike
status (the ability to completely destroy an enemy's nuclear forces before they
could retaliate). During the Cold War, policy and military theorists in
nuclear-enabled countries worked out models of what sorts of policies could
prevent one from ever being attacked by a nuclear weapon.
Different forms of nuclear weapons
delivery (see above) allow for different types of nuclear
strategies. The goals of any strategy are generally to make it difficult for an
enemy to launch a pre-emptive strike against the weapon system and difficult to
defend against the delivery of the weapon during a potential conflict.
Sometimes this has meant keeping the weapon locations hidden, such as deploying
them on submarines
or rail cars whose locations are very hard for an enemy to track and other
times this means protecting them by burying them in hardened bunkers.
Other components of nuclear strategies have
included using missile defense (to destroy the missiles before they land) or
implementation of civil defense
measures (using early-warning systems to evacuate citizens to safe areas before
an attack).
Note that weapons designed to threaten large
populations, or to generally deter attacks are known as strategic
weapons. Weapons designed for use on a battlefield in military
situations are called tactical weapons.
There are critics of the very idea of nuclear strategy
for waging nuclear war who have suggested that a nuclear war between two
nuclear powers would result in mutual annihilation. From this point of view,
the significance of nuclear weapons is purely to deter war because any nuclear
war would immediately escalate out of mutual distrust and fear, resulting in mutually assured
destruction. This threat of national, if not global, destruction has
been a strong motivation for anti-nuclear weapons activism.
Critics from the peace movement and within the
military establishment have questioned the usefulness of such weapons in the
current military climate. According to an advisory opinion
issued by the International
Court of Justice in 1996, the use of (or threat of use of) such
weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law
applicable in armed conflict, but the court did not reach an opinion as to
whether or not the threat or use would be lawful in specific extreme circumstances
such as if the survival of the state were at stake.
Perhaps the most controversial idea in nuclear
strategy is that nuclear
proliferation would be desirable. This view argues that, unlike
conventional weapons, nuclear weapons successfully deter all-out war between
states, and they are said to have done this during the Cold War between the
U.S. and the Soviet Union.[18] Political scientist Kenneth Waltz is the most
prominent advocate of this argument.[19][20]
The threat of potentially suicidal terrorists
possessing nuclear weapons (a form of nuclear terrorism)
complicates the decision process. The prospect of mutually assured
destruction may not deter an enemy who expects to die in the
confrontation. Further, if the initial act is from a stateless terrorist instead of a
sovereign nation, there is no fixed nation or fixed military targets to retaliate
against. It has been argued, especially after the September 11,
2001 attacks, that this complication is the sign of the next age of
nuclear strategy, distinct from the relative stability of the Cold War.[21] In 1996, the United States adopted a policy of
allowing the targeting of its nuclear weapons at terrorists armed with weapons of mass
destruction.[22]
Governance, control, and law
The International
Atomic Energy Agency was created in 1957 to encourage peaceful
development of nuclear technology while providing international safeguards
against nuclear proliferation.
Because of the immense military power they can
confer, the political control of nuclear weapons has been a key issue for as
long as they have existed; in most countries the use of nuclear force can only
be authorized by the head of
government or head of state.[23]
In the late 1940s, lack of mutual trust was preventing
the United States and the Soviet Union from making ground towards international
arms control agreements. The Russell–Einstein
Manifesto was issued in London
on July 9, 1955 by Bertrand Russell
in the midst of the Cold War. It highlighted the dangers posed by nuclear
weapons and called for world leaders to seek peaceful resolutions to
international conflict. The signatories included eleven pre-eminent
intellectuals and scientists, including Albert Einstein, who
signed it just days before his death on April 18, 1955. A few days after the
release, philanthropist Cyrus S. Eaton
offered to sponsor a conference—called for in the manifesto—in Pugwash, Nova
Scotia, Eaton's birthplace. This conference was to be the first of
the Pugwash Conferences
on Science and World Affairs, held in July 1957.
By the 1960s steps were being taken to limit
both the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries and the
environmental effects of nuclear testing.
The Partial Test Ban
Treaty (1963) restricted all nuclear testing to underground
nuclear testing, to prevent contamination from nuclear fallout,
while the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968) attempted to place restrictions on the
types of activities signatories could participate in, with the goal of allowing
the transference of non-military nuclear technology to
member countries without fear of proliferation.
 |
|
By type
|
|
By country
|
|
Proliferation
|
|
Treaties
|
In 1957, the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established under the mandate of the
United Nations to
encourage development of peaceful applications for nuclear technology, provide
international safeguards against its misuse, and facilitate the application of
safety measures in its use. In 1996, many nations signed the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty,[24]
which prohibits all testing of nuclear weapons. A testing ban imposes a
significant hindrance to nuclear arms development by any complying country.[25] The Treaty requires the ratification by 44
specific states before it can go into force; as of 2012, the ratification of
eight of these states is still required.[24]
Additional treaties and agreements have
governed nuclear weapons stockpiles between the countries with the two largest
stockpiles, the United States and the Soviet Union, and later between the
United States and Russia. These include treaties such as SALT II (never ratified), START I (expired), INF, START II (never ratified),
SORT, and New START, as well as
non-binding agreements such as SALT I
and the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives[26]
of 1991. Even when they did not enter into force, these agreements helped limit
and later reduce the numbers and types of nuclear weapons between the United
States and the Soviet Union/Russia.
Nuclear weapons have also been opposed by
agreements between countries. Many nations have been declared Nuclear-Weapon-Free
Zones, areas where nuclear weapons production and deployment are
prohibited, through the use of treaties. The Treaty of
Tlatelolco (1967) prohibited any production or deployment of nuclear
weapons in Latin America
and the Caribbean,
and the Treaty of
Pelindaba (1964) prohibits nuclear weapons in many African
countries. As recently as 2006 a Central Asian
Nuclear Weapon Free Zone was established amongst the former Soviet
republics of Central Asia prohibiting nuclear weapons.
In the middle of 1996, the International
Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, issued an
Advisory Opinion concerned with the "Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". The court ruled that the use
or threat of use of nuclear weapons would violate various articles of international law,
including the Geneva
Conventions, the Hague
Conventions, the UN Charter,
and the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. In view of the unique, destructive
characteristics of nuclear weapons, the International
Committee of the Red Cross calls on States to ensure that these
weapons are never used, irrespective of whether they consider them lawful or
not.[27]
Additionally, there have been other, specific
actions meant to discourage countries from developing nuclear arms. In the wake
of the tests by India and Pakistan in 1998, economic sanctions were
(temporarily) levied against both countries, though neither were signatories
with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the stated casus belli for the
initiation of the 2003 Iraq War
was an accusation by the United States that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear
arms (though this was soon discovered not to be the
case as the program had been discontinued). In 1981, Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor
being constructed in Osirak,
Iraq, in what it called an
attempt to halt Iraq's previous nuclear arms ambitions; in 2007, Israel bombed another reactor
being constructed in Syria.
Disarmament
Ukrainian
workers use equipment provided by the U.S. Defense Threat
Reduction Agency to dismantle a Soviet-era missile silo. After the
end of the Cold War, Ukraine and the other non-Russian, post-Soviet republics
relinquished Soviet nuclear stockpiles to Russia.
Main article: Nuclear disarmament
Nuclear
disarmament refers to both the act of reducing
or eliminating nuclear weapons and to the end state of a nuclear-free world, in
which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated.
Beginning with the 1963 Partial Test Ban
Treaty and continuing through the 1996 Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty, there have been many treaties to limit or reduce
nuclear weapons testing and stockpiles. The 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty has as one of its explicit conditions that
all signatories must "pursue negotiations in good faith" towards the
long-term goal of "complete disarmament". The nuclear weapon states
have largely treated that aspect of the agreement as "decorative" and
without force.[28]
Only one country—South Africa—has ever fully
renounced nuclear weapons they had independently developed. The former Soviet
republics of Belarus,
Kazakhstan, and Ukraine returned Soviet
nuclear arms stationed in their countries to Russia after the collapse of the
USSR.
Proponents of nuclear disarmament say that it
would lessen the probability of nuclear war occurring, especially accidentally.
Critics of nuclear disarmament say that it would undermine the present nuclear peace and
deterrence and would lead to increased global instability. Various American
elder statesmen,[29]
who were in office during the Cold War
period, have recently been advocating the elimination of nuclear weapons. These
officials include Henry Kissinger,
George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and William Perry. In January
2010, Lawrence M.
Krauss stated that "no issue carries more importance to the
long-term health and security of humanity than the effort to reduce, and
perhaps one day, rid the world of nuclear weapons".[30]
In the years after the end of the Cold War,
there have been numerous campaigns to urge the abolition of nuclear weapons,
such as that organized by the Global Zero
movement, and the goal of a "world without nuclear weapons" was
advocated by United States President Barack Obama in an April
2009 speech in Prague.[31] A CNN
poll from April 2010 indicated that the American public was nearly evenly split
on the issue.[32]
Others have argued that nuclear weapons have
made the world relatively safer, with peace through deterrence and through the
stability–instability
paradox, including in south Asia.[33][34]
Professor Kenneth Waltz
has argued that nuclear weapons have helped keep an uneasy peace, and further
nuclear weapon proliferation might even help avoid the large scale conventional
wars that were so common prior to their invention at the end of World War II.[35] In the July 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs Waltz took
issue with the view of most U.S., European, and Israeli, commentators and
policymakers that a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable. Instead Waltz
argues that it would probably be the best possible outcome, as it would restore
stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's
regional monopoly on nuclear weapons.[36]
Professor John Mueller of Ohio State
University, the author of Atomic Obsession,[37] has also dismissed the need to interfere with
Iran's nuclear program and expressed that arms control measures are
counterproductive.[38]
During a 2010 lecture at the University of
Missouri, which was broadcast by C-Span, Dr. Mueller has also argued
that the threat from nuclear weapons, by terrorists and governments alike, has
been exaggerated, both in the popular media and by officials.[39]
Further information: See List of states
with nuclear weapons for statistics on possession and deployment
United Nations
Main article: United Nations
Office for Disarmament Affairs
The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA)
is a department of the United Nations
Secretariat established in January 1998 as part of the United Nations
Secretary-General Kofi Annan's
plan to reform the UN as presented in his report to the General Assembly
in July 1997.[40]
Its goal is to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the
strengthening of the disarmament regimes in respect to other weapons of mass
destruction, chemical
and biological
weapons. It also promotes disarmament efforts in the area of conventional weapons,
especially land mines
and small arms, which are
often the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.
Controversy
Demonstration against nuclear testing in Lyon, France, in the 1980s.
See also: Nuclear weapons
debate and History of the
anti-nuclear movement
Even before the first nuclear weapons had been
developed, scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were
divided over the use of the weapon. The role of the two atomic bombings of the
country in Japan's
surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for
them has been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades. The
question of whether nations should have nuclear weapons, or test them, has been
continually and nearly universally controversial.
Radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons
testing was first drawn to public attention in 1954 when the Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb
test at the Pacific Proving
Grounds contaminated the crew and catch of the Japanese fishing boat
Lucky Dragon.[41] One of the fishermen died in Japan seven
months later, and the fear of contaminated tuna led to a temporary boycotting of the
popular staple in Japan. The incident caused widespread concern around the
world, especially regarding the effects of nuclear fallout and
atmospheric nuclear testing,
and "provided a decisive impetus for the emergence of the anti-nuclear
weapons movement in many countries".[41]
Peace movements emerged in Japan and in 1954
they converged to form a unified "Japanese Council Against Atomic and
Hydrogen Bombs". Japanese opposition to nuclear weapons tests in the
Pacific Ocean was widespread, and "an estimated 35 million signatures were
collected on petitions calling for bans on nuclear weapons".[42]
In the United Kingdom, the first Aldermaston March
organised by the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmament took place at Easter 1958, when several
thousand people marched for four days from Trafalgar Square, London,
to the Atomic Weapons
Research Establishment close to Aldermaston in Berkshire, England, to
demonstrate their opposition to nuclear weapons.[43][44]
The Aldermaston marches continued into the late 1960s when tens of thousands of
people took part in the four-day marches.[42]
In 1959, a letter in the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists was the start of a successful campaign to stop the Atomic Energy
Commission dumping radioactive waste in the
sea 19 kilometres from Boston.[45] In 1962, Linus Pauling won the Nobel Peace Prize for his
work to stop the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons, and the "Ban the
Bomb" movement spread.[46]
In 1963, many countries ratified the Partial
Test Ban Treaty prohibiting atmospheric nuclear testing. Radioactive fallout
became less of an issue and the anti-nuclear weapons movement went into decline
for some years.[41][47]
A resurgence of interest occurred amid European and American fears of nuclear
war in the 1980s.[48]
Between 1940 and 1996, the U.S. spent at least
$8.52 trillion in present day terms[49]
on nuclear weapons development. Over half was spent on building delivery
mechanisms for the weapon. $534 billion in present day terms was spent on nuclear waste management
and environmental remediation.[50]
Non-weapons uses
Main article: Peaceful nuclear
explosions
The 1962 Sedan nuclear
test formed a crater 100 m (330 ft) deep with a diameter of about
390 m (1,300 ft), as a means of investigating the possibilities of using peaceful nuclear
explosions for large-scale earth moving.
Apart from their use as weapons, nuclear explosives have
been tested and used for various non-military
uses, and proposed, but not used for large-scale earth moving. When
long term health and clean-up costs were included, there was no economic
advantage over conventional explosives.[51]
Synthetic elements, such as einsteinium and fermium, created by
neutron bombardment of uranium and plutonium during thermonuclear explosions,
were discovered in the aftermath of the first thermonuclear bomb test. In 2008
the worldwide presence of new isotopes from atmospheric testing beginning in
the 1950s was developed into a reliable way of detecting art forgeries, as all
paintings created after that period may contain traces of caesium-137 and strontium-90, isotopes
that did not exist in nature before 1945.[52]
Nuclear explosives have also been seriously
studied as potential propulsion mechanisms for space travel (see Project Orion)
and for asteroid
deflection.
See also
Aftermath
History
More technical details
Popular culture
Proliferation and politics
• The
Letters of last
resort (United Kingdom)
References
Notes
3.
^ "Frequently Asked Questions
#1". Radiation
Effects Research Foundation. Retrieved Sept. 18, 2007. "total
number of deaths is not known precisely ... acute (within two to four months)
deaths ... Hiroshima ... 90,000－166,000 ...
Nagasaki ... 60,000－80,000"
4.
^ a b "Federation
of American Scientists: Status of World Nuclear Forces".
Fas.org. Retrieved 2012-12-29.
8.
^ a b c d e f The best overall printed sources on nuclear weapons design are:
Hansen, Chuck. U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History. San Antonio,
TX: Aerofax, 1988; and the more-updated Hansen, Chuck. Swords of Armageddon:
U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development since 1945. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea
Publications, 1995.
9.
^ David Albright and
Kimberly Kramer (2005-08-22). "Neptunium
237 and Americium: World Inventories and Proliferation Concerns".
Institute for
Science and International Security. Retrieved 2011-10-13.
10.
^ Carey Sublette, Nuclear Weapons
Frequently Asked Questions: 4.5.2 "Dirty" and "Clean"
Weapons, accessed 10 May 2011.
11.
^ On India's
alleged hydrogen bomb test, see Carey Sublette, What Are the
Real Yields of India's Test?.
13.
^ U.S. Department
of Energy, Restricted Data
Declassification Decisions, 1946 to the Present (RDD-8) (January 1,
2002), accessed November 20, 2011.
14.
^ Page discussing
the possibility of using antimatter as a trigger for a thermonuclear explosion
16.
^ "Air Force
pursuing antimatter weapons: Program was touted publicly, then came official
gag order"
17.
^ Stephen I.
Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Since 1940. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.
See also Estimated
Minimum Incurred Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Programs, 1940–1996,
an excerpt from the book.
18.
^ Creveld, Martin
Van (2000). "Technology and War II:Postmodern War?". In Charles
Townshend. The Oxford History of Modern War. New York, USA: Oxford
University Press. p. 349. ISBN 0-19-285373-2.
19.
^ Kenneth Waltz,
"More May Be Better," in Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, eds., The
Spread of Nuclear Weapons (New York: Norton, 1995).
20.
^ Kenneth Waltz, "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons:
More May Better," Adelphi Papers, no. 171 (London:
International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981).
21.
^ See, for example:
Feldman, Noah. "Islam, Terror
and the Second Nuclear Age," New York Times Magazine (29
October 2006).
22.
^ Daniel Plesch
& Stephen Young, "Senseless policy", Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, November/December 1998, page 4. Fetched from
URL on 18 April 2011.
23.
^ In the United
States, the President and the Secretary of Defense, acting as the National Command
Authority, must jointly authorize the use of nuclear weapons.
24.
^ a b Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty Organization (2010). "Status of
Signature and Ratification". Accessed 27 May 2010. Of the
"Annex 2" states whose ratification of the CTBT is required before it
enters into force, China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States have
signed but not ratified the Treaty. India, North Korea, and Pakistan have not
signed the Treaty.
25.
^ Richelson,
Jeffrey. Spying on the bomb: American nuclear intelligence from Nazi Germany
to Iran and North Korea. New York: Norton, 2006.
26.
^ The Presidential Nuclear Initiatives
(PNIs) on Tactical Nuclear Weapons At a Glance, Fact Sheet, Arms
Control Association.
30.
^ Lawrence M.
Krauss. The Doomsday Clock Still Ticks, Scientific American, January
2010, p. 26.
35.
^ https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May be Better,”
36.
^ Waltz, Kenneth
(July/August 2012). "Why Iran
Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability". Foreign
Affairs. Retrieved 25 August 2012.
41.
^ a b c Wolfgang Rudig
(1990). Anti-nuclear Movements: A World Survey of Opposition to Nuclear
Energy, Longman, p. 54-55.
42.
^ a b Jim Falk (1982). Global Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power,
Oxford University Press, pp. 96–97.
45.
^ Jim Falk (1982). Global
Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, p. 93.
46.
^ Jerry Brown and Rinaldo Brutoco (1997). Profiles
in Power: The Anti-nuclear Movement and the Dawn of the Solar Age, Twayne
Publishers, pp. 191–192.
47.
^ Jim Falk (1982). Global
Fission: The Battle Over Nuclear Power, Oxford University Press, p. 98.
48.
^ Spencer Weart, Nuclear
Fear: A History of Images (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1988), chapters 16 and 19.
49.
^ Staff. Consumer Price
Index (estimate) 1800–2012. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Retrieved March 31, 2013.
50.
^ Brookings
Institution, "Estimated Minimum Incurred Costs of U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Programs, 1940-1996", at http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm
52.
^ "Can past
nuclear explosions help detect forgeries?".
Theartnewspaper.com. Retrieved 2010-11-25.
Bibliography
See also: List of books
about nuclear issues
•
Bethe, Hans
Albrecht. The Road from Los Alamos. New York: Simon and Schuster,
1991. ISBN
0-671-74012-1
•
DeVolpi, Alexander, Minkov, Vladimir E., Simonenko, Vadim A., and
Stanford, George S. Nuclear Shadowboxing: Contemporary Threats from Cold War
Weaponry. Fidlar Doubleday, 2004 (Two volumes, both accessible on Google
Book Search) (Content of both volumes is now available in the 2009 trilogy by
Alexander DeVolpi: Nuclear Insights: The Cold War Legacy available on [1].
•
Glasstone, Samuel and Dolan, Philip J. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (third
edition). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1977. Available online
(PDF).
•
NATO Handbook on
the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations (Part I – Nuclear). Departments of
the Army, Navy, and Air Force: Washington, D.C., 1996
•
Hansen, Chuck. The Swords of Armageddon: U.S. nuclear weapons
development since 1945. Sunnyvale, CA: Chukelea Publications, 1995. [2]
•
Holloway, David. Stalin and the Bomb. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1994. ISBN
0-300-06056-4
•
The Manhattan Engineer District, "The Atomic
Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (1946)
•
Smyth, Henry DeWolf. Atomic Energy
for Military Purposes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1945. (Smyth Report –
the first declassified report by the US government on nuclear weapons)
•
Rhodes, Richard. Dark Sun: The
Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995. ISBN
0-684-82414-0
•
Rhodes, Richard. The Making of
the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986 ISBN
0-684-81378-5
•
Weart, Spencer
R. Nuclear Fear: A History of Images. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1988. ISBN
0-674-62836-5
•
Weart, Spencer
R. The Rise of Nuclear Fear. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2012. ISBN
0-674-05233-1
External links
 |
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations
related to: Nuclear weapon
|
 |
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Nuclear
weapons
|
 |
Wikinews has news related to:
|
Listen to this article (info/dl)
MENU
0:00
This audio file was created from a revision of
the "Nuclear weapon" article dated 2005-12-01, and does not reflect
subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
General
• Nuclear Weapon
Archive from Carey Sublette is a reliable source of
information and has links to other sources and an informative FAQ.
• The
Federation of American Scientists provide solid
information on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons and their effects
• Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear
Issues—contains many resources related to nuclear
weapons, including a historical and technical overview and searchable
bibliography of web and print resources.
• Video
archive of US, Soviet, UK,
Chinese and French Nuclear Weapon Testing at sonicbomb.com
• The National Museum of Nuclear
Science & History (United States)—located in
Albuquerque, New Mexico; a Smithsonian Affiliate Museum
Historical
• The Woodrow
Wilson Center's Nuclear Proliferation International History Project
or NPIHP is a global network of individuals and institutions engaged in the study
of international nuclear history through archival documents, oral history
interviews and other empirical sources.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Weapons
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Debate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment