Nuclear Arms Essay, Research Paper

NUCLEAR ARMS

Minh Le

Mr. Ludeke

Chemistry

April 17, 2000

OUTLINE TITLE

Introduction:

I. The first sub-topic

A. First supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

B. Second supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

II. The second sub-topic

A. First supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

B. Second supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

III. The third sub-topic

A. First supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

B. Second supporting information for the sub-topic

1. Detail of the information

2. Detail of the information

Conclusion:

Minh Le

Mr. Ludeke

Chemistry

April 18, 2000

Nuclear Arms

Nuclear arms are weapons of mass destruction powered by atomic processes. Using nuclear fission or fusion, they produce huge explosions and hazardous radioactive by-products. Most are meant to be delivered by artillery, plane, ship, or ballistic missile (ICBM), but some have been miniaturized. Tactical nuclear weapons can have the power of a fraction of a kiloton of TNT; strategic weapons can produce thousands of kilotons of force. An atomic bomb is weapon deriving its great explosive force from the sudden release through the fission, or splitting, of heavy atomic nuclei. The first atomic bomb was successfully tested by the U.S. near Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945(also known as ?The Manhattan Project?) . During the final stages of World War II the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and on Nagasaki three days later to force Japan to surrender. Atomic bombs were subsequently developed by the USSR (1949), Great Britain (1952), France (1960), China (1964), and India (1974), and a number of other nations, particularly Pakistan and Israel, are believed to have atomic bombs or the capability to produce them readily.

The blast of nuclear explosions is produced by heating of air by the fireball. The enormous amount of energy released in a small volume of air produces intensely hot gases at extremely high pressures. The results is a shock wave that continues outward from the explosion. Blast effects depend mostly on the overpressure, which is usually measured in pounds per square inch (psi). As shown in figure A-1.

A-1

Sandia National Laboratories is responsible for all research and development of non-nuclear components of U.S. nuclear weapons. With branches near Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national laboratories, Sandia has helped to design every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal. In the distance is Manzano Mountain, a nuclear weapons storage facility used by the Department of Defense to store Army and Air Force nuclear weapons since 1949. Sandia also operates the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada and a missile launching facility in Kauai, Hawaii. Figure A-2 (below) is an overall view of the facility. A-2

Strategic forces remain a critical element of the U.S. policy of deterrence. Although the forces have been reduced in the aftermath of the Cold War, and the percentage of the defense budget devoted to them has declined, strategic forces continue to provide a credible deterrent. Consequently, the United States will protect options to maintain its strategic capabilities at START I levels until the START II treaty has entered into force.

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have made significant progress in addressing problems in critical areas of nuclear safety and security. Cooperatively, the two countries are working, with some success, to improve the overall security of former Soviet nuclear facilities, promote fissile material control and accountability, and support the dismantlement of some Russian nuclear forces.

There remain other areas of concern that could benefit from expanded cooperation. One candidate is the possible sharing of early warning data to enhance command and control and to increase stability in peacetime as well as during potential crises. The United States and Russia began preliminary high-level discussions on the possibility of cooperating on early warning in the summer of 1992, in the context of U.S. and Russian proposals for establishing global protection against ballistic missiles. At that time, it was becoming clear that Russia would experience a loss of radar coverage from sites that, following the break-up of the Soviet Union, would be located outside its territory. Consequently, among other things, the discussions explored ways that could fill gaps in the Russian early warning system. It was anticipated that such cooperation would be particularly useful on the southern periphery to provide better early warning against states that were acquiring weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles as a means of delivery. These promising discussions were discontinued.

The United States and Russia should resume high-level discussions on early warning. The prospects for mutual benefits from such cooperation remain valid today. A combination of several approaches could be pursued. One approach may be for the United States to provide Russia with selected technology that facilitates the indigenous rebuilding of its early warning systems. Another approach might be to share early warning data in a transparent framework. In addition to the obvious benefit for Russia, there is likely to be substantial value for the United States to have access to Russian information, because it might provide tracking or confirmation of launch locations from another azimuth, as well as useful data about missile launches from Asia. A third approach might be to establish a direct link between command centers to allow for resolution of ambiguous indications.

Total number of terrorist attacks is down from a decade ago, but the percentage of people killed is rising. Terrorists are less active, but they are much more lethal. There is an identifiable trend that they are deliberately setting out to kill people. A single nuclear weapon detonation would cause massive destruction and extensive casualties. An all out nuclear attack would affect the entire population. Some areas would experience the direct weapon effects( blast, heat, and initial nuclear radiation). Most other areas would experience indirect weapons effects and primary radioactive fallout. This type trend will be reinforced as they gain access to powerful nuclear weapons all around the world.

Seizure of almost three kilograms (6.6 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) from nuclear smugglers arrested December 14 in the Czech Republic dramatically illustrates the breakdown in controls over weapon-usable nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, the suspected source of the material. It also makes clear that the risk of nuclear terrorism is growing. A number of other incidents have pointed to an emerging black market in weapons-usable nuclear materials. This past summer, three seizures of plutonium and one of HEU in Germany—all in gram quantities or less—were seen as the tip of an iceberg of bomb material beginning to be smuggled out of the former Soviet Union. Larger seizures of HEU were also reported to have taken place: one involving six pounds in St. Petersburg in March 1994; one of three pounds near Moscow in October 1992; and one of about four and a half pounds in Lithuania in 1992.

The following is an article by Thalif Deen which basically summarizes the United Nations feelings and opinions towards proposal for a new international convention against nuclear terrorist. I feel that it is necessary for me to include this article in my report to voice the opinion of people around the world on the issues of nuclear terrorism.

POLITICS: U.N. Split Over Nuclear Terrorism Treaty

By Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 5 (IPS) – The United Nations remains divided over a proposal for a new international convention against nuclear terrorists.

”The best way to prevent nuclear terrorism is to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely,” say Angelica Arce de Jeannet of Mexico, taking a passing shot at the world’s five major nuclear powers France, Britain, the United States, China and Russia. All have pledged to curb the proliferation of the deadly weapons, but have not agreed to eliminate them completely from their military arsenals.

”As long as there are nuclear weapons, there will be a threat of nuclear terrorism,” argues Wayne St. John McCook of Jamaica.

The question of nuclear terrorism was aired at a week-long meeting of the a U.N. Adhoc Committee – consisting of all 185 member states – which wound up last Friday after discussing a Russian-sponsored, 20-article draft convention against nuclear terrorism.

Several delegates wondered whether there really was a need for a new convention, while others argued that acts of nuclear terrorism could be dealt with by a protocol to two existing treaties on terrorism. One of them was the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the other was the 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings adopted by the General Assembly last December.

Philippe Kirsch of Canada, chairman of the Adhoc Committee, said the possibility of an armed attack on a nuclear installation or the abuse of nuclear materials were issues that deserved to be taken seriously and addressed by the international community.

There was general agreement, he said, that any instrument against nuclear terrorism should complement existing international treaties, although it was recognized that some overlap was unavoidable.

”A convention on nuclear terrorism should not undermine international work against terrorism or already existing instruments designed to secure the physical protection of nuclear material,” he noted.

Kirsch said that there were still ”uncertainties” on how to deal with several complex issues, including the exact nature of the offence, the materials or facilities to be included, and the scope of the proposed new convention.

The Committee also remained divided over the need for a clear- cut definition of ”terrorists” as against ”freedom fighters.” ”One man’s liberation fighter always can be another man’s terrorist,” one-Third World remarked, repeating an old adage.

Muhammad Najm Akbar of Pakistan argued that no discussion of terrorist activities would be complete without a consensus on the definition of terrorism. It was also important to address the underlying causes of terrorism, he added.

Ghassan Obeid of Syria pointed out that the draft convention under discussion only addressed terrorism by individuals. ”The Committee should keep in mind that terrorism could also involve terrorist acts by states, especially in the case of nuclear terrorism. It is usually impossible for the average individual to use nuclear weapons without the support of states,” he said.

Sankurathripati Rama Rao of India said his country welcomed all efforts to eliminate and counter terrorism. ”Existing conventions and legal instruments were not comprehensive enough to counter terrorism, which had established a global network,” he noted.

India welcomed the introduction of the draft convention by Russia and supported the initiative for any legal instrument to counter any manifestation of terrorism.

Alexandre Zmeevski of Russia said the draft sponsored by his country encompasses the broadest possible definition of terrorist acts related to the use, or threat of use, of nuclear components.

Since the break up of the former Soviet Union, the world has continued to face the threat of ”loose nukes”.

In a U.S. television interview last year, Alexander Lebed, a Soviet war hero and former national security chief under President Boris Yeltsin, said there were about 100 suitcase-sized Russian nuclear weapons missing and unaccounted for.

The Russian secret intelligence agency, the KGB, is said to have acquired an unspecified number of small nuclear weapons, each weighing less than 75 pounds, that were never included in any post- Cold War inventory on global disarmament.

After terrorist bombings in 1993 and 1995 in New York and Oklahoma City, President Bill Clinton said: ”As horrible as the tragedies were…imagine the destruction that could have resulted had there been a small nuclear device exploded there.”

But the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy said that while the U.S. recognizes that the use of a weapon of mass destruction – including a nuclear weapon – is a crime when perpetrated by an individual, it still refuses to recognize that it is also illegal when perpetrated by a state.

A nationwide survey found that 72% of Americans believe there is a chance that there is a chance that terrorists could use a weapon of mass destruction to attack a U. S city. 13% worry a great deal about this and 27% are somewhat worried. One year after the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, the public is not particularly concerned about any kind of terrorism within the United States. (2/3 Americans said that they are not much or not at all worried about terrorism in public places.) Since the use of the first atomic bomb on Japan in World War II (1945), wartime fatalities as a percentage of population have declined significantly in the 50 years since the nuclear era began. A major catalyst for those results is due to the education in nuclear arms. There is still a major risk in the future of terrorist working with nuclear arms, but worldwide efforts are fighting to eradicate that problem. As shown in figure A-3 A-3

I hope that you have enjoyed my report on nuclear arms. Through reading my report I strongly persuade you as the reader to have a big enough understanding to show where you stand on this issue. I have included the origin of when and where the first nuclear bomb was tested and the effects/ damages that can occur when these massive weapons of destruction are used in warfare, (Japan 1945) or even put in the wrong hands; such as terrorist all around the world. Nuclear energy can be an everlasting source of energy if used in a righteous matter, for as put into use of peaty warfare. There are other ways to solve problems other than the use of weapons of destruction.

31f