The design of all thermonuclear weapons is believed to be theTeller–Ulam configuration. This relies onradiation implosion, in whichX-rays from detonation of the primary stage, afission bomb, are channelled to compress a separate fusion secondary stage containing thermonuclear fuel, primarilylithium-6 deuteride. During detonation, neutrons convertlithium-6 tohelium-4 plustritium. The heavyisotopes of hydrogen,deuterium and tritium, then undergo areaction that releases energy and neutrons. For this reason, thermonuclear weapons are often colloquially called hydrogen bombs or H-bombs.[note 1]
Multi-stage devices were independently developed and tested by the Soviet Union (1955), the United Kingdom (1957), China (1966), and France (1968).[6] There is not enough public information to determine whetherIndia,[7][8][9][10][11]Israel,[12][13] orNorth Korea[14][13] possess multi-stage weapons.Pakistan is not considered to have developed them.[10][15] After the 1991collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan became the first and only countries to relinquish their thermonuclear weapons, although these had never left the operational control ofRussian forces. Following the 1996Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, most countries with thermonuclear weapons maintain their stockpiles and expertise using computer simulations, hydrodynamic testing, warhead surveillance, andinertial confinement fusion experiments.
Thermonuclear weapons are the only artificial source of explosions above onemegaton TNT. TheTsar Bomba was the most powerful bomb ever detonated at 50 megatons TNT.[16] As they are the most efficient design for yields above 50kilotons of TNT (210 TJ), and with decreased relevance oftactical nuclear weapons, virtually all nuclear weapons deployed by the five recognized nuclear-weapons states today are thermonuclear.[17] Their development dominated theCold War'snuclear arms race. Their destructiveness and ability to miniaturize high yields, such as inMIRV warheads, definesnuclear deterrence andmutual assured destruction. Extensions ofthermonuclear weapon design includeclean bombs with marginal fallout andneutron bombs with enhanced penetrating radiation. Nonetheless, most thermonuclear weapons designed, including all current US and UK nuclear warheads, derive most of their energy from fast fission, causing high fallout.[18]
Phrases of the combination "thermonuclear"/"fusion"/"hydrogen" and "weapon"/"bomb"/"device" are applied primarily to multi-stage devices, which allow large fusion yields. These operate on theradiation implosion principle, and are synonymous with theTeller-Ulam design, independently developed by at least five countries.
"Thermonuclear" refers tothermonuclear fusion, where nuclei are fused via their high collision speeds at high temperatures. Unlike fission weapons, whose detonations are mediated vianeutron transport, thermonuclear yield is also more directly dependent on the temperatures and pressures achieved during compression of the secondary.
Despite their name, the simplest and most common thermonuclear weapons derive most of their yield (>80% for US weapons) fromfast fission of anatural ordepleted uranium tamper. Clean thermonuclear weapons (<10% fission) have also been tested and possibly deployed.[20]
The basic principle of theTeller–Ulam configuration is the idea that different parts of a thermonuclear weapon can be chained together in stages, with thedetonation of each stage providing the energy to ignite the next stage. At a minimum, this implies a primary section that consists of an implosion-typefission bomb (a "trigger"), and a secondary section that consists offusion fuel. The energy released by the primary compresses the secondary through the process ofradiation implosion, at which point it is heated and undergoesnuclear fusion. This process could be continued, with energy from the secondary igniting a third fusion stage; the Soviet Union's AN602 "Tsar Bomba" is thought to have been a three-stage fission-fusion-fusion device. Theoretically by continuing this process thermonuclear weapons with arbitrarily highyield could be constructed. Fission weapons are limited in yield because only so much fission fuel can be amassed in one place before the danger of its accidentally becomingsupercritical becomes too great.
One possible version of the Teller–Ulam configuration
Surrounding the other components is ahohlraum or radiation case, a container that traps the first stage or primary's energy inside temporarily. The outside of this radiation case, which is also normally the outside casing of the bomb, is the only direct visual evidence publicly available of any thermonuclear bomb component's configuration. Numerous photographs of various thermonuclear bomb exteriors have been declassified.[21]
The primary is a standard implosion method fission bomb, though likely with acoreboosted by small amounts of fusion fuel (usually 1:1deuterium:tritium gas) for extra efficiency; the fusion fuel releases excessneutrons when heated and compressed, inducing additional fission. When fired, the239 Pu or235 U core would be compressed to a smaller sphere by special layers of conventionalhigh explosives arranged around it in anexplosive lens pattern, initiating thenuclear chain reaction that powers the conventional "atomic bomb".
The secondary is usually shown as a column of fusion fuel and other components wrapped in many layers. Around the column is first a "pusher-tamper", a heavy layer ofuranium-238 (238 U) orlead that helps compress the fusion fuel (and, in the case of uranium, may eventually undergo fission itself). Inside this is the fusion fuel, usually a form oflithium deuteride, which is used because it is easier to weaponize than liquefied tritium/deuterium gas. This dry fuel, when bombarded by neutrons, produces tritium, a heavyisotope ofhydrogen that can undergonuclear fusion, along with the deuterium present in the mixture. Inside the layer of fuel is the "spark plug", a hollow column of fissile material (239 Pu or235 U) often boosted by deuterium gas. The spark plug, when compressed, can undergo nuclear fission (because of the shape, it is not a critical mass without compression). The tertiary, if one is present, would be set below the secondary and probably be made of the same materials.[22][23]
Separating the secondary from the primary is theinterstage. The fissioning primary produces four types of energy: 1) expanding hot gases from high explosive charges that implode the primary; 2) superheatedplasma that was originally the bomb's fissile material and its tamper; 3) theelectromagnetic radiation; and 4) the neutrons from the primary's nuclear detonation. The interstage is responsible for accuratelymodulating the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary. It must direct the hot gases, plasma, electromagnetic radiation and neutrons toward the right place at the right time. Less than optimal interstage designs have resulted in the secondary failing to work entirely on multiple shots, known as a "fissile fizzle". TheCastle Koon shot ofOperation Castle is a good example; a small flaw allowed theneutron flux from the primary to prematurely begin heating the secondary, weakening the compression enough to prevent any fusion.
Classified paper by Teller and Ulam on 9 March 1951:On Heterocatalytic Detonations I: Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors, in which they proposed their revolutionary staged implosion idea. This declassified version is extensively redacted.
There is very little detailed information in the open literature about the mechanism of the interstage. One of the best sources is a simplified diagram of a British thermonuclear weapon similar to the AmericanW80 warhead. It was released byGreenpeace in a report titled "Dual Use Nuclear Technology".[24] The major components and their arrangement are in the diagram, though details are almost absent; what scattered details it does include likely have intentional omissions or inaccuracies. They are labeled "End-cap and Neutron Focus Lens" and "Reflector Wrap"; the former channels neutrons to the235 U/239 Pu spark plug while the latter refers to anX-ray reflector; typically a cylinder made of an X-ray opaque material such as uranium with the primary and secondary at either end. It does not reflect like a mirror; instead, it gets heated to a high temperature by the X-ray flux from the primary, then itemits more evenly spread X-rays that travel to the secondary, causing what is known asradiation implosion. InIvy Mike, gold was used as a coating over the uranium to enhance the blackbody effect.[25]
Next comes the "Reflector/Neutron Gun Carriage". The reflector seals the gap between the Neutron Focus Lens (in the center) and the outer casing near the primary. It separates the primary from the secondary and performs the same function as the previous reflector. There are about six neutron guns (seen here fromSandia National Laboratories[26]) each protruding through the outer edge of the reflector with one end in each section; all are clamped to the carriage and arranged more or less evenly around the casing's circumference. Theneutron guns are tilted so the neutron emitting end of each gun end is pointed towards the central axis of the bomb. Neutrons from each neutron gun pass through and are focused by the neutron focus lens towards the center of primary in order to boost the initial fissioning of the plutonium. A "polystyrene Polarizer/Plasma Source" is also shown (see below).
The first U.S. government document to mention the interstage was only recently released to the public promoting the 2004 initiation of theReliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program. A graphic includes blurbs describing the potential advantage of a RRW on a part-by-part level, with the interstage blurb saying a new design would replace "toxic, brittle material" and "expensive 'special' material... [that require] unique facilities".[27] The "toxic, brittle material" is widely assumed to beberyllium, which fits that description and would also moderate the neutron flux from the primary. Some material to absorb and re-radiate the X-rays in a particular manner may also be used.[28]
Candidates for the "special material" are polystyrene and a substance called "Fogbank", an unclassified codename. Fogbank's composition is classified, thoughaerogel has been suggested as a possibility. It was first used in thermonuclear weapons with theW76 thermonuclear warhead and produced at a plant in theY-12 Complex atOak Ridge, Tennessee, for use in the W76. Production of Fogbank lapsed after the W76 production run ended. The W76 Life Extension Program required more Fogbank to be made. This was complicated by the fact that the original Fogbank's properties were not fully documented, so a massive effort was mounted to re-invent the process. An impurity crucial to the properties of the old Fogbank was omitted during the new process. Only close analysis of new and old batches revealed the nature of that impurity. The manufacturing process usedacetonitrile as asolvent, which led to at least three evacuations of the Fogbank plant in 2006. Widely used in the petroleum and pharmaceutical industries, acetonitrile is flammable and toxic. Y-12 is the sole producer of Fogbank.[29]
A (relatively) small fission bomb known as the "primary" explodes.
Energy released in the primary is transferred to the "secondary" (or fusion) stage. This energy compresses the fusion fuel and sparkplug; the compressed sparkplug becomes supercritical and undergoes a fission chain reaction, further heating the compressed fusion fuel to a high enough temperature to induce fusion.
Energy released by the fusion events continues heating the fuel, keeping the reaction going.
The fusion fuel of the secondary stage may be surrounded by a layer of additional fuel that undergoes fission when hit by the neutrons from the reactions within. These fission events account for about half of the total energy released in typical designs.
How exactly the energy is "transported" from the primary to the secondary has been the subject of some disagreement in the open press but is thought to be transmitted through the X-rays andgamma rays that are emitted from the fissioning primary. This energy is then used to compress the secondary. The crucial detail of how the X-rays create the pressure is the main remaining disputed point in the unclassified press. There are three proposed theories:
Plasma pressure exerted by the X-ray-ionized channel filler (a polystyrene or plastic foam or "Fogbank"). This was a second idea put forward byChuck Hansen and later by Howard Morland.
Ablation pressure exerted by the tamper/pusher. This is the concept best supported by physical analysis.
The radiation pressure exerted by the large quantity of X-rayphotons inside the closed casing might be enough to compress the secondary. Electromagnetic radiation such as X-rays or light carriesmomentum and exerts a force on any surface it strikes. The pressure of radiation at the intensities seen in everyday life, such as sunlight striking a surface, is usually imperceptible, but at the extreme intensities found in a thermonuclear bomb the pressure is enormous.
For two thermonuclear bombs for which the general size and primary characteristics are well understood, the Ivy Mike test bomb and the modern W-80 cruise missile warhead variant of the W-61 design, the radiation pressure was calculated to be 73×10^6bar (7.3 TPa) for the Ivy Mike design and 1,400×10^6bar (140 TPa) for the W-80.[30]
Foam plasma pressure is the concept that Chuck Hansen introduced during theProgressive case, based on research that located declassified documents listing special foams as liner components within the radiation case of thermonuclear weapons.
The sequence of firing the weapon (with the foam) would be as follows:
The high explosives surrounding the core of the primary fire, compressing the fissile material into asupercritical state and beginning the fissionchain reaction.
The fissioning primary emits thermalX-rays, which "reflect" along the inside of the casing, irradiating the polystyrene foam.
The irradiated foam becomes a hotplasma, pushing against the tamper of the secondary, compressing it tightly, and beginning the fission chain reaction in the spark plug.
Pushed from both sides (from the primary and the spark plug), the lithium deuteride fuel is highly compressed and heated to thermonuclear temperatures. Also, by being bombarded with neutrons, eachlithium-6 (6Li) atom splits into one tritium atom and onealpha particle. Then begins a fusion reaction between the tritium and the deuterium, releasing even more neutrons, and a huge amount of energy.
The fuel undergoing the fusion reaction emits a largeflux of high energy neutrons (14 MeV [2.2 pJ]), which irradiates the238 U tamper (or the238 U bomb casing), causing it to undergo a fast fission reaction, providing about half of the total energy.
This would complete the fission-fusion-fission sequence. Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively clean; it releases energy but no harmfulradioactive products or large amounts ofnuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reactions, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout. If the last fission stage is omitted, by replacing the uranium tamper with one made oflead, for example, the overall explosive force is reduced by approximately half but the amount of fallout is relatively low. Theneutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb with an intentionally thin tamper, allowing as many of the fast fusion neutrons as possible to escape.
Foam plasma mechanism firing sequence.
Warhead before firing; primary (fission bomb) at top, secondary (fusion fuel) at bottom, all suspended in polystyrene foam.
High-explosive fires in primary, compressing plutonium core into supercriticality and beginning a fission reaction.
Fission primary emits X-rays that are scattered along the inside of the casing, irradiating the polystyrene foam.
Polystyrene foam becomes plasma, compressing secondary, and plutonium sparkplug begins to fission.
Compressed and heated,lithium-6 deuteride fuel producestritium (3 H) and begins the fusion reaction. The neutron flux produced causes the238 U tamper to fission. A fireball starts to form.
Current technical criticisms of the idea of "foam plasma pressure" focus on unclassified analysis from similar high energy physics fields that indicate that the pressure produced by such a plasma would only be a small multiplier of the basic photon pressure within the radiation case, and also that the known foam materials intrinsically have a very low absorption efficiency of thegamma ray andX-ray radiation from the primary. Most of the energy produced would be absorbed by either the walls of the radiation case or the tamper around the secondary. Analyzing the effects of that absorbed energy led to the third mechanism:ablation.
The outer casing of the secondary assembly is called the "tamper-pusher". The purpose of a tamper in an implosion bomb is to delay the expansion of the reacting fuel supply (which is very hot dense plasma) until the fuel is fully consumed and the explosion runs to completion. The same tamper material serves also as a pusher in that it is the medium by which the outside pressure (force acting on the surface area of the secondary) is transferred to the mass of fusion fuel.
The proposed tamper-pusher ablation mechanism posits that the outer layers of the thermonuclear secondary's tamper-pusher are heated so extremely by the primary's X-ray flux that they expand violently and ablate away (fly off). Because total momentum is conserved, this mass of high velocity ejecta impels the rest of the tamper-pusher to recoil inwards with tremendous force, crushing the fusion fuel and the spark plug. The tamper-pusher is built robustly enough to insulate the fusion fuel from the extreme heat outside; otherwise, the compression would be spoiled.
Ablation mechanism firing sequence.
Warhead before firing. The nested spheres at the top are the fission primary; the cylinders below are the fusion secondary device.
Fission primary's explosives have detonated and collapsed the primary'sfissile pit.
The primary's fission reaction has run to completion, and the primary is now at several million degrees and radiating gamma and hard X-rays, heating up the inside of thehohlraum and the shield and secondary's tamper.
The primary's reaction is over and it has expanded. The surface of the pusher for the secondary is now so hot that it is also ablating or expanding away, pushing the rest of the secondary (tamper, fusion fuel, and fissile spark plug) inwards. The spark plug starts to fission. Not depicted: the radiation case is also ablating and expanding outwards (omitted for clarity of diagram).
The secondary's fuel has started the fusion reaction and shortly will burn up. A fireball starts to form.
Rough calculations for the basic ablation effect are relatively simple: the energy from the primary is distributed evenly onto all of the surfaces within the outer radiation case, with the components coming to athermal equilibrium, and the effects of that thermal energy are then analyzed. The energy is mostly deposited within about one X-rayoptical thickness of the tamper/pusher outer surface, and the temperature of that layer can then be calculated. The velocity at which the surface then expands outwards is calculated and, from a basic Newtonianmomentum balance, the velocity at which the rest of the tamper implodes inwards.
Applying the more detailed form of those calculations to the Ivy Mike device yields vaporized pusher gas expansion velocity of 290 kilometres per second (29 cm/μs) and an implosion velocity of perhaps 400 km/s (40 cm/μs) if+3⁄4 of the total tamper/pusher mass is ablated off, the most energy efficient proportion. For theW-80 the gas expansion velocity is roughly 410 km/s (41 cm/μs) and the implosion velocity 570 km/s (57 cm/μs). The pressure due to the ablating material is calculated to be 5.3 billionbars (530 trillionpascals) in the Ivy Mike device and 64 billion bars (6.4 quadrillion pascals) in the W-80 device.[30]
The calculated ablation pressure is one order of magnitude greater than the higher proposed plasma pressures and nearly two orders of magnitude greater than calculated radiation pressure. No mechanism to avoid the absorption of energy into the radiation case wall and the secondary tamper has been suggested, making ablation apparently unavoidable. The other mechanisms appear to be unneeded.
United States Department of Defense official declassification reports indicate that foamed plastic materials are or may be used in radiation case liners, and despite the low direct plasma pressure they may be of use in delaying theablation until energy has distributed evenly and a sufficient fraction has reached the secondary's tamper/pusher.[31]
Richard Rhodes' bookDark Sun stated that a 1-inch-thick (25 mm) layer of plastic foam was fixed to the lead liner of the inside of the Ivy Mike steel casing using copper nails. Rhodes quotes several designers of that bomb explaining that the plastic foam layer inside the outer case is to delay ablation and thus recoil of the outer case: if the foam were not there, metal would ablate from the inside of the outer case with a large impulse, causing the casing to recoil outwards rapidly. The purpose of the casing is to contain the explosion for as long as possible, allowing as much X-ray ablation of the metallic surface of the secondary stage as possible, so it compresses the secondary efficiently, maximizing the fusion yield. Plastic foam has a low density, so causes a smaller impulse when it ablates than metal does.[31]
Possible variations to the weapon design have been proposed:
Either the tamper or the casing have been proposed to be made of235 U (highly enriched uranium) in the final fission jacket. The far more expensive235 U is also fissionable with fast neutrons like the238 U in depleted or natural uranium, but its fission-efficiency is higher. This is because235 U nuclei also undergo fission by slow neutrons (238 U nuclei require a minimum energy of about 1 megaelectronvolt (0.16 pJ)) and because these slower neutrons are produced by other fissioning235 U nuclei in the jacket (in other words,235 U supports the nuclear chain reaction whereas238 U does not). Furthermore, a235 U jacket fosters neutron multiplication, whereas238 U nuclei consume fusion neutrons in the fast-fission process. Using a final fissionable/fissile jacket of235 U would thus increase the yield of a Teller–Ulam bomb above a depleted uranium or natural uranium jacket. This has been proposed specifically for theW87 warheads retrofitted to currently deployedLGM-30 Minuteman III ICBMs.
In some descriptions, additional internal structures exist to protect the secondary from receiving excessive neutrons from the primary.
The inside of the casing may or may not be specially machined to "reflect" the X-rays. X-ray "reflection" is not like light reflecting off amirror, but rather the reflector material is heated by the X-rays, causing the material toemit X-rays, which then travel to the secondary.
Most bombs do not apparently have tertiary "stages"—that is, third compression stage(s), which are additional fusion stages compressed by a previous fusion stage. The fissioning of the last blanket of uranium, which provides about half the yield in large bombs, does not count as a "stage" in this terminology.[citation needed]
The U.S. tested three-stage bombs in several explosions duringOperation Redwing but is thought to have fielded only one such tertiary model, i.e., a bomb in which a fission stage, followed by a fusion stage, finally compresses yet another fusion stage. This U.S. design was the heavy but highly efficient (i.e.,nuclear weapon yield per unit bomb weight) 25 Mt (100 PJ)B41 nuclear bomb.[32] The Soviet Union is thought to have used multiple stages (including more than one tertiary fusion stage) in their 50 Mt (210 PJ) (100 Mt (420 PJ) in intended use) Tsar Bomba. The fissionable jacket could be replaced with lead, as was done with the Tsar Bomba. If any hydrogen bombs have been made from configurations other than those based on the Teller–Ulam design, the fact of it is not publicly known. A possible exception to this is the Soviet earlySloika design.[citation needed]
In essence, the Teller–Ulam configuration relies on at least two instances of implosion occurring: first, the conventional (chemical) explosives in the primary would compress the fissile core, resulting in a fission explosion many times more powerful than that which chemical explosives could achieve alone (first stage). Second, the radiation from the fissioning of the primary would be used to compress and ignite the secondary fusion stage, resulting in a fusion explosion many times more powerful than the fission explosion alone. This chain of compression could conceivably be continued with an arbitrary number of tertiary fusion stages, each igniting more fusion fuel in the next stage[33]: 192–193 [34][better source needed] although this is debated. Finally, efficient bombs (but not so-calledneutron bombs) end with the fissioning of the final natural uranium tamper, something that could not normally be achieved without theneutron flux provided by the fusion reactions in secondary or tertiary stages. Such designs are suggested to be capable of being scaled up to anarbitrary large yield (with apparently as many fusion stages as desired),[33]: 192–193 [34][better source needed] potentially to the level of a "doomsday device." However, usually such weapons were not more than a dozen megatons, which was generally considered enough to destroy even the most hardened practical targets (for example, a control facility such as theCheyenne Mountain Complex). Even such large bombs have been replaced by smaller yieldnuclear bunker buster bombs.[citation needed]
For destruction of cities and non-hardened targets, breaking the mass of a single missile payload down into smaller MIRV bombs in order to spread the energy of the explosions into a "pancake" area is far more efficient in terms of area-destruction per unit of bomb energy. This also applies to single bombs deliverable by cruise missile or other system, such as a bomber, resulting in most operational warheads in the U.S. program having yields of less than 500 kt (2,100 TJ).[citation needed]
In his 1995 bookDark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, authorRichard Rhodes describes in detail the internal components of the "Ivy Mike"Sausage device, based on information obtained from extensive interviews with the scientists and engineers who assembled it. According to Rhodes, the actual mechanism for the compression of the secondary was a combination of the radiation pressure, foam plasma pressure, and tamper-pusher ablation theories; the radiation from the primary heated the polyethylene foam lining of the casing to a plasma, which then re-radiated radiation into the secondary's pusher, causing its surface to ablate and driving it inwards, compressing the secondary, igniting the sparkplug, and causing the fusion reaction. The general applicability of this principle is unclear.[25]
The Ripple secondary is the cleanest (largest fusion fraction) and highest yield-to-weight ratio device tested. It was tested during the 1962Operation Dominic series. Unlike previous clean bombs, which were clean simply by replacing the uranium-238 tamper with lead, Ripple was inherently clean. The fission sparkplug was replaced by a large deuterium-tritium gas core, surrounded by a thinner lithium deuteride shell. It is assumed that thin concentric shells of a high-Z material like lead, driven by the smallKinglet primary allowed propagated sustained shockwaves to the core, sustaining the thermonuclear burn and giving the device its name. The design was influenced by the nascent field ofinertial confinement fusion. Ripple was also extremely efficient; plans were made for a 15 kt/kg. Shot Androscoggin featured a proof-of-concept Ripple design, resulting in a 63-kiloton fizzle (significantly lower than the predicted 15 megatons). It was repeated in shot Housatonic, which featured a 9.96 megaton explosion that was reportedly >99.9% fusion.
While it was extremely lightweight, the large amount of DT gas used made it a low density and thus high volume warhead. Among US ICBMs, only the Titan II was wide enough to deliver it, but the military had already shifted away from it towards the smallerMinuteman missiles.[18]
In 1999 a reporter for theSan Jose Mercury News reported that the U.S.W88 nuclear warhead, a small MIRVed warhead used on theTrident II SLBM, had aprolate primary (code-namedKomodo) and a spherical secondary (code-namedCursa) inside a specially shaped radiation case (known as the "peanut" for its shape). The value of anegg-shaped primary lies apparently in the fact that a MIRV warhead is limited by the diameter of the primary: if an egg-shaped primary can be made to work properly, then the MIRV warhead can be made considerably smaller yet still deliver a high-yield explosion. A W88 warhead manages to yield up to 475 kilotonnes of TNT (1,990 TJ) with aphysics package 68.9 inches (1,750 mm) long, with a maximum diameter of 21.8 inches (550 mm), and by different estimates weighing in a range from 175 to 360 kilograms (386 to 794 lb).[35] The smaller warhead allows more of them to fit onto a single missile and improves basic flight properties such as speed and range.[36]
The idea of a thermonuclear fusion bomb ignited by a smaller fission bomb was first proposed byEnrico Fermi to his colleagueEdward Teller when they were talking atColumbia University in September 1941,[25]: 207 at the start of what would become theManhattan Project.[5] Teller spent much of the Manhattan Project attempting to figure out how to make the design work, preferring it over work on the atomic bomb, and over the last year of the project he was assigned exclusively to the task.[25]: 117, 248 However once World War II ended, there was little impetus to devote many resources to theSuper, as it was then known.[37]: 202 [38]
Thefirst atomic bomb test by the Soviet Union in August 1949 came earlier than expected by Americans, and over the next several months there was an intense debate within the U.S. government, military, and scientific communities regarding whether to proceed with development of the far more powerful Super.[39]: 1–2 The debate covered matters that were alternatively strategic, pragmatic, and moral.[39]: 16 In theirReport of the General Advisory Committee,Robert Oppenheimer and colleagues concluded that "[t]he extreme danger to mankind inherent in the proposal [to develop thermonuclear weapons] wholly outweighs any military advantage." Despite the objections raised, on 31 January 1950, PresidentHarry S. Truman made the decision to go forward with the development of the new weapon.[37]: 212–214
Teller and other U.S. physicists struggled to find a workable design.[39]: 91–92 Stanislaw Ulam, a co-worker of Teller, made the first key conceptual leaps towards a workable fusion design. Ulam's two innovations that rendered the fusion bomb practical were that compression of the thermonuclear fuel before extreme heating was a practical path towards the conditions needed for fusion, and the idea of staging or placing a separate thermonuclear component outside a fission primary component, and somehow using the primary to compress the secondary. Teller then realized that the gamma and X-ray radiation produced in the primary could transfer enough energy into the secondary to create a successful implosion and fusion burn, if the whole assembly was wrapped in ahohlraum or radiation case.[5]
The "George" shot ofOperation Greenhouse of 9 May 1951 tested the basic concept for the first time on a very small scale. As the first successful (uncontrolled) release of nuclear fusion energy, which made up a small fraction of the 225 kt (940 TJ) total yield,[40] it raised expectations to a near certainty that the concept would work. On 1 November 1952, the Teller–Ulam configuration was tested at full scale in theMike shot ofOperation Ivy, at an island in theEnewetak Atoll, with a yield of 10.4 Mt (44 PJ) (over 450 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Nagasaki duringWorld War II). The device, dubbed theSausage, was created byRichard Garwin, assigned this task byEdward Teller.[41][42][43] This was not widely known until 2001, as his involvement was kept secret.[44]It used an extra-large fission bomb as a "trigger" and liquid deuterium—kept in its liquid state by 20short tons (18 t) ofcryogenic equipment—as its fusion fuel,[citation needed] and weighed around 80short tons (73 t) altogether.
The liquid deuterium fuel of Ivy Mike was impractical for a deployable weapon, and the next advance was to use a solidlithium deuteride fusion fuel instead. In 1954 this was tested in the "Castle Bravo" shot (the device was code-namedShrimp), which had a yield of 15 Mt (63 PJ) (2.5 times expected) and is the largest U.S. bomb ever tested. Efforts shifted towards developing miniaturized Teller–Ulam weapons that could fit intointercontinental ballistic missiles andsubmarine-launched ballistic missiles. By 1960, with theW47 warhead[45] deployed onPolarisballistic missile submarines, megaton-class warheads were as small as 18 inches (0.46 m) in diameter and 720 pounds (330 kg) in weight. Further innovation in miniaturizing warheads was accomplished by the mid-1970s, when versions of the Teller–Ulam design were created that could fit ten or more warheads on the end of a small MIRVed missile.[21]
Casing of the SovietTsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever built and tested,Sarov, Russia.
The first Soviet fusion design, developed byAndrei Sakharov andVitaly Ginzburg in 1949 (before the Soviets had a working fission bomb), was dubbed theSloika, after a Russianlayer cake, and was not of the Teller–Ulam configuration. It used alternating layers of fissile material and lithium deuteride fusion fuel spiked with tritium (this was later dubbed Sakharov's "First Idea"). Though nuclear fusion might have been technically achievable, it did not have the scaling property of a "staged" weapon. Thus, such a design could not produce thermonuclear weapons whose explosive yields could be made arbitrarily large (unlike U.S. designs at that time). The fusion layer wrapped around the fission core could only moderately multiply the fission energy (modern Teller–Ulam designs can multiply it 30-fold). Additionally, the whole fusion stage had to be imploded by conventional explosives, along with the fission core, substantially increasing the amount of chemical explosives needed.
The first Sloika design test,RDS-6s, was detonated in 1953 with a yield equivalent to 400 kt (1,700 TJ) (15%-20% from fusion). Attempts to use aSloika design to achieve megaton-range results proved unfeasible. After the United States tested the "Ivy Mike" thermonuclear device in November 1952, proving that a multimegaton bomb could be created, the Soviets searched for an alternative design. The "Second Idea", as Sakharov referred to it in his memoirs, was a previous proposal by Ginzburg in November 1948 to use lithium deuteride in the bomb, which would, in the course of being bombarded by neutrons, produce tritium and free deuterium.[46]: 299 In late 1953 physicistViktor Davidenko achieved the first breakthrough of staging the reactions. The next breakthrough of radiation implosion was discovered and developed by Sakharov andYakov Zel'dovich in early 1954. Sakharov's "Third Idea", as the Teller–Ulam design was known in the USSR, was tested in the shot "RDS-37" in November 1955 with a yield of 1.6 Mt (6.7 PJ). The Soviets demonstrated the power of the staging concept in October 1961, when they detonated the massive and unwieldyTsar Bomba. It was the largest nuclear weapon developed and tested by any country.
In 1954 work began atAldermaston to develop the British fusion bomb, withSir William Penney in charge of the project. British knowledge on how to make a thermonuclear fusion bomb was rudimentary, and at the time the United States was not exchanging any nuclear knowledge because of theAtomic Energy Act of 1946. The United Kingdom had worked closely with the Americans on the Manhattan Project. British access to nuclear weapons information was cut off by the United States at one point due to concerns about Soviet espionage. Full cooperation was not reestablished until an agreement governing the handling of secret information and other issues was signed.[47][unreliable source?] However, the British were allowed to observe the U.S.Castle tests and used sampling aircraft in themushroom clouds, providing them with clear, direct evidence of the compression produced in the secondary stages by radiation implosion.[47] Because of these difficulties, in 1955 Prime MinisterAnthony Eden agreed to a secret plan, whereby if the Aldermaston scientists failed or were greatly delayed in developing the fusion bomb, it would be replaced by an extremely large fission bomb.[47]
In 1957 theOperation Grapple tests were carried out. The first test, Green Granite, was a prototype fusion bomb that failed to produce equivalent yields compared to the U.S. and Soviets, achieving only approximately 300 kt (1,300 TJ). The second testOrange Herald was the modified fission bomb and produced 720 kt (3,000 TJ)—making it the largest fission explosion ever. At the time almost everyone (including the pilots of the plane that dropped it) thought that this was a fusion bomb. This bomb was put into service in 1958. A second prototype fusion bomb,Purple Granite, was used in the third test, but only produced approximately 150 kt (630 TJ).[47]
A second set of tests was scheduled, with testing recommencing in September 1957. The first test was based on a "… new simpler design. A two-stage thermonuclear bomb that had a much more powerful trigger". This test Grapple X Round C was exploded on 8 November and yielded approximately 1.8 Mt (7.5 PJ). On 28 April 1958 a bomb was dropped that yielded 3 Mt (13 PJ)—Britain's most powerful test. Two final air burst tests on 2 and 11 September 1958, dropped smaller bombs that yielded around 1 Mt (4.2 PJ) each.[47]
American observers had been invited to these kinds of tests. After Britain's successful detonation of a megaton-range device (and thus demonstrating a practical understanding of the Teller–Ulam design "secret"), the United States agreed to exchange some of its nuclear designs with the United Kingdom, leading to the1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement. Instead of continuing with its own design, the British were given access to the design of the smaller AmericanMk 28 warhead and were able to manufacture copies.[47]
First full-scale thermonuclear test of China,Project 639, atLop Nur, 1967.
China detonated a full-scale multi-stage thermonuclear bomb, codenamed "639", on 17 June 1967, with a yield of 3.31 Mt, becoming the world's fourth thermonuclear power. At only 32 months after detonatingits first fission weapon, this remains the fastest success of a national hydrogen bomb program following a nation's first nuclear test. China had previously tested alayer cake design ("596L")boosted fission weapon in May 1966, yielding 220 kt, and a small-scale multi-stage thermonuclear bomb ("629") in December 1966. Testing took place in theLop Nor Test Site in northwest China.[48][49]
The Soviet Union assisted the Chinese nuclear program from 1957, but this was abruptly ended by theSino-Soviet split in 1959. For thermonuclear weapons, China had received a lithium deuteride production plant, and limited knowledge of the Soviet layer cake design. Unlike the US and USSR, at the time of their hydrogen bomb program, China operated no production facilities for plutonium or tritium. Plutonium production reactor inJiuquan became operational only in 1967, and plutonium separation began in September 1968.[50] During 1963, Chinese scientists led byPeng Huanwu extensively investigated this design, but knew it was too inefficient to be the hydrogen bomb possessed by other countries. Nonetheless, plans were made to test a small layer cake designs in 1966 and "658", a three-staged layer cake design capable of reaching one megaton (similar to the British backup designOrange Herald Large), in October 1967.[51] In September and October 1965, a theoretical research crash project ran in Shanghai led byYu Min, using digital computers and manual calculation. Yu held a lecture series on the layer cake bomb, and in doing so realized its flaw was its slow production oftritium from lithium deuteride i.e. theJetter cycle. This resulted in a Teller-Ulam analogue design for compression of a thermonuclear secondary by a fission primary. In December 1965, this design was selected as the focus of thermonuclear development. Yu later stated this rapid development prevented the hydrogen bomb research program from crumbling during the ten-yearCultural Revolution beginning in May 1966 (such as occurred toChina's first crewed space program).[51]
The 1966 small layer cake test was still carried out in May 1966 as "596L" (forProject 596 first atomic bomb but with the addition of [L]ithium deuteride). The true two-stage thermonuclear design first tested at a small scale as the "629" device, in December 1966, yielding 120 kt. Following this success it was decided to cannibalize the materials from the backup "658" layer cake project. In the fervor of theCultural Revolution, the Ninth Academy eagerly competed against Peng Huanwu's prediction thatFrance would test its first hydrogen bomb in 1967, and moved the speculative 639 test date from October to July.[51] The two-stage design was then tested at full scale as the "639" device akaTest No. 6 in June 1967, yielding 3.31 Mt.[51]
In China the two-stage design has become known as theYu Min configuration [zh] (于敏构型,Yú Mǐn gòu xíng). The Chinese government claims that although it is a multi-stage thermonuclear weapon design, it is distinct from theTeller-Ulam design assumed to be used by the other four thermonuclear nations, allowing further miniaturization, and that together these two comprise the only feasible thermonuclear weapon designs.[52] The differences are unclear, as the Chinese design also channels energy from a nuclear fission primary to compress a thermonuclear secondary. Like the initial Soviet and British hydrogen bombs, the secondary is spherical, unlike the first cylindrical secondaries used in the US.[51]
A story inThe New York Times byWilliam Broad[53] reported that in 1995, a supposed Chinesedouble agent delivered information indicating that China knew secret details of the U.S. W88 warhead, supposedly through espionage.[54] (This line of investigation eventually resulted in the abortive trial ofWen Ho Lee.)
French physicistMichel Carayol [fr] proposed the French analogue to the Teller-Ulam design.
Followingtheir first nuclear test in 1960, France prioritized fission weapon development and deliverability byMirage IV bombers. In 1966, de Gaulle felt pressure that China would become the fourth thermonuclear country, and set a deadline of 1968 for the first hydrogen bomb test. A participating scientist, Pierre Billaud, wrote of French thermonuclear knowledge in 1965:
Compared to our American colleagues in 1948, French scientists had many advantages: we knew that hydrogen bombs existed and worked and that they usedLi6D, and we understood the reactions at work. We also had powerful computers, of U.S. origin, which were not available in the late 1940s. And we knew, more or less, the dimensions and weights of thenuclear weapons deployed atNATO bases in Europe and their yields. This information was obtained from tips we had managed to get, as well as from articles in the open literature from such publications asAviation Week or theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Early tests "closely fitted Li6D [lithium deuteride] to the fissile core", implying alayer cake design. France began testing thermonuclear principles in the1966–70 French nuclear tests, beginning with the 125 ktRigel boosted fission shot in September 1966. In April 1967, physicistMichel Carayol [fr] outlined the radiation implosion idea central to the Teller-Ulam design, but the weapons scientists were not immediately convinced it was the solution. In June, France lost the hydrogen bomb race to China's three-megatonProject 639 test. By mid-1967, like their Chinese counterparts, French scientists had identified an extremely high, almost twenty-fold density increase of the lithium deuteride fuel, to be crucial to megaton success, but planned a test of Carayol's correct Teller-Ulam analogue as only one of three designs for summer of 1968.
France's hydrogen bomb development path was crucially influenced by the British scientistWilliam Richard Joseph Cook, who led the successfulBritish hydrogen bomb programme a decade prior. Unlike France, the UK, as well as the US and USSR, had aerial reconnaissance capabilities to collectnuclear fallout from testing and make deductions, including France's lack of progress in thermonuclear weapons. In September 1967, Cook provided limited thermonuclear development information to the military attache at theFrench Embassy in London, specifically that their current designs would not succeed and that the solution was more simple. This allowed the French scientists to identify and proceed with only Carayol's proposal for the ultimately successful 1968 thermonuclear tests. It is believed this was done on the instruction of Prime MinisterHarold Wilson, aimed as an overture to de Gaulle, who was currently blocking theaccession of the United Kingdom to the European Communities due to its closer relationship to the United States. However, de Gaulle again vetoed UK accession in November 1967, and was very shocked when made aware of the British contribution.[55]
The firstDT-boosted warhead, theMR 41, was tested in the Castor and Pollux shots of July and August 1968, successfully yielding 450 kt in the former.[56]
The"Canopus" test in theFangataufa atoll inFrench Polynesia on 24 August 1968 was the country's first multistage thermonuclear weapon test. The bomb was detonated from a balloon at a height of 520 metres (1,710 ft). The result of this test was significant atmospheric contamination.[57] France is currently believed to have nuclear weapons equal in sophistication to the other major nuclear powers.[47]
France and China did not sign or ratify thePartial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, underwater, or inouter space. Between 1966 and 1996 France carried out more than 190 nuclear tests.[57] France's final nuclear test took place on 27 January 1996, and then the country dismantled its Polynesian test sites. France signed theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty that same year, and then ratified the Treaty within two years.
In 2015 France confirmed that its nuclear arsenal contains about 300 warheads, carried bysubmarine-launched ballistic missiles andfighter-bombers. France has fourTriomphant-class ballistic missile submarines. One ballistic missile submarine is deployed in the deep ocean, but a total of three must be in operational use at all times. The three older submarines are armed with 16M45 missiles. The newest submarine,"Le Terrible", was commissioned in 2010, and it hasM51 missiles capable of carryingTN 75 thermonuclear warheads. The air fleet is four squadrons at four different bases. In total, there are 23Mirage 2000N aircraft and 20Rafales capable of carrying nuclear warheads.[58] The M51.1 missiles are intended to be replaced with the new M51.2 warhead beginning in 2016, which has a 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi) greater range than the M51.1.[58]
France has about 60 air-launched missiles tipped withTN 80/TN 81 warheads with a yield of about 300 kt (1,300 TJ) each. France's nuclear program has been carefully designed to ensure that these weapons remain usable decades into the future.[47][unreliable source?] Currently, France is no longer deliberately producing critical mass materials such as plutonium and enriched uranium, but it still relies on nuclear energy for electricity, with239 Pu as a byproduct.[59]
On 11 May 1998, India announced that it had detonated a thermonuclear bomb in itsOperation Shakti tests ("Shakti-I", specifically, in Hindi the word 'Shakti' means power).[60][61]Samar Mubarakmand, a Pakistani nuclear physicist, asserted that if Shakti-I had been a thermonuclear test, the device had failed to fire.[62] However,Harold M. Agnew, former director of theLos Alamos National Laboratory, said that India's assertion of having detonated a staged thermonuclear bomb was believable.[63] India says that their thermonuclear device was tested at a controlled yield of 45 kt (190 TJ) because of the close proximity of the Khetolai village at about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi), to ensure that the houses in that village do not suffer significant damage.[64] Another cited reason was that radioactivity released from yields significantly more than 45 kt might not have been contained fully.[64] After thePokhran-II tests,Rajagopala Chidambaram, former chairman of theAtomic Energy Commission of India, said that India has the capability to build thermonuclear bombs of any yield at will.[63] India officially maintains that it can build thermonuclear weapons of various yields up to around 200 kt (840 TJ) on the basis of theShakti-1 thermonuclear test.[64][65]
The yield of India's hydrogen bomb test remains highly debatable among the Indian science community and the international scholars.[66] The question of politicisation and disputes between Indian scientists further complicated the matter.[67] In an interview in August 2009, the director for the 1998 test site preparations, K. Santhanam claimed that the yield of the thermonuclear explosion was lower than expected and that India should therefore not rush into signing theComprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Other Indian scientists involved in the test have disputed Santhanam's claim,[68] arguing that his claims are unscientific.[61] British seismologist Roger Clarke argued that the magnitudes suggested a combined yield of up to 60 kilotonnes of TNT (250 TJ), consistent with the Indian announced total yield of 56 kilotonnes of TNT (230 TJ).[69] U.S. seismologist Jack Evernden has argued that for correct estimation of yields, one should 'account properly for geological and seismological differences between test sites'.[64]
Israel is alleged to possess thermonuclear weapons of the Teller–Ulam design,[70] but it is not known to have tested any nuclear devices, although it is widely speculated that theVela incident of 1979 may have been a joint Israeli–South African nuclear test.[71][72]: 271 [73]: 297–300
It is well established that Edward Teller advised and guided the Israeli establishment on general nuclear matters for some 20 years.[74]: 289–293 Between 1964 and 1967, Teller made six visits to Israel where he lectured at theTel Aviv University on general topics in theoretical physics.[75] It took him a year to convince theCIA about Israel's capability and finally in 1976,Carl Duckett of the CIA testified to theU.S. Congress, after receiving credible information from an "American scientist" (Teller), on Israel's nuclear capability.[73]: 297–300 During the 1990s, Teller eventually confirmed speculations in the media that it was during his visits in the 1960s that he concluded that Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons.[73]: 297–300 After he conveyed the matter to the higher level of the U.S. government, Teller reportedly said: "They [Israel] have it, and they were clever enough to trust their research and not to test, they know that to test would get them into trouble."[73]: 297–300
North Korea claimed to have tested its miniaturised thermonuclear bomb on 6 January 2016. North Korea's first three nuclear tests (2006, 2009 and 2013) were relatively low yield and do not appear to have been of a thermonuclear weapon design. In 2013, theSouth Korean Defense Ministry speculated that North Korea may be trying to develop a "hydrogen bomb" and such a device may be North Korea's next weapons test.[76][77] In January 2016, North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb,[78] although only a magnitude 5.1 seismic event was detected at the time of the test,[79] a similar magnitude to the 2013 test of a 6–9 kt (25–38 TJ) atomic bomb. These seismic recordings cast doubt upon North Korea's claim that a hydrogen bomb was tested and suggest it was a non-fusion nuclear test.[80]
On 3 September 2017, the country's state media reported that ahydrogen bomb test was conducted that resulted in "perfect success". According to theU.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the blast released energy equivalent to an earthquake with a seismic magnitude of 6.3, 10 times more powerful than previous nuclear tests conducted by North Korea.[81] U.S. Intelligence released an early assessment that the yield estimate was 140 kt (590 TJ),[82] with an uncertainty range of 70 to 280 kt (290 to 1,170 TJ).[83] On 12 September,NORSAR revised its estimate of the explosion magnitude upward to 6.1, matching that of theCTBTO but less powerful than theUSGS estimate of 6.3. Its yield estimate was revised to 250 kt (1,000 TJ), while noting the estimate had some uncertainty and an undisclosed margin of error.[84][85] On 13 September, an analysis of before and aftersynthetic-aperture radar satellite imagery of the test site was published suggesting the test occurred under 900 metres (3,000 ft) of rock, and the yield "could have been in excess of 300 kilotons".[86]
Detailed knowledge of fission and fusion weapons isclassified to some degree in virtually everyindustrialized country.[citation needed] In the United States, such knowledge can by default be classified as "Restricted Data", even if it is created by persons who are not government employees or associated with weapons programs, in a legal doctrine known as "born secret" (though the constitutional standing of the doctrine has been at times called into question; seeUnited States v. Progressive, Inc.).Born secret is rarely invoked for cases of private speculation. The official policy of theUnited States Department of Energy has been not to acknowledge the leaking of design information, as such acknowledgment would potentially validate the information as accurate. In a small number of prior cases, the U.S. government has attempted tocensor weapons information in the public press, with limited success.[87] According to theNew York Times, physicistKenneth W. Ford defied government orders to remove classified information from his bookBuilding the H Bomb: A Personal History. Ford claims he used only pre-existing information and even submitted a manuscript to the government, which wanted to remove entire sections of the book for concern that foreign states could use the information.[88]
The Teller–Ulam design was for many years considered one of the top nuclear secrets, and even today it is not discussed in any detail by official publications with origins "behind the fence" ofclassification.United States Department of Energy (DOE) policy has been, and continues to be, that they do not acknowledge when "leaks" occur, because doing so would acknowledge the accuracy of the supposed leaked information. Aside from images of the warhead casing, most information in the public domain about this design is relegated to a few terse statements by the DOE and the work of a few individual investigators.
Though large quantities of vague data have been officially released—and larger quantities of vague data have been unofficially leaked by former bomb designers—most public descriptions of nuclear weapon design details rely to some degree on speculation,reverse engineering from known information, or comparison with similar fields ofphysics (inertial confinement fusion is the primary example). Such processes have resulted in a body of unclassified knowledge about nuclear bombs that is generally consistent with official unclassified information releases and related physics and is thought to be internally consistent, though there are some points of interpretation that are still considered open. The state of public knowledge about the Teller–Ulam design has been mostly shaped from a few specific incidents outlined in a section below.
Photographs of warhead casings, such as this one of theW80 nuclear warhead, allow for some speculation as to the relative size and shapes of the primaries and secondaries in U.S. thermonuclear weapons.
In 1972 the United States government declassified a document stating "[I]n thermonuclear (TN) weapons, a fission 'primary' is used to trigger a TN reaction in thermonuclear fuel referred to as a 'secondary'", and in 1979 added, "[I]n thermonuclear weapons, radiation from a fission explosive can be contained and used to transfer energy to compress and ignite a physically separate component containing thermonuclear fuel." To this latter sentence the US government specified that "Any elaboration of this statement will be classified."[note 2] The only information that may pertain to the spark plug or tamper was declassified in 1991: "Fact that fissile or fissionable materials are present in some secondaries, material unidentified, location unspecified, use unspecified, and weapons undesignated." In 1998 the DOE declassified the statement that "The fact that materials may be present in channels and the term 'channel filler', with no elaboration", which may refer to the polystyrene foam (or an analogous substance).[89]
Whether these statements vindicate some or all of the models presented above is up for interpretation, and official U.S. government releases about the technical details of nuclear weapons have been purposely equivocating in the past (e.g.,Smyth Report). Other information, such as the types of fuel used in some of the early weapons, has been declassified, though precise technical information has not been.
Most of the current ideas on the workings of the Teller–Ulam design came into public awareness after the DOE attempted tocensor a magazine article by U.S. anti-weapons activistHoward Morland in 1979 on the "secret of the hydrogen bomb". In 1978, Morland had decided that discovering and exposing this "last remaining secret" would focus attention onto thearms race and allow citizens to feel empowered to question official statements on the importance of nuclear weapons and nuclear secrecy.[citation needed] Most of Morland's ideas about how the weapon worked were compiled from accessible sources: the drawings that most inspired his approach came from theEncyclopedia Americana.[citation needed] Morland also interviewed (often informally) many former Los Alamos scientists (including Teller and Ulam, though neither gave him any useful information), and he used a variety ofinterpersonal strategies to encourage informative responses from them (i.e., asking questions such as "Do they still use spark plugs?" even if he was not aware what the latter term specifically referred to).[90]
Morland eventually concluded that the "secret" was that the primary and secondary were kept separate and thatradiation pressure from the primary compressed the secondary before igniting it. When an early draft of the article, to be published inThe Progressive magazine, was sent to the DOE after falling into the hands of a professor who was opposed to Morland's goal, the DOE requested that the article not be published and pressed for a temporaryinjunction. The DOE argued that Morland's information was (1) likely derived from classified sources, (2) if not derived from classified sources, itself counted as "secret" information under the "born secret" clause of the 1954Atomic Energy Act, and (3) was dangerous and would encouragenuclear proliferation. Morland and his lawyers disagreed on all points, but the injunction was granted, as the judge in the case felt that it was safer to grant the injunction and allow Morland, et al., to appeal.
Through a variety of more complicated circumstances, the DOE case began to wane as it became clear that some of the data they were attempting to claim as "secret" had been published in a students' encyclopedia a few years earlier. After another H-bomb speculator,Chuck Hansen, had his own ideas about the "secret" (quite different from Morland's) published in a Wisconsin newspaper, the DOE claimed thatThe Progressive case was moot, dropped its suit, and allowed the magazine to publish its article, which it did in November 1979. Morland had by then, however, changed his opinion of how the bomb worked, suggesting that a foam medium (the polystyrene) rather than radiation pressure was used to compress the secondary, and that in the secondary there was a spark plug of fissile material as well. He published these changes, based in part on the proceedings of the appeals trial, as a short erratum inThe Progressive a month later.[91] In 1981, Morland published a book about his experience, describing in detail the train of thought that led him to his conclusions about the "secret".[90][92]
Morland's work is interpreted as being at least partially correct because the DOEhad sought to censor it, one of the few times they violated their usual approach of not acknowledging "secret" material that had been released; however, to what degree it lacks information, or has incorrect information, is not known with any confidence. The difficulty that other countries had in developing the Teller–Ulam design (even when they apparently understood the design, such as with the United Kingdom) makes it somewhat unlikely that this simple information alone is what provides the ability to manufacture thermonuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the ideas put forward by Morland in 1979 have been the basis for all the current speculation on the Teller–Ulam design.
On 5 February 1958, during a training mission flown by aB-47, aMark 15 nuclear bomb, also known as theTybee Bomb, was lost off the coast ofTybee Island nearSavannah, Georgia. The US Air Force maintains that the bomb was unarmed and did not contain the live fissile core necessary to initiate a nuclear explosion.[93] The bomb was thought by the Department of Energy to lie buried under several feet of silt at the bottom ofWassaw Sound.[94]
On 17 January 1966,a fatal collision occurred between a B-52G and a KC-135 Stratotanker overPalomares, Spain. The conventional explosives in two of theMk28-typehydrogen bombs detonated upon impact with the ground, dispersing plutonium over nearby farms. A third bomb landed intact near Palomares while the fourth fell 12 miles (19 km) off the coast into the Mediterranean sea and was recovered a few months later.[95]
^The misleading termhydrogen bomb was already in wide public use before fission productfallout from theCastle Bravo test in 1954 revealed the extent to which most designs primarily rely onfast fission.
^Gsponer, Andre (2005).Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects. Independent Scientific Research Institute.arXiv:physics/0510071. ISRI-05-03.
^Gsponer, Andre (2005).The B61-based "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator:" Clever retrofit or headway towards fourth-generation nuclear weapons?. Independent Scientific Research Institute.arXiv:physics/0510052. ISRI-03-08.
^A 1976 drawing that depicts an interstage that absorbs and re-radiates X-rays. From Howard Morland,"The Article",Cardozo Law Review, March 2005, p 1374.
^Sublette, Carey (10 September 2001)."Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program - 1998: The Year of Testing".The Nuclear Weapon Archive.Archived from the original on 10 August 2011. Retrieved10 August 2011.A. Q. Khan...said..."none of these explosions were thermonuclear, we are doing research and can do a fusion test if asked..." ""These boosted devices are like a half way stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. They use elements of the thermonuclear process, and are effectively stronger Atom bombs," Munir Ahmad Khan
^"Air Force Search & Recovery Assessment of the 1958 Savannah, GA B-47 Accident". AF Nuclear Weapons and Counterproliferation Agency. U.S. Air Force. 2001.
^Swaine, Jon (11 November 2008)."US left nuclear weapon under ice in Greenland".The Daily Telegraph.ISSN0307-1235.OCLC49632006.Archived from the original on 1 June 2009. Retrieved10 February 2021.Following the crash, and a painstaking clear-up mission to recover thousands of pieces of material from 500 million gallons of ice, the Pentagon stated that all four weapons onboard had been "destroyed". However, documents obtained by the BBC under the US Freedom of Information act have disclosed that while this is technically true—none of the bombs remained complete—one of the weapons was not recovered.
-LLNL.jpg)
