' IICAI COVD-98-0629 US Department of Energy This document consists of 34 pages Office of lntelllgence • Ill• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory l 'iil Nonproliferation Arms Control and International Security University of California P O Box 808 Livermore CA 94551 November 1998 Challenges of Advanced Nuclear Weapon Development in India U 'Jt V L '1 CNWDI NOFORN ORCON RESTRICTED DATA Cla'lsified by '--- - rm --- Derived 1rom _ - 'c oK_•s_s-_soo_____ 3 9 6-- -fGulde I aoun e and date Dccla i ify on ---- _ _X_1 - Cata or e u mpt No ' SEGIIET· 01098 JZ 02 COVD-98-0629 ---•- Page 2 RES'PMe lf'EPJ PJ 1t'NL This document contains Restricted Data as defined in the Atomic Energy Actj of 1954 Unauthorized disclosure subject to administrative and criminal sanctio s CAVEATS Critical Nuclear Weapon Design InformationDoD Directive 5210 2 applies CNWDI Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals NOFORN or NF Dissemination and Extraction of Information Controlled by Originator ORCON or OC This report has been prepared by the Lawrence Livermore National Laborat ry NAI Directorate for the Office oflntelligence Department ofEnergy The views exp ed are those of the project personnel and not necessarily those of the Department of ergy SECAET r ii GiiCR T ttesaltWd S ii COVD-98-0829 Page 3 Challenges of Advanced Nuclear Weapon Development in India U • November 1998 Proliferation Assessments Section Z Division NAI Directorate Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory This work has been funded by the Office of Intelligence US Department of Energy DY- '_ CNWDI l NOFORN OACON RESTRICTED DATA J Claasffied by ° 1 n Derived from _ c_o_K__ -9__ 5-600 ____ '319--6 ___ Gulde or aou Q and date Declassify on ----- ----X__ 1 - -- Cata or exempt No • SECllll'E ft GS lbted 8111 t ' SECAIT COVD·98·0629 Page 4 -iteS lttCIJ B II l ' • This page intentionally left blank • g CIIT iR11tai•11 Pals SECRET lt6Sblttul Baa COVD-98-0629 Page 5 Contents U t • Executive Summary 7 Introduction 8 on Evolution From 1974 to the Present 9 b £ bt1 t ' Conclusions ••to ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••••• References 32 SLCr1t I JIIIII • - - ftesllleldl 1'118 6EGRIT COV0-98 0629 Page 6 • n 11 'eted Ode • This page intentionally left blank - fteabieted BQ · ftesti feted 9am COVD-98-0629 Page 7 Challenges of Advanced Nuclear Weapon Development in India U • f ' l E b ' b ECRE t lttsbi1t1• Ii' ft COVD-98-0629 Page 8 - - - - -i - -- ---- • • W T1it Indian 11uclear tests a11d Pakistan's response in kind are stirri11g the debate 011 nuclear policy dominated hy the continuing struggle betwee z thos urging weaponization and others urging restraint Any 1111clear doctrine that results ca o ily be complicated by tire advent of advanced nuclear weapotis SECAE 'F 'fttstlcttd Ba • • Indian Weapon Evolution From 1974 to the Present SCGREl B• tkiettd 9z a •• 1 SECAIT • • 1 CR1i I 1'e Ultitd biUF I ' 6ECRIIJ -s letul Bar I a• CAII klidittut Bau aRwtrleLd Bali ' • r SECAll COVD-98-0629 Page 13 • • IICAIJ Autstt f p ttw -6ESAIJ• I I • '• Sl CAIT l 11kiabd It 11 51Cllll f2 r Re sliieb• ' ' a COVD-98-0629 Page 15 81CAIB 0 • COVD-98-0629 Page 16 -R uJk Ned Dea- sA11kia • rm • • Qat 11 --IIG Afi RutltWdL • t • • sRlutlzbd I 1t COVD-98-0629 Page 18 •• • _ • •Rc sbiubd ilmt• · • l C•nk5utad • ab COVD-98-0629 Page 19 COVD-98-0629 Page 20 -- 211ieted Pott • COVD 9S 0629 Page 21 8EOIIE I $ I tre d12 • Jl €Ft I • •• ' Y06 bi b t l SIGAEI '• p I • I ·RM••ictm-Jila1e •»ilGASTt COVD-98·0629 Pae 23 • eaeR• i lint t 2 Ir Jffibt I JBaa ·--Ca COVD-98-0629 Page 24 • • • - - ------- - I tr t • - _ f • t may be helpful to review some of the inconsistent statements by lndian nuclear scientists following the prime minister's test announcement P K Iyengar a former chairman of the AEC and a former director of BARC and other unnamed BARC scientists commented in a May 12 Reuters Ltd article that the thermonuclear test was not a full hydrogen bomb in which energy is developed predominantly by fusing together a type of hydrogen atom most of the explosion came from the primary and the device contained only traces of the hydrogen variant tritium to demonstrate thermonuclear technology 37 According to the May 14 issue of Nucleonics Week unnamed Indian officials claimed A 'thermonuclear device' India said it exploded D a e - RaaPi1 dn5111' - - 1 _ J ' - ii - - 'lj l • - COVD•98-0629 Page 26 on May 11 was a boosted fission device under development by the DAE for as long as two decades 311 At a May 17 press conference with other scientists Dr Chidambaram insisted that India had tested a thermonuclear device or hydrogen bomb with two stages-a fission trigger and a separate secondary stage with thermonuclear rnaterial '11 He distinguished this from the other type of thermonuclear weapon a boosted fission device and stated that although they had developed designs for this type of weapon in the laboratory they did not test one in May • • U In a May 28 interview for an Indian magazine the director of BARC Dr Anil Kakodkar said the TN device had the configuration of a regular thermonuclear · dcvice by altering the dimensions and the quantity of the fuel we can take the yield to a much higher value Our objective was to prove a standard fission device and a TN device also to prove the capability of our computer codes to predict with accuracy '° In a strangely ambiguous interview of the same date P K Iyengar writes The third device was described as a thermonuclear device which means isotopes of hydrogen namely deuterium and tritium were used to produce energy from fusion reactions Information of the actual yield of this device will reveal what type of fusion device it was An early assessment of the yield from seismic data placed it as around 30 kilotons which would categorise the weapon as a 'boosted' weapon Whatever the details it is clear that India has graduated from the fission club to the fusion club 41 In a June magazine l akodkar and Chidambaram appear to claim the humdinger was the hydrogen bomb it involved extremely high-pressure physics with precision engineering 1 At a postshot award ceremony in October Dr Chidambaram said the first stage was a fusionboosted fission device -- ---- - • J - 1 _ -sllnlahl tD t» •rt' 7 ··- q _ · r' '- • · i• •' ·• -- ' - • - - r • - · - - - - llJMiRT r n 1 aft b·•n 118•• 'Ii ' - _ -- - --· • • • COVD•98-0629 Page 28 ' i •• • · - - - - I • Cl bL'3 b 'R I -• - 'I · I • -• ' • - - - u - - -· • - - _ _ v - - - · COVD-98-0629 Page 30 ' '· - -- ' I I - - P c• E ·-Riesl ieted a Ji ' A - • • JI I 11 • • COVD-98-0629 Page 32 · References l India Today International Vol XXIII No 25 pp 30-32 22 June 1998 U • • I 8 1mual Report of the Departm mt o to nic Energy 1977- 78 Government of India 14 1978 U A1111ual Report of the Department of Atomic Energy 1980-81 Government of India pp 17 27 1981 U li -r--- 't ' - --- 10 perating xperience tilization of High-Flux Research Reactors at Trombay ' Bhabha Atomic Research Centre pp 27 28 48 July August 1990 U ril 1988 U 27 28 - - ' I •• - - - - - _ c __ til l • bl c b Frontline Vol 15 No 11' p 12 5 June 1998 U Reuters Ltd Bombay 12 May 1998 U Nuclecmics Week Vol 39 No 20 p 12 story by Mark Hibbs 14 May 1998 U New York Times 18 May 1998 story by John F Burns U Embassy of India press release Bol l' ' Germany 20 May 1998 CU 40 Fro11tli11e Vol 15 No 12 p 30 19 June 1998 U 41 Fro11tline Vol 15 No 11 p 28 5 June 1998 U 42 Frontline Vol 15 No 14 p 84 17 July 1998 U 36 37 38 39 Oc ul -- de re Washingto11 Post 25 September 1998 p A30 U - •· - - - - · _ t1••• • -em · - ' ' -- _ l COVD-98·0629 Page 34 • This page intentionalJy left blank - 1'1 t - - 1 ___ _ _ __ • • • • 'W'lfa · -