|
North Korea’s nuclear program, 2003
North
Korea has apparently become the world’s ninth nuclear power. Last
November, the CIA estimated that Pyongyang has one, perhaps two, nuclear
weapons. The North Korean crisis, as it has emerged over the past several
months, is an extremely complex affair with implications that could
drastically affect Asian security and, by extension, U.S. interests. The
confrontation has weakened the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
may send signals to others that obtaining nuclear weapons has geopolitical
benefits, especially when facing the United States.
Nuclear
weapons on the Korean peninsula. Nuclear weapons and Korea have been
entwined for more than 50 years. During the Korean War (1950–1953), the
United States threatened several times to use nuclear weapons. After the
armistice, U.S. military forces remained in South Korea (the Republic of
Korea). The United States began deploying several types of nuclear weapons
to the South in January 1958, a time of extensive worldwide U.S. nuclear
deployments (see “Where They Were,” November/December 1999
Bulletin, pp. 26–35). Initially, four different kinds of nuclear
weapons were introduced with U.S. Army forces in South Korea: the Honest
John surface-to-surface missile, the massive 280-millimeter gun, the
8-inch artillery shell, and atomic demolition munitions (ADMs). In March
1958, gravity bombs for aircraft were added. From 1960–1964, five more
weapon systems were introduced: Lacrosse and Sergeant ballistic missiles,
Nike Hercules surface-to-air missiles, Davy Crockett nuclear bazookas, and
155-millimeter artillery shells. The arsenal in South Korea was at its
largest in 1967, with approximately 950 nuclear warheads of eight
types.
By the mid-1980s, only the 8-inch and 155-millimeter
artillery shells, ADMs, and gravity bombs remained, and the number of
warheads had dropped to about 150. With little fanfare and no formal
public announcement, in the fall of 1991 President George H. W. Bush
ordered the removal of all the remaining weapons, which was accomplished
in 1992.
The fact that North Korea (the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, or DPRK) was threatened with nuclear weapons during the
Korean War, and that for decades afterwards U.S. weapons were deployed in
the South, may have helped motivate former president Kim Il Sung to launch
a nuclear weapons program of his own. With Soviet help, the program began
in the 1960s. China also provided various kinds of support over the next
two decades, and by the late 1980s success was near. A milestone was
reached with the construction of a 5-megawatt electric (MWe) reactor that
began operating in 1986. More recently, Pakistan has played a substantial
role in the progress of North Korea’s nuclear program.
The
Agreed Framework. On October 21, 1994, North Korea and the United
States signed the Agreed Framework to defuse a serious crisis—it had been
discovered that the North was not declaring all of the spent fuel that it
reprocessed, in violation of the NPT. The agreement’s main provisions
were: North Korea would freeze and eventually dismantle its nuclear
program, which would be verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA); its graphite-moderated reactors would be replaced with two
light-water reactors; it would receive heavy fuel oil for heating and
electricity production; political and economic relations would be
normalized; and both countries would work toward a nuclear weapons-free
Korean peninsula and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
For North Korea, another important aspect of the accord was the
U.S. pledge to “provide formal assurances to the DPRK against the threat
or use of nuclear weapons by the United States,” a commitment that it says
the United States has not lived up to. While North Korea has failed to
fulfill all its obligations, Washington has continued to hold a nuclear
sword over it. In March 1997, the chief of U.S. Strategic Command told
Congress that just as the United States threatened Iraq with nuclear
weapons in 1991, “that same message was passed on to the North Koreans
back in 1995.” And documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act
show that the air force carried out simulated nuclear strikes against
North Korea in 1998 (see “Preemptive Posturing,” September/October 2002
Bulletin, pp. 54–59).
The latest crisis erupted in early
October 2002, when North Korean officials did not deny charges made by
James A. Kelly, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and
Pacific Affairs, that Pyongyang had a secret uranium enrichment program.
According to a June 2002 CIA report, described by Seymour Hersh in the
January 27 New Yorker, in 1997 Pakistan gave North Korea high-speed
centrifuges and how-to data on building and testing a uranium-triggered
nuclear weapon. (Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are based on a Chinese
implosion design that uses a core of highly enriched uranium.) In return,
North Korea gave Pakistan missile technology and parts.
After the
United States went public with the North Korean program on October 16,
Pyongyang announced its intention to further break its commitment to the
Agreed Framework and restart its 5-MWe reactor and reprocessing plant and
resume construction of two larger reactors. In December, it removed the
IAEA safeguard seals at the nuclear research center in Yongbyon, shut down
the monitoring cameras, and ordered the IAEA inspectors out of the
country.
On January 10, this fast-moving train of events
culminated in Pyongyang’s announcement that North Korea would withdraw
from the NPT—the only country ever to do so. According to the New York
Times (January 31), U.S. satellites detected activity in North Korea
throughout January that appeared to indicate it was removing its spent
nuclear fuel rods from storage.
Fissile material. The center
of North Korea’s nuclear program is at Yongbyon, some 60 miles north of
Pyongyang. Its major facilities include the 5-MWe reactor and reprocessing
plant that it has threatened to restart, as well as a fuel fabrication
plant. The construction of a 50-MWe reactor in Yongbyon was halted under
the 1994 agreement, as was construction of a 200-MWe reactor in Taechon.
North Korea has uranium deposits estimated at 26 million tons and is
thought to have one active uranium mine.
North Korea is widely
believed to have produced and separated enough plutonium for a small
number of nuclear warheads. Most or all of the plutonium came from the
5-MWe reactor at Yongbyon, which went critical on August 14, 1985, and
became operational the following January. The U.S. intelligence community
believes that during a 70-day shutdown in 1989, North Korea secretly
removed fuel from the reactor and separated the plutonium. Estimates vary
as to how much plutonium was obtained. The State Department believes about
6–8 kilograms; the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency say 8–9 kilograms,
an estimate consistent with the careful analysis of the Institute for
Science and International Security. South Korean, Japanese, and Russian
analysts have made much higher estimates, ranging up to 24
kilograms.
North Korea has
never admitted it possesses nuclear weapons, but it appears likely that it
does. Nucleonics and NBC Nightly News reported in 1993 that
reprocessed plutonium had already been converted from a liquid form to
metal, and several U.S. officials concluded that Pyongyang had made it
into a bomb. In November 2002, the CIA went further than its previous
estimates, stating, “The United States has been concerned about North
Korea’s desire for nuclear weapons and has assessed since the early 1990s
that the North has one or possibly two weapons using plutonium it produced
prior to 1992.”
Very little is known about North Korea’s uranium
enrichment program. Questions about it include: How many centrifuges (used
to enrich uranium) does North Korea have, and where are they located? Has
it begun enriching uranium? If so, what level is the uranium enriched to,
how much has been enriched, and how much will be? Hersh reported that the
CIA concluded that the North began to enrich uranium in significant
quantities in 2001. Analysts at the Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center estimate its future production rate could be anywhere from 40–100
kilograms a year.
Technical capability. The precise amount
of plutonium (or uranium) needed for a bomb depends on the technical
capabilities of scientists and engineers as well as the desired yield.
With 1 kilogram of plutonium, designers with high technical capabilities
could make a bomb with a 1-kiloton yield; with 3 kilograms, a 20-kiloton
yield. Designers with low technical skills would need 3 kilograms for a
1-kiloton yield, and 6 kilograms for a 20-kiloton yield (see table). The
Trinity test and the Nagasaki (Fat Man) bomb each used 6.1 kilograms of
plutonium and produced yields of approximately 21 kilotons.
No one
knows for sure what the skill level of North Korean bomb designers is, but
a medium capability seems possible. For weapons production, this might
mean that for a lower-yield weapon (1–5 kilotons) they would need around 2
kilograms of plutonium, and for a higher-yield weapon (10–20 kilotons)
approximately 3 kilograms. Assuming that North Korea has a medium
capability, 8–9 kilograms of plutonium might be enough for four or five
weapons. During the crisis in 1994, then–Defense Secretary William Perry
said, “If they had a very advanced technology, they could make five bombs
out of the amount of plutonium we estimate they have.”
The
potential size of North Korea’s future arsenal is unsettling. The CIA
estimates that the 50-MWe reactor at Yongbyon and the 200-MWe reactor at
Taechon would generate about 275 kilograms of plutonium per year
(operating at full capacity), but it would take several years to complete
the reactors. Forty kilograms of highly enriched uranium would be enough
to produce six to 10 low-yield nuclear weapons or four or five
higher-yield weapons per year.
North Korea could make more bombs if
it uses a composite-core design (a smaller plutonium sphere encased in a
shell of highly enriched uranium) than if it builds designs that use only
plutonium or only uranium. A few days after the Trinity test of July 16,
1945, the United States considered using some or all of the highly
enriched uranium intended for Little Boy in order to increase the number
of available bombs, but rejected the idea. The U.S. successfully tested
the design in Operation Sandstone during the spring of 1948.
|
APPROXIMATE FISSILE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PURE FISSION
NUCLEAR WEAPONS |
|
|
|
|
technical capability |
|
Yield |
|
technical capability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
low |
|
medium |
|
high |
|
(kilotons) |
|
low |
|
medium |
|
high |
|
|
|
|
weapon- grade plutonium (kilograms) |
|
3 |
|
1.5 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
8 |
|
4 |
|
2.5 |
|
highly enriched uranium (kilograms)
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
2.5 |
|
1.5 |
|
5 |
|
11 |
|
6 |
|
3.5 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
3 |
|
2 |
|
10 |
|
13 |
|
7 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
3.5 |
|
3 |
|
20 |
|
16 |
|
9 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ballistic missiles. North Korea has a very active ballistic
missile program, carefully documented by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr. in a 1999
report published by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Beginning in
the 1960s, the Soviet Union supplied various types of missiles, supporting
technologies, and training to North Korea. China began supplying North
Korea with missile technology in the 1970s.
In 1979 or 1980, Egypt
supplied Pyongyang with a small number of Soviet Scud B missiles, along
with launchers and support equipment. North Korea reverse-engineered the
Scud and built an industrial infrastructure to produce its own missiles,
eventually at a rate of eight to 10 per month in 1987 and 1988. It sold
approximately 100 to Iran, many of which were fired at Iraqi cities during
the Iran–Iraq War. An extended-range version of the missile, known as the
Scud C, was first test-launched in June 1990. Its 500-kilometer range was
achieved mainly by reducing the payload from 1,000 to 770 kilograms. It is
estimated that a total of 600–1,000 Scud B and Cs were produced by the end
of 1999. Half of them were sold to foreign countries.
Driven by a
desire for longer missile ranges, North Korea developed what is known in
the West as the Nodong (or Rodong), which has a range of 1,350–1,500
kilometers (depending upon payload) and is capable of hitting Japan and
U.S. bases in Okinawa. Nodongs were deployed in the mid-1990s, with nearly
100 fielded and another 50 or so sold to foreign countries. The missile is
known as the Ghauri I in Pakistan and the Shahab 3 in Iran. North Korea
wants a missile with an intercontinental range, and work is under way to
achieve it. The two-stage Taepodong-1 is intended to carry a 1,000–1,500
kilogram warhead to a range of 1,500–2,500 kilometers. A three-stage
space-launch version, intended to place a DPRK satellite in orbit, was
launched on August 31, 1998, from the facility at Musudan-ri. The missile
flew over Japan, causing much consternation. Its first and second stages
separated and landed in the water, but the third stage, after traveling
more than 5,500 kilometers (3,450 miles), broke up and the satellite did
not reach orbit.
The longer-range Taepodong-2 may be ready for
flight-testing. Depending on the payload, it may have a range greater than
6,000 kilometers, sufficient to strike parts of Hawaii and Alaska.
It is reasonable to assume that North Korea wants to put nuclear
warheads on its ballistic missiles, but whether it has achieved this
capability is unknown. Other countries that have developed nuclear weapons
usually chose airplanes as their initial delivery method, followed in most
instances by the development of ballistic missiles of various ranges.
North Korea is an exception to this pattern—ballistic missiles are its
preferred delivery method, and aircraft do not appear to have a
role.
|
NORTH KOREAN BALLISTIC MISSILES |
|
|
|
|
Range (kilometers) |
|
Payload (kilograms) |
|
Comment |
|
|
Scud
B |
|
320 |
|
1,000 |
|
Reverse-engineered Soviet Scud B |
|
|
Scud
C |
|
500 |
|
770 |
|
Conventional explosives, chemical, and cluster
warheads |
|
|
Nodong |
|
1,350–1,500 |
|
770–1,200 |
|
Test fired
in May 1993; flew 500 kilometers. Close to 100 deployed. Designed to
carry a nuclear warhead |
|
|
Taepodong-1 |
|
1,500–2,500 |
|
1,000–1,500 |
|
Test-launched August 31,1998 |
|
|
Taepodong-2 |
|
3,500–6,000 |
|
700–1,000 |
|
Not yet
tested |
|
|
Taepodong-2
(three-stage) |
|
up to
15,000 |
|
several
hundred |
|
More than a
decade away |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
long run. The North’s closed society and the covert nature of its
nuclear program make it a “difficult intelligence collection target,” as
the CIA puts it. No one knows what North Korea’s nuclear intentions
are—Pyongyang relies heavily on ambiguity in all that it does. Has Kim
Jong Il decided that North Korea’s security requires a stockpile of
nuclear weapons? Or are its actions and words another instance of its
strange brand of bargaining with the United States, in which North Korea
offers to make concessions in exchange for diplomatic recognition,
non-aggression pacts, money, or goods? It may be that, after 30 years of
offensive U.S. nuclear posturing on the peninsula and being recently
labeled as part of an “axis of evil,” Pyongyang is simply ready to play
hardball. (Other factors that probably affected North Korea’s actions
include the Bush administration’s new National Security Strategy, which
makes preemptive strikes a priority, and an apparently imminent U.S. war
with Iraq.)
The Bush administration’s hope that North Korea will
give up its nuclear program seems fanciful at this point. What incentives
could possibly be offered that would cause it to give up its weapons
program, dismantle its nuclear complex, and agree to an intrusive
verification regime? It is highly unlikely that North Korea will agree to
abandon the very thing that gives it leverage with its neighbors and the
United States.
A nuclear-armed North Korea could trigger an arms
race in East Asia and beyond. It could harden the U.S. posture toward
North Korea and reinvigorate the extended nuclear deterrence strategies in
the region. Worse, Japan might decide to undertake a nuclear weapons
program of its own, which would surely provoke a Chinese response, which
in turn could cause reverberations in India and Pakistan. There could also
be repercussions in Taiwan and South Korea, both of which had fledgling
nuclear weapons programs of their own before U.S. pressure forced their
termination.
Perhaps the larger danger: North Korea could sell its
plutonium, highly enriched uranium, or finished weapons to other countries
or terrorists. Its track record with ballistic missiles is not
encouraging. It has made missile deals with Iran, Yemen, Syria, and
Pakistan—lucrative sources of income to the impoverished country. Fissile
material and nuclear weapons would be even more
lucrative.
Nuclear Notebook is prepared by Robert S. Norris
of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Hans M. Kristensen, and Joshua
Handler. Inquiries should be directed to NRDC, 1200 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 400, Washington, D.C., 20005;
202-289-6868.
©2003 Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists
|