朝鲜的第四次核试验：这意味着什么？
By Charles D. Ferguson
North Korea’s boast on January 5 about having detonated a “hydrogen bomb,” the colloquial name for a thermonuclear explosive, seems highly hyperbolic due to the relatively low estimated explosive yield, as inferred from the reported seismic magnitude of about 4.8 (a small- to moderately-sized event). More important, I think the Korean Central News Agency’s rationale for the test deserves attention and makes logical sense from North Korea’s perspective. That statement was: “This test is a measure for self-defense the D.P.R.K. has taken to firmly protect the sovereignty of the country and the vital right of the nation from the ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces and to reliably safeguard the peace on the Korean Peninsula and regional security.” (D.P.R.K. stands for the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the official name for North Korea.)
去过朝鲜两次（2000年11月和2011年11月）并与那里的政治和技术人员进行了交谈，我相信他们是真诚的，当他们说美国对自己的国家有敌对的政策。毕竟，朝鲜战争尚未正式以和平条约为正式结束。美国和大韩民国（韩国）进行年度战争运动会，这些运动似乎在北部威胁到北部，而美国和罗克则表示，他们进行了这些军事演习，以准备抵抗或阻止与北方的潜在战争朝鲜。显然，在朝鲜半岛的非军事区的两边都有足够的恐惧。
Aside from posturing and signaling to the United States, South Korea, and Japan, a North Korean claim of a genuine hydrogen bomb (even if it is not yet ready for prime time) is cause for concern from a military standpoint because of the higher explosive yields from such weapons. But almost all of the recent news stories, experts’ analyses, and the statements from the White House and South Korea have discounted this claim.
How Does a Boosted Fission Bomb Work?
Instead, at best, the stories and articles suggest that North Korea may have tested a boosted fission device. Such a device would use a fission chain reaction of fissile material, such as plutonium or highly enriched uranium, to then fuse the heavy hydrogen isotopes deuterium and tritium, which would have been injected just before detonation into the hollow core of the bomb. While the fusion reaction does somewhat increase the explosive yield, the main purpose of this reaction is to release lots of neutrons that would then cause many additional fission reactions.
Does this mean that the explosive yield of the bomb would be dramatically increased due to these additional fission reactions? The answer is yes, if there was a comparable amount of fissile material, as in a non-boosted fission bomb. But the answer is no, if there was much less fissile material than in a non-boosted fission bomb. In both cases, the overall use of fissile material is much more efficient in a boosted device than in a non-boosted device in that a greater portion or percentage of fissile material is fissioned in a boosted device. This increased efficiency is also due to the fact that the additional neutrons are very high energy and will rapidly cause the additional fission reactions before the bomb blows itself apart within microseconds.
In the case where North Korea does not need to produce a much bigger explosive yield per bomb, but is content with low to moderate yields, it can make much more efficient use of its available fissile material (with a stockpile estimated at a dozen to a few dozen bombs’ worth of material) and have much lower weight bombs. This is the key to understanding why a boosted fission bomb is a serious military concern. It is more apt to fit on ballistic missiles. The lighter the payload (warhead), the farther a ballistic missile with a given amount of thrust can carry the bomb to a target.
从军事角度来看：关注的原因？
因此，我认为，比热核炸弹相比，增加的裂变炸弹甚至是立即关注的原因。（热核“氢”炸弹将使融合燃料阶段被增强的裂变炸弹点燃。如果朝鲜最终产生了真正的热核炸弹，那么这种类型的炸弹可能会进一步发展，也可能会导致这种炸弹然而，仅适合弹道导弹。）仅一枚裂变炸弹就意味着朝鲜正在制造足够小且轻巧的核弹，足以适合弹道导弹。
If true, North Korea would have nuclear weapons that would provide real military utility. North Korea would not need high yield nuclear explosives to pose a real military nuclear threat because cities such as Seoul and Tokyo cover wide areas and would thus be easy targets even with relatively inaccurate missiles. But the most important point is that the nuclear weapon has to be light enough to be carried by a missile for a long enough distance to reach these and other targets such as the United States by using a long-range missile. In contrast, if North Korea only had large size and heavy weight nuclear bombs, it would have significant difficulty in delivering such weapons to targets, unless it tried to smuggle these unwieldy bombs into South Korea or Japan.
Setting the Record Straight on Recent Reporting
Obviously, the uncertainty about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program is considerable, and we may never fully find out what was really tested a few days ago, despite the planes that the U.S. has been flying near North Korea to detect any leakage of radioactive elements or other physical evidence from the test site.
Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile to point out that some confusion has been afoot in several news stories. I have read in a number of press reports that there is doubt as to whether North Korea could produce the tritium that would be needed for a boosted fission device. In September of last year, David Albright and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini of the Institute for Science and International Security published a report that the 5 MWe gas-graphite reactor at Yongbyon is “not an ideal producer of isotopes, it can be used in this way.” They noted, “As part of the renovation of the reactor, North Korean technicians reportedly installed (or renovated) irradiation channels in the core. These channels would be used to make various types of isotopes, potentially for civilian or military purposes.”[1]他们进一步指出,氚名单ed in such irradiation channels, although there is not conclusive evidence of this production.
这New York Times通过仅仅提及进一步播下一些混淆that tritium is used for boosting, but neglected to mention deuterium. The deuterium and tritium fusion reaction is the “easiest” fusion reaction to ignite while still very challenging to do.[2]这Timesalso gave the impression that boosting was just about increasing the explosive yield but did not discuss the important point about boosting the efficient use of fissile material so as to substantially decrease the overall weight of the bomb.
曼哈顿项目期间洛斯阿拉莫斯（Los Alamos）理论部门的负责人汉斯·贝特（Hans Bethe）和FAS的创始人汉斯·贝特（Hans Bethe）博士在1952年5月28日的备忘录中说：“到1948年中期，[[博士Edward]柜员发明了助推器，其中裂变炸弹在中等体积的T [tritium]和D [氘[氘]的混合物中引发了热核反应，…[和内华达州的一项测试]证明了助推器的实际实用性用于小直径内爆武器。”[3]Note that “small-diameter” in this context implies that this weapon would be suitable for ballistic missiles.
Just a day before the nuclear test, Joseph Bermudez published an essay for the non-governmental website 38 North (affiliated with the US-Korea Institute at the School for Advanced International Studies) about North Korea’s ballistic missile submarine program. He assessed: “Reports of a North Korean ‘ejection’ test of theBukkeukseong-1(Polaris-1, KN-11) submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) on December 21, 2015, appear to be supported by new commercial satellite imagery of the Sinpo South Shipyard. This imagery also indicates that despite reports of a failed test in late November 2015 North Korea is continuing to actively pursue its SLBM development program.”[4]A boosted fission device test (if such took place on January 5) would dovetail with the ballistic missile submarine program.
Where Do We Go From Here?
I will conclude by underscoring that the United States will have to work even harder to reassure allies such as Japan and South Korea. Early last year, I wrote apaper这描述了韩国相对容易地制造核武器的方式，同时敦促美国需要防止这种情况发生。正如斯坦福大学的马丁·海尔曼（Martin Hellman）教授和FAS专家董事会成员所写的最近的博客: “As distasteful as the Kim Jong-un regime is, we need to learn how to live with it, rather than continue vainly trying to make it collapse. As Dr. [Siegfried] Hecker [former Director of Los Alamos National Laboratory] points out, that latter approach has given us an unstable nation with a nuclear arsenal. Insanity has been defined as repeating the same mistake over and over again, but expecting a different outcome. Isn’t it time we tried a new experiment?”
—
[1]David Albright and Serena Kelleher-Vergantini, “Update on North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear Site,” Institute for Science and International Security, Imagery Brief, September 15, 2015,http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-ReportsReportsreports/documents/update_on_north_koreas_yongbyon_nuclear_site_site_site_septemper_september_september15_2015_final.final.pdf
[2]“Did North Korea Detonate a Hydrogen Bomb? Here’s What We Know,”New York Times, January 6, 2016.
[3]Hans A. Bethe, “Memorandum on the History of Thermonuclear Program,” May 28. 1952, (Assembled on 5/12/90 from 3 different versions by Chuck Hansen, Editor,大决战的剑), available at//www.tumejico.com/nuke/guide/usa/nuclear/bethe-52.htm
[4]Joseph S. Bermudez，Jr。，“朝鲜的弹道导弹潜艇计划：Full Steam Faring”，2016年1月5日，北38号，http://38north.org/2016/01/sinpo010516/
FAS核笔记本是全球范围内最广泛采购的参考材料之一，以了解有关核武器地位的可靠信息，并已发表在1987年以来的原子科学家公告中。the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: Director Hans […]
2023年4月14日，白俄罗斯国防部发布了一个简短的视频，其中一名SU-25飞行员解释了他在俄罗斯训练后在发表“特别[核]弹药”方面的新作用。视频中看到的功能以及其他几个开源线索都表明，LIDA空军基地 - 距立陶宛边界和[…]仅40公里。
A photo in a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) student briefing from 2022 shows four people inspecting what appears to be a damaged B61 nuclear bomb.
In early-February 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) had informed Congress that China now has more launchers for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) than the United States. The report is the latest in a serious of revelations over the past four years about China’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal and the deepening […]