Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dealing with Decoupled Nuclear Explosions under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

  • Chapter
Monitoring a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((NSSE,volume 303))

Abstract

The detonation of nuclear explosions in huge underground cavities so as to muffle or decouple the seismic waves they generated has been debated for more than 35 years. This paper reviews the history of the decoupling concept, assesses what countries have the technological capabilities to carry out such a test of a given yield, and evaluates several decoupling scenarios. I conclude that testing with huge decoupling factors, DF, is feasible for yields of a few kilotons (kt) or larger only in cavities in salt domes. Past nuclear explosions conducted in salt that are large enough for the full decoupling of explosions with yields ≥ 0.5 kt are concentrated in only a few areas of Kazakhstan and Russia. The existence of all cavities of that size that were created by past explosions is known since the events that created those cavities must be at least 20 times larger in yield than the size of a fully decoupled event that can be detonated in them. Monitoring of cavities created in that way that may remain standing should be relatively easy at the 1 kt level if appropriate verification measures are put in place. While large cavities can be created in salt by solution mining, no country is known to have evacuated the brine from such a cavity and then conducted a decoupled nuclear explosion in it. Air-filled cavities in salt suitable for significant decoupled testing are stable over only a very narrow range of depths from about 200 m to a maximum of 900 to 1300 m. Most areas of thick salt deposits in the Former Soviet Union and the U.S. are typified by efficient transmission for seismic waves and low natural seismic activity. The scaled cavity radius of 20 m cited in the literature for full decoupling in granite is poorly determined, probably is too small, and has resulted in overestimates of the potential to employ cavities in hard rock for decoupled nuclear testing. For cavities in hard rock, lack of any known experience in conducting decoupled nuclear testing in them, insuring containment in the presence of large differences in principal stresses and the presence of joints and other inhomogeneities on a scale of 1 to 100 m, and the excavation of such a large cavity without being detected are factors that make clandestine decoupled testing of a few kt or larger very unlikely for sites in hard rock, even for countries with considerable testing experience. Decoupled testing of large DF in any media at such yields by countries lacking containment experience would be difficult to carry out in secrecy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. United States of America (1994) Working paper. Monitoring a comprehensive test ban treaty: an overview of the U.S. approach. CD/NTB/WP.53. Conference on Disarmament. 19 May, 9 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sykes, L.R. (1992) Yields of underground nuclear explosions at Azgir and Shagan River, USSR and implications for identifying decoupled nuclear testing in salt. Sci. Rpt. l. PL-TR-92-2002, ADA250971, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA, 34 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sykes, L.R. (1993) Underground nuclear explosions at Azgir, Kazakhstan, and implications for identifying decoupled nuclear testing in salt, PL-TR-93-2155, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA.,118 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sykes, L.R. (1994) Dealing with decoupled nuclear explosions under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, in Papers Presented at 16th Annual Seismic Research Symposium, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA., 7–9 Sept., pp. 324–330.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sykes, L.R., Deng, J. and Lyubomirskiy, P. (1993) Accurate location of nuclear explosions at Azgir, Kazakhstan, from satellite images and seismic data: implications for monitoring decoupled explosions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20, 1919–1922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sykes, L.R. and Lyubomirskiy, P. (1992) Analysis of small seismic events near Azgir, Kazakhstan: implications for identifying chemical and decoupled nuclear explosions in a major salt dome province, in Papers Presented at Nth Annual PI/DARPA Seismic Research Symposium, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA., PL-TR-92-2210. ADA256711, pp. 415–421.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Latter, A.L., LeLevier, R.E., Martinelli. E.A., and McMillan, W.G. (1961) A method of concealing underground nuclear explosions, J. Geophys. Res. 66, 943–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Latter, A. (1960) Transcription of oral presentation, in Technical Working Group 2, Verbatim Record of Seventh Meeting, Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests, held in Geneva 2 December 1959, GEN/DNT/TWG.2/PV.7 (15 January 1960) Sir William Penny Chairman, pp. 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Killian, J.R. (1977) Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Adushkin, V.V., Kitov, I.O., Kuznetsov. O.P., and Sultanov. D. D. (1993) Seismic efficiency of decoupled nuclear explosions, Geophys. Res. Lett. 20. 1695–1698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Krivokhatskiy, A.S., Dubasov, Yu. V., and Dubrovin, V.S. (1993) Radiation manifestations of underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes at Bolshoy Azgir salt deposit, Bull. Tsentra Obshchestvennoy Informatsii po Atonmoy Energii , no. 9 (in Russian), pp. 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sultanov, D. D. et al. (1993) Investigation of seismic efficiency of Soviet peaceful nuclear explosions conducted in various geological conditions, Part 1. Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres, Moscow, Report. submitted to Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Department of Defense 220 p.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Murphy, J.R., Kitov, I.O., Stevens, J.L., and Sultanov, D.D. (1994) Analysis of the seismic characteristics of U.S. and Russian cavity decoupled explosions, in Papers Presented at 16th Annual Seismic Research Symposium, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA., 7–9 Sept., pp. 262–268.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Office of Technology Assessment, Conuress of the United States (1988) Seismic Verification of Nuclear Testing Treaties, OTA-ISC-361, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 139 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stevens, J.L. et al. (1991a) Simulation of seismic signals from partially decoupled explosions in spherical and ellipsoidal cavities, S-Cubed Final Technical Report SSS-FR-12735, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stevens, J.L., Murphy, J.R., and Rimer, N. (1991b) Seismic source characteristics of cavity decoupled explosions in salt and tuff, Bull. Seismol. Sac. Amer. 81, 1272–1291.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Murphy, J.R., Stevens, J.L., and Rimer, N. (1993) Theoretical simulation analysis of seismic signals from decoupled explosions in spherical and ellipsoidal cavities, unpublished manuscript of paper presented at May 27 meeting of American Geophysical Union, Baltimore MD, 25 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Leith, W. and Glover, D. (1993) Underground construction achievements and decoupling opportunities, worldwide, unpublished manuscript of poster presentation at 15th Annual ARPA/AFPL Seismic Research Symposium, Vail CO, 8–10 Sept., 9 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Knowles, C.P., Linamen. C.R., Lachel, D.J., and Linger. D.A. (1994) Issue paper on the feasibility of evasive underground nuclear testing through decoupling, DNA-CTB-006, Defense Nuclear Agency, Alexandria VA, June 6, 15 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Department of Defense, United States of America (1994) Report to Congress: The Department–s plans to develop advanced technologies for monitoring a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT), June 1, Washington DC, 26 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  21. SIPRI Seismic Study Group (1968) Seismic Methods for Monitoring Underground Explosions, D. Davies, Rapporteur, International Institute for Peace and Conflict Research (SIPRI), Stockholm, pp. 1–130.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Office of Technology Assessment. Congress of the United Slates (1989) The Containment of Underground Nuclear Explosions OTA-1SC-414, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 80 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Denny, M.D. and Goodman, D.M. (1990) A case study of the seismic source function: Salmon and Sterling reevaluated, .J. Geophys. Res. 95. 19,705–19,723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Herbst, R.F., Werth, G.C., and Springer, D.L. (1961) Use of large cavities to reduce seismic waves from underground explosions, J. Geophys. Res. 66, 959–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Murphey, B.F. (1961) Particle motions in explosions in halite,J. Geophys. Res. 66, 947–958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Brown, H. (1960) Detection and identification of underground nuclear explosions, Bull. Atomic Sci. 16, 89–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, (1960) Technical Aspects of Detection and Inspection Controls of a Nuclear Weapons Test Ban. 86th Congress, vol. 18, Part 1, April 19–22, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington DC. 445 p.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Evernden. J.F. (1976) Study of seismological evasion: Part I. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 66, 245–280.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rawson, D., Randolph, P., Boardman. C., and Wheeler. V. (1966) Post-explosion environment resulting from the Salmon event, J. Geophys. Res. 71, 3507–3521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Springer, D., Denny. M., Healey, J., and Mickey, W. (1968) The Sterling experiment: decoupling of seismic waves by a shot-generated cavity. J. Geophys. Res. 73, 5995–6001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Healy, J. H., King, C.Y., and O–Neill. M.E. (1971) Source parameters of the Salmon and Sterling nuclear explosions from seismic measurements, J. Geophvs. Res. 76. 3344–3355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Patterson, D.W. (1966a) Nuclear coupling, full and partial. J. Geophys. Res. 71. 3427–3436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Patterson, D.W. (1966b) The calculational sensitivity of a model describing the response of a nuclear formed cavity. Rept. UCID 5125, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Univ. of California.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Werth. G. and Randolph, P. (1966) The Salmon seismic experiment, J. Geophys. Res. 71, 3405–3413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Denny, M.D. and Johnson. L.R. (1991) The explosion seismic source function: models and scaling laws reviewed. Geophysical Mono. 65, (American Geophysical Union), pp. 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rodean, H.C. (1981) Inelastic processes in seismic wave generation by underground explosions, in E.S. Husebye and S. Mykkeltveit, (eds.), Identification of Seismic Sources--Earthquake or Underground Nuclear Explosion, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 97–189.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. Tucker, B.L. (1964) New decoupling estimates for underground explosions, Research Paper P-161, Institute for Defense Analysis, 12 p.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Blandford, R.R. (1985) Decoupling experiments, in D.B. Larson (ed.), Proceedings of the Department of Energy Sponsored Cavity Decoupling Workshop, Pajaro Dunes, California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Conference 850779, pp. 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Murphy, J.R. (1980) An evaluation of the factors influencing the seismic detection of decoupled explosions at regional distances, S-Cubed, Final Report to U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, SSS-R-80-4579, La Jolla, CA, pp. 1–62.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Murphy, J.R., Stevens, J.L., and Rimer, N. (1988) High frequency seismic source characteristics of cavity decoupled underground nuclear explosions, S-Cubed, Maxwell Laboratories, Scientific Report No. 1, SSS-R-88-9595 , La Jolla, CA, to Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., AFGL-TR-88-0130, ADA198121, pp. 1–51.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Terhune, R.W., Snell, C.M., and Rodean, H.C. (1979) Enhanced coupling and decoupling of underground nuclear explosions, Report UCID 52806, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Univ. of California, pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Glen, L.A. and Goldstein, P. (1994) Seismic decoupling with chemical and nuclear explosions in salt, J. Geophys. Res., 99, 11,723–11,730.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kedrovshiy, O.L. (1970) Prospective applications of underground nuclear explosions in the national economy of the USSR, UCRL-Trans 10477, (Translation from Russian), Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, University of California, Livermore, CA, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Elias, M.M., Lee, K.Y., and Sun, R. J. (1966) Atlas of Asia and Eastern Europe to Support Detection of Underground Nuclear Testing 4, Features Affecting Underground Nuclear Testing, prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey for the Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Department of Defense, 7 map sheets.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rachlin, J. (1985) Cavity construction opportunities in the Soviet Union, in D.B. Larson (ed.), Proceedings of the Department of Energy Sponsored Cavity Decoupling Workshop, Pajaro Dunes, California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, Conference 850779, pp. 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gaev, A.Ya., Shchugarev. V.D., and Batulin, A.P. (1986) Underground Reservoirs: Construction and Development Conditions and Technology of Maintenance, Nedra Publishing House, Leningrad, 222 p.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nordyke, M.D. (1975). A review of Soviet data on the peaceful uses of nuclear explosions, Annals Nuclear Energy 2, 657–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Borg, I.Y. (1982) The underground nuclear explosions at Astrakhan. U.S.S.R., Rept. UCID-19543, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Univ. of California, pp. 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Borg, I. (1984) Nuclear explosives--the peaceful side. New Scientist, 8 March, pp. 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Korobov, S.S. (1959) New data on geological structure of Chapchachi [Azgir] region, Trudy Vsesoiuznyi Nauchno-Isaledovatel–skii Galurgii (Leningrad) 35, 274–286.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ringdal, F. (1976) Maxinium-liklihood estimation of seismic magnitude, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 66, 789–802.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Izraehl’, Yu.A. and Grechushkina, M.P. (1978) The use of peaceful underground nuclear explosions with minimum radioactive contamination of the environment, Peaceful Nuclear Explosions V, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, document IAEA-TC-81-5/7, pp. 167–176.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Marshall, P.D., D.L. Springer, and Rodean, H.C. (1979). Magnitude corrections for attenuation in the upper mantle, Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 57, 609–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Ringdal, F. (1981) Location of regional events using travel time differentials between P arrival branches, Norsar Scientific Report 2–80/81, 60–69.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Fryklund, V.C. (1984) Salt deposits of the U.S.S.R.: possible accommodation of large decoupling cavities, RDA-TR-122132-001, RDA Associates, Arlington VA, prepared for Office of International Security Affairs, U.S. Dept. Energy, 80 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Verba, V.V. (1984) Comparative geological-geophysical characteristics of the Barents Sea and North Sea sedimentary salt basins, in Ncftegazonosnost Mirovogo Okeana, Ministry of Geology U.S.S.R., (in Russian), Leningrad, pp. 34–39.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rachlin, J. (1989) written communication to L. Sykes, July 25.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Der, Z., McElfresh, T., Wagner, R. and Burnetii. J. (1985) Spectral characteristics of P waves from nuclear explosions and yield estimation, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 75, 379–390 and 1222.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bocharov, V.S., Zelentsov, S.A., and Mikhailov, V.N. (1989). The characteristics of 96 underground nuclear detonations at the Semipalatinsk test range, Atomic Energy 67, 210–214.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Scheimer, J.F. and Borg, I.Y. (1984) Deep seismic sounding with nuclear explosives in the Soviet Union, Science 226, 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Bogacheva, M.L., Vasil–yev, Y.M., Proshlyakov, B.K., Charygin, M.M., and Shleyfer, A.G. (1965) A unique sequence of Triassic rocks in the extra deep Aralsor hole (Caspian depression), Akad. Nauk SSSR, Doklady, Earth Sci. 165, (English translation), 33–35.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Goldstein, P. and Glen, L. A. (1993) Modelling of tamped and decoupled explosions in salt (Simulation is easy. Prediction is Difficult!), in S.R. Taylor and J.R. Kamm (eds.),Proceedings of Numerical Modeling for Underground Nuclear Test Monitoring Symposium, Report. LA-UR-93-3839, Los Alamos National Laboratory, pp. 341–348.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Unpublished list of locations, depths and yields of PNEs conducted by U.S.S.R. furnished to Dr. Ralph Alewine of Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Dept. Defense by officials of Russian Defense Ministry (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Saikia, C.K., McLaren, J.P., and Helmberger. D.V. (1993) Analysis of near-field data from a Soviet decoupling experiment, in S.R. Taylor and J.R. Kamm (eds.),Proceedings of Numerical Modeling for Underground Nuclear Test Monitoring Symposium, Report. LA-UR-93-3839, Los Alamos National Laboratory, pp. 375–395.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Murphy, J. R. and Barker, B.W. (1994) Seismic identification of decoupled nuclear and chemical explosions, PL-TR-94-2036, SSS-TR-94-14399, Phillips Laboratory, Hanscom Air Force Base, MA., 67 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Berest, P. and Minh, D.N. Stability of cavities in rocksalt (1981) Proc. Intern. Symp. on Weak Rock /Tokyo, 21–24 September, pp. 473–478.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Jenyon, M.K. (1986) Salt Tectonics, Elsevier, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Carodiers, J.E. (1992) How are nuclear weapons tested and contained? Oral presentation at Conference on The Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the role of Underground Testing, Princeton Univ., sponsored by the IRIS Consortium, Nov. 11–13; (1993) Geologic factors in the testing and containment of underground nuclear explosions, EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 74, (abstract), No. 16, p. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Davis, D.M. (1993) Geological and engineering constraints on clandestine nuclear testing by India and Pakistan, with implications for other potential proliferators, EOS Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union 74, (abstract), No. 16, p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  70. News report (1991) Science 254, 13 Dec.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zharkov, M.A. (1984) Paleozoic Salt Bearing Formations of the World, Springer-Verlag, New York, 427 pp.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  72. Garbin, H.D. (1986) Free-field and decoupling analysis of MILL YARD data, Report SAND86-1702, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque NM. 22 pp.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Garbin, H.D. (1993) Coupling of an overdriven cavity, in S.R. Taylor and J.R. Kamm (eds.),Proceedings of Numerical Modeling for Underground Nuclear Test Monitoring Symposium, Report. LA-UR-93-3839, Los Alamos National Laboratory, pp. 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Heuzé, F.E. et al. (1991) Explosion phenomenology in jointed rocks: new insights, Geophys. Monog. 65, (Amer. Geophys. Union), pp. 253–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Glen, L.A., Moran, B., Ladd, A.J.C., Wilson, K.A., and Rial, J.A. (1986) Elastic Radiation from explosively loaded axisymmetric cavities, Geophys. J.R. astr. Soc., 86, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Richards, P.G.. Anderson, D.A. and Simpson, D.W. (1992) A survey of blasting activity in the United States, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Amer. 82. 1416–1433.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory and Dept. Geological Sciences, Columbia University, Palisades, NY, 10964, USA

    Lynn R. Sykes

Authors
  1. Lynn R. Sykes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Solid Earth Physics, University of Bergen, Allegaten 41, N-5007, Bergen, Norway

    Eystein S. Husebye

  2. Earth Sciences Division, Phillips Laboratory/GPE, 29 Randolph Road, Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, 01731-3010, USA

    Anton M. Dainty

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sykes, L.R. (1996). Dealing with Decoupled Nuclear Explosions under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In: Husebye, E.S., Dainty, A.M. (eds) Monitoring a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. NATO ASI Series, vol 303. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0419-7_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0419-7_17

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-4187-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0419-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation