ARMS-D-Request@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU (Moderator) (02/24/86)
Arms-Discussion Digest Sunday, February 23, 1986 4:37PM Volume 6, Issue 52 Today's Topics: Cooperative Verification of Nuclear Weapons ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1986 16:36 EST From: LIN@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU Subject: Cooperative Verification of Nuclear Weapons (draft for comments) Below is a DRAFT paper on which I would like comments. I need them by Wed (2/26) at 9 AM for maximum utility. Hostile comments especially invited. This file is about 12 K characters. Cooperative Verification of Nuclear Weapons Copyright 1986 Herbert Lin The political viability of arms control agreements today depends on the ability of one side to count the number of nuclear weapons that the other side has. For the most part, this ability depends upon the ability of national technical means (NTM) such as satellites to identify launch platforms (e.g., missile silos, submarines). Assumptions about the number of nuclear weapons carried on each platform derived from observations of missile tests are then used to convert a platform count into a weapon count. This verification process is mostly unilateral, though agreements to refrain from impeding NTM do add a cooperative spirit to the endeavor. With greater cooperation between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, it should be possible to verify deployments of nuclear weapons in greater detail than is currently feasible with a primary reliance on unilateral means. This note is intended as a conceptual exploration of how one generic method of cooperative verification might proceed. An important warning to the reader is that many technical and procedural details remain to be worked out. A cooperative verification scheme could involve an agreement between the U.S. and the Soviet Union to allow the placement of nuclear weapons detectors on each other's weapons-carrying platforms. (Of course, such an agreement would be entirely symmetric between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and the discussion of U.S. verification procedures below applies equally to the Soviet Union.) These sensors would relay their report to American authorities using Soviet communication systems; the authenticity of these reports would be guaranteed through the use of a public-key encryption scheme. Each element of the scheme is described below. Nuclear weapon detectors depend on the ability to sense nearby the presence of fissionable material, either U-235 or Pu-239. Detectors would be placed at every opening through which a nuclear weapon might be loaded into the platform; thus, detectors would have to operate at ranges of only a few feet. The technology base for these detectors has been developed in the context of monitoring nuclear materials used in nuclear power plants. These monitoring technologies are capable of measuring with reasonable precision small amounts of nuclear material within the reactor fuel cycle so that illegal diversions can be detected with confidence. By contrast, a weapon detector requires only the ability to distinguish between one weapon or two -- a much less technically demanding task. Generically, two monitoring methods are available. Passive sensing and measurement of fissile materials depends on the natural radiation that these materials emitted. Active sensing and measurement depends on the ability to probe the immediate vicinity of the detector with an interrogator of some sort, such as a pulse of neutrons. The interrogator probe would interact with any fissile material in the vicinity, producing a characteristic radiation spectrum. Sensors located nearby would detect this spectrum thus signaling the presence of a nuclear weapon. The Soviets could be concerned that the detector could compromise the security of the platform. This concern could be allayed by the construction of twice as many detectors as are to be installed. The Soviets would choose half the detectors for their own technicians to disassemble, who would verify that these boxes posed no threat. The other detectors would be installed on the appropriate platforms. Public-key encryption was originally designed as a method by which the key to encoding a message and the key to decode the message are not identical. Thus, an encryption key could be made public, enabling anyone to encode a message, though knowledge of the encryption key alone would not allow the decoding of an encrypted message. However, public-key encryption schemes also provide the tools necessary to verify that a received message has indeed been sent legitimately, i.e., by a party in possession of the decryption key. American authorities would interrogate their detectors by asking Soviet authorities to use their own (Soviet) communication channels to transmit orders and receive information from American detectors mounted on Soviet platforms. Since the authenticity of a message sent by a detector can be guaranteed, the U.S. could be confident that the data it received from the Soviet authorities had not been compromised or altered. On the other hand, the use of Soviet communication channels would allow Soviet platforms to maintain their operational flexibility with minimal loss of security. The U.S. would be allowed to interrogate its detectors periodically. The interval between interrogations should be long enough to intrude only minimally on Soviet operational practices, but short enough that an upper limit on the total number of nuclear weapons could be verified with reasonable confidence. A protocol to handle a small number of communications failures should also be included. If the data provided by a platform-by-platform interrogation were determined to compromise operational security to a large extent, it would be possible to feed the data to a secure computer in Soviet possession but programmed by the U.S. to report total deployments but not the total numbers of weapons aboard individual platforms. The feasibility of this cooperative verification scheme depends on the resistance of the detector to tampering of various sorts. The detector itself can be designed to detect changes in its magnetic environment, so that it could record the fact that it had been moved. More serious is the possibility that somehow nuclear weapons could pass the detector undetected. If the detector is based on passive sensing, a nuclear weapon shielded by lead (to reduce gamma ray emissions) and by hydrogenated material such as paraffin (to reduce neutron emissions) might pass undetected. Therefore, it is likely that active detection means would be necessary. An active detector might require the placement of sensors opposite a pulsed neutron source; weapons enter the platform passing between the sensors and the neutron source. At random intervals determined by electronics in the detector, a pulse of neutrons would be emitted. The sensors opposite would detect both the probe's neutrons and the radiation induced by fission in a nuclear weapon that happened to be present. If the weapon were shielded, the shielding on the weapon would block the induced emissions, but would also block the probe's neutrons; thus, the presence of shielding would be indicated. One determining issue then becomes the extent to which it is possible to mimic the signature of the probe; careful placement of multiple sensors and accurate time of flight measurements on the probe neutrons could increase the confidence that a signal received by the sensors was in fact transmitted by the probe. The second determining issue is the extent to which the use of active probes would realistically degrade confidence in the reliability of a nuclear weapon so probed. Even if technically feasible, the method of cooperative verification described above does not settle a number of important issues. - All cooperative verification schemes are useful only in peacetime, and are thus essentially confidence-building measures. They provide no protection in the event of war. - Sudden strategic break-out of an agreement based on a cooperative verification scheme is possible, since nothing in such agreements necessarily prohibits unlimited production (as opposed to deployment) of the nuclear weapons to be limited. - Sudden tactical break-out is possible if many more nuclear weapons than allowed can be loaded into many platforms on a time scale smaller than the interval between interrogations. A good agreement regarding times between interrogating and also provisions for re-interrogating an already-interrogated platform would help to keep but not to guarantee) possible violations to militarily insignificant levels. - An initial on-site inspection of all platforms capable of carrying the nuclear weapon to be limited is necessary to "initialize the count" of nuclear weapons aboard. This inspection is of necessity highly intrusive, but it is consistent with Secretary John Lehman's offer to allow in-port inspection of Navy ships as part of any arms-control agreement. - All platforms capable of carrying the nuclear weapon to be limited must be equipped with detectors. - Tactical and strategic warheads cannot be distinguished. Therefore, this cooperative verification scheme forces possibly difficult trade-offs between tactical and strategic applications. All of these issues must be addressed before cooperative verification schemes would be viable. However, it should not be surprising that cooperative schemes to verify deployments of nuclear weapons are more intrusive and less secure than unilateral methods; indeed, cooperative verification schemes are necessary only when the specific types of weapons to be limited are not verifiable by unilateral means. Finally, the method described above for communicating with detectors can be used to verify compliance with mutually agreed keep-out zones. A platform (e.g., a submarine) designated as one that must refrain from entering a given deployment area would be equipped with an inertial navigation unit that could keep track of platform movements. To avoid giving away its precise deployment track, the unit would be programmed with the geographical boundaries of the agreed-upon keep-out zones. The read-out from the navigation unit would be limited to one bit -- a determination of whether or not the keep-out zone had been violated. Herb Lin Center for International Studies E38-668 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (617) 253-8076 February 1986 ------------------------------ End of Arms-Discussion Digest *****************************