Yields of US and Soviet Nuclear Tests

AUG 01, 1987

Failure to account properly for geological and seismological differences between the US and Soviet test sites has led to overestimates of the yields of Soviet tests and to incorrect claims of Soviet cheating on the treaty limit of 150 kilotons.

DOI: 10.1063/1.881082

Jack F. Evernden

Gerald E. Marsh

The likelihood that the United States will negotiate a comprehensive or lowthreshold test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in the relatively near future depends not only on the ability of the US to monitor such an agreement but also on US perception of past Soviet compliance with treaties that limit nuclear testing. Of particular importance is the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty, which prohibits tests of nuclear weapons exceeding 150 kilotons in yield. This treaty is unratified, but both the United States and the Soviet Union have avowed their compliance since 1976, when the treaty was scheduled to go into effect. (For an annotated list of treaties, see Herbert York’s article in PHYSICS TODAY, March 1983, page 24.)

References

1. For an introduction to seismological definitions relevant to nuclear tests, see L. Sykes, J. Evernden, Sci. Am., October 1982, p. 47;
J. Evernden, Bull. At. Sci., March 1985, p. 9.
2. J. Evernden, J. Filson, J. Geophy. Res. 76, 3303 (1971).https://doi.org/JGREA2
3. J. Evernden, D. Clark, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 4, 1, 24 (1970).https://doi.org/PEPIAM
4. L. Sykes, I. Cifuentes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 1922 (1984).https://doi.org/PNASA6
5. J. Evernden, C. Archambeau, in Technical Means of Verification of Compliance with Arms Control Treaties, K. Tsipis, ed., Pergamon, New York (1986), ch. 16.
6. J. Evernden, Regional Bias in Magnitude Versus Yield Measurements: Its Explanation and Modes of Evaluation, unclassified report submitted to Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Washington, DC (1977). This report contains the most expansive discussion and supporting list of references available on the numerous geophysical parameters that correlate with bias in the magnitudes mb and that explain its fundamental cause; the report also discusses the lack of regional bias in the magnitudes Ms.
7. C. Archambeau, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 29, 329 (1972). https://doi.org/GEOJAN
C. Archambeau, C. Sammis, Rev. Geophys. 8, 473 (1970). https://doi.org/RVGPB4
J. Evernden, C. Archambeau, E. Cranswick, Rev. Geophys. 24, 143 (1986).https://doi.org/RVGPB4
8. P. Marshall, D. Springer, H. Rodean, Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc. 57, 609 (1979).https://doi.org/GEOJAN
9. Z. A. Der, T. W. McElfresh, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 70, 921 (1980). https://doi.org/BSSAAP
Z. A. Der, A. C. Lees, M. R. Marshall, EOS Trans. 67, 302 (1986).
10. G. E. Marsh, Bull. At. Sci., March 1983 p. 4.
11. R. Batzel, in Department of Energy Fiscal Year 1986 Authorization for Defense Programs, testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic and Theatre Nuclear Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 99th Congress, 1st session, 14 March 1985;
available in Senate Hearing 99–485, US Govt. Print. Off. (1986). p. 169.
12. P. Richards, presentation to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Subcommittee on Oversight and Evaluation, 6 May 1986.
13. Depths of US explosions as announced by AEC or DOE are included in the seismological bulletins issued by the Nationa Earthquake Information Service of the US Geological Survey. This article uses the magnitudes mb calculated by the NEIS and published in its bulletins.
14. R. Kidder, oral presentation at DOE‐sponsored Workshop on Cavity Decoupling, 29 July 1985, document no. UCRL‐93194, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. (August 1985);
reprinted in Public Interest Report (Federation of American Scientists, Washington, DC), September 1985, p. 1.
15. LLNL Classification Bulletin WNP‐45A (supplement), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. (28 June 1983).
16. R. L. Wagner Jr, in Review of Arms Control and Disarmament Activities, 99th Congress, 1st Session, House Armed Services Committee report no. 99‐18, US Govt. Print. Off. (1986), p. 115.
17. H. M. Agnew, letter to J. Kemp, 19 April 1977, in Effects of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on United States National Security Interests, House Armed Services Committee report no. 95‐89, US Govt. Print. Off. (1978), p. 192.
18. L. Sykes, letter to D. B. Fascell, chairman of House Foreign Affairs Committee, 30 August 1985.
19. P. Samuel, Defense Week, 5 August 1985, p. 1.
20. J. K. Landauer, National Security and the Comprehensive Test Ban, document no. UCRL‐84848, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore, Calif. (August 1980).
21. R. E. Kidder, Evaluation of the 1983 Rosengren Report from the Point of View of a Comprehensive Test Ban, document no. UCID‐20804, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif, (1986).
R. E. Kidder, Stockpile Reliability and Nuclear Test Bans: Response to J. W. Rosengren’s Defense of His 1983 Report, document no. UCIS‐20990, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. (February 1987).

More about the Authors

Jack F. Evernden. US Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.

Gerald E. Marsh. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.