Thermonuclear weapon

most of the worlds nuclear weapons.[2] The modern design of all thermonuclear weapons in the United States is
known as the Teller-Ulam conguration for its two chief
contributors, Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam, who developed it in 1951[3] for the United States, with certain
concepts developed with the contribution of John von
Neumann. The rst test of a hydrogen bomb prototype
was the "Ivy Mike" nuclear test in 1952, conducted by
the United States. The rst ready-to-use thermonuclear
bomb "RDS-6s" (Joe 4) was tested on August 12, 1953,
in the Soviet Union. Similar devices were developed by
the United Kingdom, China, and France.
As thermonuclear weapons represent the most ecient
design for weapon energy yield in weapons with yields
above 50 kilotons, virtually all the nuclear weapons deployed by the ve nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
today are thermonuclear weapons using the TellerUlam
design.[4]
The essential features of the mature thermonuclear
weapon design, which ocially remained secret for
nearly three decades, are:

1. Separation of stages into a triggering primary explosive and a much more powerful secondary explosive.
2. Compression of the secondary by X-rays coming
from nuclear ssion in the primary, a process called
the "radiation implosion" of the secondary.
The basics of the TellerUlam design for a thermonuclear
weapon. Radiation from a primary ssion bomb compresses a
secondary section containing both ssion and fusion fuel. The
compressed secondary is heated from within by a second ssion
explosion.

3. Heating of the secondary, after cold compression,

by a second ssion explosion inside the secondary.

The radiation implosion mechanism is a heat engine

that exploits the temperature dierence between the secondary stages hot, surrounding radiation channel and
its relatively cool interior. This temperature dierence
is briey maintained by a massive heat barrier called
the pusher, which also serves as an implosion tamper,
increasing and prolonging the compression of the secondary. If made of uranium, as is almost always the case,
it can capture neutrons produced by the fusion reaction
and undergo ssion itself, increasing the overall explosive yield. In many TellerUlam weapons, ssion of the
pusher dominates the explosion and produces radioactive
ssion product fallout.

A thermonuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon that uses

the energy from a primary nuclear ssion reaction to compress and ignite a secondary nuclear fusion reaction. The
result is greatly increased explosive power when compared to single-stage ssion weapons. It is colloquially referred to as a hydrogen bomb or H-bomb because it employs hydrogen fusion. The ssion stage in such weapons
is required to cause the fusion that occurs in thermonuclear weapons.[1]
The concept of the thermonuclear weapon was rst developed and used in 1952 and has since been employed by
1

2 BASIC PRINCIPLE

Public knowledge concerning nuclear weapon design

been unocially leaked by former bomb designers, most

public descriptions of nuclear weapon design details rely
to some degree on speculation, reverse engineering from
known information, or comparison with similar elds of
physics (inertial connement fusion is the primary example). Such processes have resulted in a body of unclassied knowledge about nuclear bombs which is generally
consistent with ocial unclassied information releases,
related physics, and is thought to be internally consistent, though there are some points of interpretation which
are still considered open. The state of public knowledge
about the TellerUlam design has been mostly shaped
from a few specic incidents outlined in a section below.

2 Basic principle

Edward Teller in 1958

Detailed knowledge of ssion and fusion weapons is

classied to some degree in virtually every industrialized
nation. In the United States, such knowledge can by default be classied as "Restricted Data", even if it is created
by persons who are not government employees or associated with weapons programs, in a legal doctrine known
as "born secret" (though the constitutional standing of the
doctrine has been at times called into question; see United
States v. The Progressive). Born secret is rarely invoked
for cases of private speculation. The ocial policy of
the United States Department of Energy has been to not
acknowledge the leaking of design information, as such
acknowledgment would potentially validate the information as accurate. In a small number of prior cases, the
U.S. government has attempted to censor weapons information in the public press, with limited success.[5] According to the New York Times, physicist Kenneth Ford
deed government orders to remove classied information from his new book, Building the H Bomb: A Personal
History. Ford claims he only used pre-existing information and even submitted a manuscript to the government
who wanted to remove entire sections of the book for concern that foreign nations could use the information.[6]

The basic principle of the TellerUlam conguration is

the idea that dierent parts of a thermonuclear weapon
can be chained together in stages, with the detonation
of each stage providing the energy to ignite the next stage.
At a bare minimum, this implies a primary section which
consists of an implosion-type ssion bomb (a trigger),
and a secondary section which consists of fusion fuel. The
energy released by the primary compresses the secondary
through a process called "radiation implosion", at which
point it is heated and undergoes nuclear fusion. Because
of the staged design, it is thought that a tertiary section,
again of fusion fuel, could be added as well, based on
the same principle as the secondary; the AN602 "Tsar
Bomba" is thought to have been a three-stage device.

One possible version of the TellerUlam conguration.

Surrounding the other components is a hohlraum or radiation case, a container which traps the rst stage or primarys energy inside temporarily. The outside of this radiation case, which is also normally the outside casing of
the bomb, is the only direct visual evidence publicly available of any thermonuclear bomb components conguration. Numerous photographs of various thermonuclear
bomb exteriors have been declassied.[7]

The primary is thought to be a standard implosion

method ssion bomb, though likely with a core boosted
by small amounts of fusion fuel (usually 50/50%
Though large quantities of vague data have been o- deuterium/tritium gas) for extra eciency; the fusion fuel
cially released, and larger quantities of vague data have releases excess neutrons when heated and compressed,

3
inducing additional ssion. Generally, a research program with the capacity to create a thermonuclear bomb
has already mastered the ability to engineer boosted ssion. When red, the plutonium-239 (Pu-239) and/or
uranium-235 (U-235) core would be compressed to a
smaller sphere by special layers of conventional high explosives arranged around it in an explosive lens pattern,
initiating the nuclear chain reaction that powers the conventional atomic bomb.
The secondary is usually shown as a column of fusion fuel and other components wrapped in many layers.
Around the column is rst a pusher-tamper, a heavy
layer of uranium-238 (U-238) or lead which serves to
help compress the fusion fuel (and, in the case of uranium, may eventually undergo ssion itself). Inside this
is the fusion fuel itself, usually a form of lithium deuteride, which is used because it is easier to weaponize
than liquied tritium/deuterium gas (compare the success of the cryogenic deuterium-based Ivy Mike experiment to the (over)success of the lithium deuteride-based
Castle Bravo experiment). This dry fuel, when bombarded by neutrons, produces tritium, a heavy isotope of
hydrogen which can undergo nuclear fusion, along with
the deuterium present in the mixture. (See the article on
nuclear fusion for a more detailed technical discussion of
fusion reactions.) Inside the layer of fuel is the spark
plug, a hollow column of ssile material (plutonium-239
or uranium-235) which, when compressed, can itself undergo nuclear ssion (because of the shape, it is not a
critical mass without compression). The tertiary, if one is
present, would be set below the secondary and probably
be made up of the same materials.[8][9]
Separating the secondary from the primary is the
interstage. The ssioning primary produces four types
of energy: 1) expanding hot gases from high explosive charges which implode the primary; 2) superheated
plasma that was originally the bombs ssile material and
its tamper; 3) the electromagnetic radiation; and 4) the
neutrons from the primarys nuclear detonation. The
interstage is responsible for accurately modulating the
transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary.
It must direct the hot gases, plasma, electromagnetic radiation and neutrons toward the right place at the right
time. Less than optimal interstage designs have resulted
in the secondary failing to work entirely on multiple shots,
known as a ssile zzle. The Koon shot of Operation
Castle is a good example; a small aw allowed the neutron ux from the primary to prematurely begin heating
the secondary, weakening the compression enough to prevent any fusion.

Classied paper by Teller and Ulam on March 9, 1951:

On Heterocatalytic Detonations I: Hydrodynamic Lenses
and Radiation Mirrors, in which they proposed their
revolutionary staged implosion idea. This declassied
version is extensively redacted.
There is very little detailed information in the open literature about the mechanism of the interstage. One of
the best sources is a simplied diagram of a British thermonuclear weapon similar to the American W80 warhead. It was released by Greenpeace in a report titled
Dual Use Nuclear Technology.[10] The major components and their arrangement are in the diagram, though
details are almost absent; what scattered details it does
include, likely have intentional omissions and/or inaccuracies. They are labeled End-cap and Neutron Focus
Lens and Reector Wrap"; the former channels neutrons to the U-235/Pu-239 Spark Plug while the latter
refers to an X-ray reector; typically a cylinder made out
of an X-ray opaque material such as uranium with the
primary and secondary at either end. It does not reect
like a mirror; instead, it gets heated to a high temperature by the X-ray ux from the primary, then it emits
more evenly spread X-rays which travel to the secondary,
causing what is known as radiation implosion. In Ivy
Mike, gold was used as a coating over the uranium to enhance the blackbody eect.[11] Next comes the Reector/Neutron Gun Carriage. The reector seals the gap
between the Neutron Focus Lens (in the center) and the
outer casing near the primary. It separates the primary
from the secondary and performs the same function as

4
the previous reector. There are about six neutron guns
(seen here from Sandia National Laboratories[12] ) each
poking through the outer edge of the reector with one
end in each section; all are clamped to the carriage and
arranged more or less evenly around the casings circumference. The neutron guns are tilted so the neutron emitting end of each gun end is pointed towards the central
axis of the bomb. Neutrons from each neutron gun pass
through and are focused by the neutron focus lens towards
the centre of primary in order to boost the initial ssioning of the plutonium. A "Polystyrene Polarizer/Plasma
Source is also shown (see below).

3 COMPRESSION OF THE SECONDARY

2. Energy released in the primary stage is transferred
to the secondary (or fusion) stage. The exact mechanism whereby this happens is secret. This energy
compresses the fusion fuel and sparkplug; the compressed sparkplug becomes critical and undergoes
a ssion chain reaction, further heating the compressed fusion fuel to a high enough temperature to
induce fusion, and also supplying neutrons that react
with lithium to create tritium for fusion.
3. The fusion fuel of the secondary stage may be surrounded by depleted uranium or natural uranium,
whose U-238 is not ssile and cannot sustain a chain
reaction, but which is ssionable when bombarded
by the high-energy neutrons released by fusion in
the secondary stage. This process provides considerable energy yield (as much as half of the total yield
in large devices), but is not considered a tertiary
stage. Tertiary stages are further fusion stages (see
below), which have been only rarely used, and then
only in the most powerful bombs ever made.

The rst U.S. government document to mention the interstage was only recently released to the public promoting the 2004 initiation of the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program. A graphic includes blurbs describing the
potential advantage of a RRW on a part by part level,
with the interstage blurb saying a new design would replace toxic, brittle material and expensive 'special' material... [which require] unique facilities.[13] The toxic,
brittle material is widely assumed to be beryllium, which
ts that description and would also moderate the neutron
ux from the primary. Some material to absorb and re- Thermonuclear weapons may or may not use a boosted
radiate the X-rays in a particular manner may also be primary stage, use dierent types of fusion fuel, and
used.[14]
may surround the fusion fuel with beryllium (or another
The special material is thought to be a substance called neutron reecting material) instead of depleted uranium
"FOGBANK", an unclassied codename, though it is of- to prevent early premature ssion from occurring before
ten referred to as "THE fogbank (or "A Fogbank) as the secondary is optimally compressed.
if it were a subassembly instead of a material. Its composition is classied, though aerogel has been suggested
as a possibility. Manufacture stopped for many years;
3 Compression of the secondary
however, the Life Extension Program required it to start
up again Y-12 currently being the sole producer (the
unique facility referenced). The manufacturing process The basic idea of the TellerUlam conguration is that
used acetonitrile as a solvent, which led to at least three each stage would undergo ssion or fusion (or both)
evacuations in 2006. Acetonitrile is widely used in the and release energy, much of which would be transferred
petroleum and pharmaceutical industries. Like most sol- to another stage to trigger it. How exactly the energy is
transported from the primary to the secondary has been
vents, it is ammable and can be toxic.[15]
the subject of some disagreement in the open press, but
is thought to be transmitted through the X-rays which are
2.1 Summary
emitted from the ssioning primary. This energy is then
used to compress the secondary. The crucial detail of
A simplied summary of the above explanation is:
how the X-rays create the pressure is the main remaining
disputed point in the unclassied press. There are three
1. An implosion assembly type of ssion bomb is ex- proposed theories:
ploded. This is the primary stage. If a small amount
of deuterium/tritium gas is placed inside the pri Radiation pressure exerted by the X-rays. This was
marys core, it will be compressed during the explothe rst idea put forth by Howard Morland in the
sion and a nuclear fusion reaction will occur; the rearticle in The Progressive.
leased neutrons from this fusion reaction will induce
further ssion in the plutonium-239 or uranium-235
X-rays creating a plasma in the radiation cases ller
used in the primary stage. The use of fusion fuel
(a polystyrene or "FOGBANK" plastic foam). This
to enhance the eciency of a ssion reaction is
was a second idea put forward by Chuck Hansen and
called boosting. Without boosting, a large portion of
later by Howard Morland.
the ssile material will remain unreacted; the Little
Boy and Fat Man bombs had an eciency of only
Tamper/Pusher ablation. This is the concept best
1.4% and 17%, respectively, because they were unsupported by physical analysis.
boosted.

3.3

3.1

Tamper-pusher ablation

Radiation pressure

The radiation pressure exerted by the large quantity of Xray photons inside the closed casing might be enough to
compress the secondary. Electromagnetic radiation such
as X-rays or light carries momentum and exerts a force
on any surface it strikes. The pressure of radiation at the
intensities seen in everyday life, such as sunlight striking
a surface, is usually imperceptible, but at the extreme intensities found in a thermonuclear bomb the pressure is
enormous.
For two thermonuclear bombs for which the general size
and primary characteristics are well understood, the Ivy
Mike test bomb and the modern W-80 cruise missile warhead variant of the W-61 design, the radiation pressure
was calculated to be 73 million bar (atmospheres) (7.3 T
Pa) for the Ivy Mike design and 1,400 million bar (140
TPa) for the W-80.[16]

5
This would complete the ssion-fusion-ssion sequence.
Fusion, unlike ssion, is relatively cleanit releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts
of nuclear fallout. The ssion reactions though, especially
the last ssion reaction, release a tremendous amount of
ssion products and fallout. If the last ssion stage is
omitted, by replacing the uranium tamper with one made
of lead, for example, the overall explosive force is reduced by approximately half but the amount of fallout
is relatively low. The neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb
with an intentionally thin tamper, allowing as much radiation as possible to escape.

3.2

Foam plasma pressure

Foam plasma pressure is the concept which Chuck

Hansen introduced during the Progressive case, based
on research which located declassied documents listing
special foams as liner components within the radiation
case of thermonuclear weapons.
The sequence of ring the weapon (with the foam) would
be as follows:
1. The high explosives surrounding the core of the primary re, compressing the ssile material into a
supercritical state and beginning the ssion chain reaction.

Foam plasma mechanism ring sequence.

1. Warhead before ring; primary (ssion bomb) at top, secondary (fusion fuel) at bottom, all suspended in polystyrene
foam.
2. High-explosive res in primary, compressing plutonium
core into supercriticality and beginning a ssion reaction.
3. Fission primary emits X-rays which are scattered along the
inside of the casing, irradiating the polystyrene foam.
4. Polystyrene foam becomes plasma, compressing secondary, and plutonium sparkplug begins to ssion.
5. Compressed and heated, lithium-6 deuteride fuel produces
tritium and begins the fusion reaction. The neutron ux
produced causes the U-238 tamper to ssion. A reball
starts to form.

2. The ssioning primary emits X-rays, which reect along the inside of the casing, irradiating the
polystyrene foam.
Current technical criticisms of the idea of foam plasma
pressure focus on unclassied analysis from similar high
3. The irradiated foam becomes a hot plasma, pushing energy physics elds which indicate that the pressure proagainst the tamper of the secondary, compressing duced by such a plasma would only be a small multiplier
it tightly, and beginning the ssion reaction in the of the basic photon pressure within the radiation case,
spark plug.
and also that the known foam materials intrinsically have
4. Pushed from both sides (from the primary and the a very low absorption eciency of the gamma ray and
spark plug), the lithium deuteride fuel is highly X-ray radiation from the primary. Most of the energy
compressed and heated to thermonuclear temper- produced would be absorbed by either the walls of the
atures. Also, by being bombarded with neutrons, radiation case and/or the tamper around the secondary.
each lithium6 atom splits into one tritium atom Analyzing the eects of that absorbed energy led to the
and one alpha particle. Then begins a fusion reac- third mechanism: ablation.
tion between the tritium and the deuterium, releasing even more neutrons, and a huge amount of en3.3
ergy.
5. The fuel undergoing the fusion reaction emits a large
ux of neutrons, which irradiates the U-238 tamper
(or the U-238 bomb casing), causing it to undergo
a ssion reaction, providing about half of the total
energy.

Tamper-pusher ablation

The proposed tamper-pusher ablation mechanism is that

the primary compression mechanism for the thermonuclear secondary is that the outer layers of the tamperpusher, or heavy metal casing around the thermonuclear
fuel, are heated so much by the X-ray ux from the pri-

DESIGN VARIATIONS

mary that they ablate away, exploding outwards at such billion bar (6.4 PPa) in the W-80 device.[16]
high speed that the rest of the tamper recoils inwards at
a tremendous velocity, crushing the fusion fuel and the
spark plug.
3.4 Comparing the implosion mechanisms
Comparing the three mechanisms proposed, it can be
seen that:

Ablation mechanism ring sequence.

1. Warhead before ring. The nested spheres at the top are
the ssion primary; the cylinders below are the fusion secondary device.
2. Fission primarys explosives have detonated and collapsed
the primarys ssile pit.
3. The primarys ssion reaction has run to completion, and
the primary is now at several million degrees and radiating gamma and hard X-rays, heating up the inside of the
hohlraum and the shield and secondarys tamper.

The calculated ablation pressure is one order of magnitude greater than the higher proposed plasma pressures
and nearly two orders of magnitude greater than calculated radiation pressure. No mechanism to avoid the absorption of energy into the radiation case wall and the
secondary tamper has been suggested, making ablation
apparently unavoidable. The other mechanisms appear
to be unneeded.
United States Department of Defense ocial declassication reports indicate that foamed plastic materials are
or may be used in radiation case liners, and despite the
low direct plasma pressure they may be of use in delaying the ablation until energy has distributed evenly
and a sucient fraction has reached the secondarys
tamper/pusher.[17]

Richard Rhodes' book Dark Sun stated that a 1-inch-thick

(25 mm) layer of plastic foam was xed to the lead liner
of the inside of the Ivy Mike steel casing using copper
4. The primarys reaction is over and it has expanded. The nails. Rhodes quotes several designers of that bomb exsurface of the pusher for the secondary is now so hot that
plaining that the plastic foam layer inside the outer case is
it is also ablating or expanding away, pushing the rest of
to delay ablation and thus recoil of the outer case: if the
the secondary (tamper, fusion fuel, and ssile spark plug)
inwards. The spark plug starts to ssion. Not depicted: foam were not there, metal would ablate from the inside
the radiation case is also ablating and expanding outwards of the outer case with a large impulse, causing the casing
to recoil outwards rapidly. The purpose of the casing is
(omitted for clarity of diagram).
to contain the explosion for as long as possible, allowing
5. The secondarys fuel has started the fusion reaction and
as much X-ray ablation of the metallic surface of the secshortly will burn up. A reball starts to form.
ondary stage as possible, so it compresses the secondary
eciently, maximizing the fusion yield. Plastic foam has
Rough calculations for the basic ablation eect are rela- a low density, so causes a smaller impulse when it ablates
tively simple: the energy from the primary is distributed than metal does.[17]
evenly onto all of the surfaces within the outer radiation
case, with the components coming to a thermal equilibrium, and the eects of that thermal energy are then
analyzed. The energy is mostly deposited within about 4 Design variations
one X-ray optical thickness of the tamper/pusher outer
surface, and the temperature of that layer can then be A number of possible variations to the weapon design
calculated. The velocity at which the surface then ex- have been proposed:
pands outwards is calculated and, from a basic Newtonian
momentum balance, the velocity at which the rest of the
Either the tamper or the casing have been proposed
tamper implodes inwards.
to be made of uranium-235 (highly enriched uraApplying the more detailed form of those calculations to
nium) in the nal ssion jacket. The far more exthe Ivy Mike device yields vaporized pusher gas expanpensive U-235 is also ssionable with fast neutrons
sion velocity of 290 kilometers per second and an implolike the standard U-238, but its ssion-eciency is
sion velocity of perhaps 400 kilometers per second if 3/4
higher than natural uranium, which is almost enof the total tamper/pusher mass is ablated o, the most
tirely U-238. Using a nal ssionable jacket of Uenergy ecient proportion. For the W-80 the gas expan235 would thus be expected to increase the yield of
sion velocity is roughly 410 kilometers per second and
any Teller-Ulam bomb above a U-238 (depleted urathe implosion velocity 570 kilometers per second. The
nium) or natural uranium jacket design.
pressure due to the ablating material is calculated to be
In some descriptions, additional internal structures
5.3 billion bar (530 TPa) in the Ivy Mike device and 64

7
exist to protect the secondary from receiving exces- apparently as many fusion stages as desired),[19][20] posive neutrons from the primary.
tentially to the level of a "doomsday device. However,
usually such weapons were not more than a dozen mega The inside of the casing may or may not be specially tons, which was generally considered enough to destroy
machined to reect the X-rays. X-ray reection even most hardened practical targets (for example, a conis not like light reecting o of a mirror, but rather trol facility such as the Cheyenne Mountain Complex).
the reector material is heated by the X-rays, caus- Even such large bombs have been replaced by smallering the material itself to emit X-rays, which then yield bunker buster type nuclear bombs, see also nuclear
travel to the secondary.
bunker buster.
As discussed above, for destruction of cities and nonhardened targets, breaking the mass of a single missile
payload down into smaller MIRV bombs, in order to
spread the energy of the explosions into a pancake area,
is far more ecient in terms of area-destruction per unit
of bomb energy. This also applies to single bombs deliverable by cruise missile or other system, such as a bomber,
Most bombs do not apparently have tertiary stages resulting in most operational warheads in the U.S. prothat is, third compression stage(s), which are additional gram having yields of less than 500 kilotons.
fusion stages compressed by a previous fusion stage (the
ssioning of the last blanket of uranium, which provides
about half the yield in large bombs, does not count as a 5 History
stage in this terminology).
The U.S. tested three-stage bombs in several explosions Main article: History of the TellerUlam design
(see Operation Redwing) but is only thought to have
elded one such tertiary model, i.e., a bomb in which a ssion stage, followed by a fusion stage, nally compresses
yet another fusion stage. This U.S. design was the heavy 5.1 United States
but highly ecient (i.e., nuclear weapon yield per unit
bomb weight) 25 Mt B41 nuclear bomb.[18] The Soviet Main articles: Ivy Mike and Operation Castle
Union is thought to have used multiple stages (including
more than one tertiary fusion stages) in their 50 megaton The idea of a thermonuclear fusion bomb ignited by a
(100 Mt in intended use) Tsar Bomba (however, as with smaller ssion bomb was rst proposed by Enrico Fermi
other bombs, the ssionable jacket could be replaced with to his colleague Edward Teller in 1941 at the start of
lead in such a bomb, and in this one, for demonstration, what would become the Manhattan Project.[3] Teller spent
it was). If any hydrogen bombs have been made from most of the Manhattan Project attempting to gure out
congurations other than those based on the TellerUlam how to make the design work, to some degree neglectdesign, the fact of it is not publicly known. (A possible ing his assigned work on the Manhattan Project ssion
exception to this is the Soviet early Sloika design).
bomb program. His dicult and devils advocate attitude
In essence, the TellerUlam conguration relies on at in discussions led Robert Oppenheimer to sidetrack him
least two instances of implosion occurring: rst, the and other problem physicists into the super program to
conventional (chemical) explosives in the primary would smooth his way.
Two special variations exist which will be discussed in a
further section: the cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium
device used for the Ivy Mike test, and the putative design
of the W88 nuclear warheada small, MIRVed version
of the TellerUlam conguration with a prolate (egg or
watermelon shaped) primary and an elliptical secondary.

compress the ssile core, resulting in a ssion explosion

many times more powerful than that which chemical explosives could achieve alone (rst stage). Second, the radiation from the ssioning of the primary would be used
to compress and ignite the secondary fusion stage, resulting in a fusion explosion many times more powerful
than the ssion explosion alone. This chain of compression could then be continued with an arbitrary number
of tertiary fusion stages.[19][20] although this is debated
(see more: Arbitrarily large yield debate). Finally, ecient bombs (but not so-called neutron bombs) end with
the ssioning of the nal natural uranium tamper, something which could not normally be achieved without the
neutron ux provided by the fusion reactions in secondary
or tertiary stages. Such designs are suggested to be capable of being scaled up to an arbitrary large yield (with

Stanislaw Ulam, a coworker of Teller, made the rst

key conceptual leaps towards a workable fusion design.
Ulams two innovations which rendered the fusion bomb
practical were that compression of the thermonuclear fuel
before extreme heating was a practical path towards the
conditions needed for fusion, and the idea of staging or
placing a separate thermonuclear component outside a
ssion primary component, and somehow using the primary to compress the secondary. Teller then realized that
the gamma and X-ray radiation produced in the primary
could transfer enough energy into the secondary to create
a successful implosion and fusion burn, if the whole assembly was wrapped in a hohlraum or radiation case.[3]
Teller and his various proponents and detractors later disputed the degree to which Ulam had contributed to the
theories underlying this mechanism. Indeed, shortly be-

HISTORY

weight. It was later found in live testing that the Polaris

warhead did not work reliably and had to be redesigned.
Further innovation in miniaturizing warheads was accomplished by the mid-1970s, when versions of the Teller
Ulam design were created which could t ten or more
warheads on the end of a small MIRVed missile (see the
section on the W88 below).[7]

5.2 Soviet Union

Main articles: Joe 4 and RDS-37
See also: Soviet atomic bomb project

Operation Castle thermonuclear test, Castle Romeo shot.

fore his death, and in a last-ditch eort to discredit Ulams

contributions, Teller claimed that one of his own graduate students had proposed the mechanism.
The George shot of Operation Greenhouse of 9 May
1951 tested the basic concept for the rst time on a very
small scale. As the rst successful (uncontrolled) release
of nuclear fusion energy, which made up a small fraction
of the 225kt total yield,[21] it raised expectations to a near
certainty that the concept would work.
On November 1, 1952, the TellerUlam conguration
was tested at full scale in the "Ivy Mike" shot at an island in the Enewetak Atoll, with a yield of 10.4 megatons
(over 450 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on
Nagasaki during World War II). The device, dubbed the
Sausage, used an extra-large ssion bomb as a trigger
and liquid deuteriumkept in its liquid state by 20 short
tons (18 metric tons) of cryogenic equipmentas its fusion fuel, and weighed around 80 short tons (70 metric
tons) altogether.
The liquid deuterium fuel of Ivy Mike was impractical
for a deployable weapon, and the next advance was to
use a solid lithium deuteride fusion fuel instead. In 1954
this was tested in the "Castle Bravo" shot (the device was
code-named the Shrimp), which had a yield of 15 megatons (2.5 times higher than expected) and is the largest
U.S. bomb ever tested.

The rst Soviet fusion design, developed by Andrei

Sakharov and Vitaly Ginzburg in 1949 (before the Soviets
had a working ssion bomb), was dubbed the Sloika, after a Russian layer cake, and was not of the TellerUlam
conguration. It used alternating layers of ssile material and lithium deuteride fusion fuel spiked with tritium
(this was later dubbed Sakharovs First Idea). Though
nuclear fusion might have been technically achievable, it
did not have the scaling property of a staged weapon.
Thus, such a design could not produce thermonuclear
weapons whose explosive yields could be made arbitrarily large (unlike U.S. designs at that time). The fusion
layer wrapped around the ssion core could only moderately multiply the ssion energy (modern TellerUlam
designs can multiply it 30-fold). Additionally, the whole
fusion stage had to be imploded by conventional explosives, along with the ssion core, multiplying the bulk of
chemical explosives needed substantially.
Their rst Sloika design test, RDS-6s, was detonated in
1953 with a yield equivalent to 400 kilotons of TNT (15
20% from fusion). Attempts to use a Sloika design to
achieve megaton-range results proved unfeasible. After
the U.S. tested the "Ivy Mike" bomb in November 1952,
proving that a multimegaton bomb could be created, the
Soviets searched for an additional design. The Second
Idea, as Sakharov referred to it in his memoirs, was a
previous proposal by Ginzburg in November 1948 to use
lithium deuteride in the bomb, which would, in the course
of being bombarded by neutrons, produce tritium and
free deuterium.[23] In late 1953 physicist Viktor Davidenko achieved the rst breakthrough, that of keeping
the primary and secondary parts of the bombs in separate
pieces (staging). The next breakthrough was discovered
and developed by Sakharov and Yakov Zel'dovich, that
of using the X-rays from the ssion bomb to compress
the secondary before fusion (radiation implosion), in
early 1954. Sakharovs Third Idea, as the TellerUlam
design was known in the USSR, was tested in the shot
"RDS-37" in November 1955 with a yield of 1.6 megatons.

Eorts in the United States soon shifted towards developing miniaturized TellerUlam weapons which could easily outt intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarinelaunched ballistic missiles. By 1960, with the W47
warhead[22] deployed on Polaris ballistic missile sub- The Soviets demonstrated the power of the staging conmarines, megaton-class warheads were as small as 18 cept in October 1961, when they detonated the massive
inches (0.5 m) in diameter and 720 pounds (320 kg) in and unwieldy Tsar Bomba, a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb

5.4

China

that derived almost 97% of its energy from fusion. It was almost everyone (including the pilots of the plane that
the largest nuclear weapon developed and tested by any dropped it) thought that this was a fusion bomb. This
country.
bomb was put into service in 1958. A second prototype
fusion bomb Purple Granite was used in the third test, but
only produced approximately 150 kilotons.

5.3

United Kingdom

A second set of tests was scheduled, with testing recommencing in September 1957. The rst test was based on
a " new simpler design. A two stage thermonuclear
bomb which had a much more powerful trigger. This test
Grapple X Round C was exploded on November 8 and
yielded approximately 1.8 megatons. On April 28, 1958
a bomb was dropped that yielded 3 megatonsBritains
most powerful test. Two nal air burst tests on September 2 and September 11, 1958, dropped smaller bombs
that yielded around 1 megaton each.
American observers had been invited to these kinds of
tests. After their successful detonation of a megatonrange device (and thus demonstrating their practical understanding of the TellerUlam design secret), the
United States agreed to exchange some of their nuclear
designs with the United Kingdom, leading to the 1958
USUK Mutual Defence Agreement. Instead of continuing with their own design, the British were given access
to the design of the smaller American Mk 28 warhead
and were able to manufacture copies.

5.4 China
Main article: Test No. 6
Operation Grapple on Christmas Island was the rst British hydrogen bomb test.

The Peoples Republic of China detonated its rst hydrogen bomb on June 17, 1967, 32 months after detonating
its rst ssion weapon, with a yield of 3.31 Mt. It took
In 1954 work began at Aldermaston to develop the British
place in the Lop Nor Test Site, in northwest China.[24]
fusion bomb, with Sir William Penney in charge of the
project. British knowledge on how to make a thermonuclear fusion bomb was rudimentary, and at the time the
5.5 France
United States was not exchanging any nuclear knowledge
because of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. However,
Very little is known about Frances development of the
the British were allowed to observe the American Castle
TellerUlam design beyond the fact that France detonated
tests and used sampling aircraft in the mushroom clouds,
a 2.6 Mt device in the "Canopus" test in August 1968.
providing them with clear, direct evidence of the compression produced in the secondary stages by radiation
implosion.
5.6 Other countries
Because of these diculties, in 1955 British prime minister Anthony Eden agreed to a secret plan, whereby if 5.6.1 India
the Aldermaston scientists failed or were greatly delayed
in developing the fusion bomb, it would be replaced by Main article: India and weapons of mass destruction
an extremely large ssion bomb.
In 1957 the Operation Grapple tests were carried out.
The rst test, Green Granite was a prototype fusion
bomb, but failed to produce equivalent yields compared
to the Americans and Soviets, only achieving approximately 300 kilotons. The second test Orange Herald was
the modied ssion bomb and produced 720 kilotons
making it the largest ssion explosion ever. At the time

On May 11, 1998, India reportedly detonated a thermonuclear bomb in its Operation Shakti tests ("Shakti1", specically).[26] Dr. Samar Mubarakmand asserted
that Shakti-1 was a successful test, but if it was a thermonuclear device as claimed, then it failed to produce
certain results that were to be expected of a thermonuclear device.[26] The yield of Indias hydrogen bomb re-

10

HISTORY

South African nuclear test.[34][35] It is well established

that American scientist, Edward Teller (father of the hydrogen bomb), is said to have advised and guided the Israeli establishment on general nuclear matters for some
twenty years.[36] Between 1964 and 1967, Teller made
six visits to Israel where he lectured at the Tel Aviv University on general topics in theoretical physics.[37] It took
him a year to convince the CIA about Israels capability
and nally in 1976, Carl Duckett of the CIA testied in
the U.S. Congress, after receiving credible information
from an American scientist (Edward Teller), on Israels
nuclear capability.[35] Sometime in 1990, Teller came to
conrm the speculations in media that it was during his
visits, three decades ago, that he concluded to the CIA
that Israel was in possession of nuclear weapons.[35] After he conveyed the matter to the higher level of the U.S.
government, Teller reportedly said: They [Israel] have
it, and they were clever enough to trust their research and
not to test, they know that to test would get them into
trouble.[35]

5.6.3 Pakistan

The detonation of Shakti-1 produced a nuclear yield of 45 kt.[25]

mains highly debatable among the Indian science community and the international scholars.[27] The question of
politicisation and disputes between Indian scientists further complicated the matter.[28]
Director for the 1998 test site preparations, Dr. K. Santhanam, reported the yield of the thermonuclear explosion was lower than expected, although his statement
has been disputed by other Indian scientists involved in
the test.[29] Indian sources, using local data and citing a
United States Geological Survey report compiling seismic
data from 125 IRIS stations across the world, argue that
the magnitudes suggested a combined yield of up to 60
kilotonnes, consistent with the Indian announced total
yield of 56 kilotonnes.[30][31] However, several independent experts have reported lower yields for the nuclear
test and remained skeptical about the claims,[26] and others have argued that even the claimed 50 kiloton yield was
low for conrmation of a thermonuclear design.[26][32]

Main article: Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

According to the scientic data received and published
by PAEC, the Corps of Engineers, and Kahuta Research
Laboratories (KRL), in May 1998, Pakistan carried out
six underground nuclear tests in Chagai Hills and Kharan
Desert in Balochistan Province (See the code-names of
the tests, Chagai-I and Chagai-II).[26] None of these
boosted ssion devices was the thermonuclear weapon
design, according to KRL and PAEC.[26] In March 2000,
a leading Pakistani theoretical physicist reciprocated Munir Khans statement that both India and Pakistan possess the scientic capability to produce a hydrogen bomb,
which could be studied and developed within a time lag
of three to six years.[33] The scientist maintained that
Pakistans policy on hydrogen bombs comes under its
moral ethics,[33] and it is a very dangerous game since
it would have a destructive impact on the area covering a
radius of about 4045 miles.[33]

5.6.4 North Korea

5.6.2

Israel

Main article: North Korea and weapons of mass destruction

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and Israel and Vela

Incident
North Koreas three nuclear tests (2006, 2009 and 2013)
were relatively low yield and do not appear to have been
Israel is alleged to possess thermonuclear weapons of the of a thermonuclear weapon design. The South Korean
TellerUlam design,[33] but is not known to have tested Defense Ministry has speculated that North Korea may
any nuclear devices, although it is widely speculated that be trying to develop a hydrogen bomb and such a device
the Vela Incident of 1979 may have been a joint Israeli- may be North Koreas next weapons test.[38][39]

6.2

The Progressive case

Public knowledge

11
models presented above is up for interpretation, and ofcial U.S. government releases about the technical details of nuclear weapons have been purposely equivocating in the past (see, e.g., Smyth Report). Other information, such as the types of fuel used in some of the early
weapons, has been declassied, though of course precise
technical information has not been.

The TellerUlam design was for many years considered

one of the top nuclear secrets, and even today it is not
discussed in any detail by ocial publications with origins behind the fence of classication. United States
Department of Energy (DOE) policy has been, and continues to be, that they do not acknowledge when leaks
occur, because doing so would acknowledge the accuracy
6.2
of the supposed leaked information.

The Progressive case

Main article: United States v. The Progressive

Photographs of warhead casings, such as this one of the W80

nuclear warhead, allow for some speculation as to the relative
size and shapes of the primaries and secondaries in U.S. thermonuclear weapons.

Aside from images of the warhead casing, most information in the public domain about this design is relegated to
a few terse statements by the DOE and the work of a few
individual investigators.

6.1

DOE statements

In 1972 the United States government declassied a statement that The fact that in thermonuclear (TN) weapons,
a ssion 'primary' is used to trigger a TN reaction in thermonuclear fuel referred to as a 'secondary'", and in 1979
added, The fact that, in thermonuclear weapons, radiation from a ssion explosive can be contained and used to
transfer energy to compress and ignite a physically separate component containing thermonuclear fuel. To this
latter sentence they specied that "Any elaboration of this
statement will be classied.[40] The only statement which
may pertain to the spark plug was declassied in 1991:
Fact that ssile and/or ssionable materials are present
in some secondaries, material unidentied, location unspecied, use unspecied, and weapons undesignated. In
1998 the DOE declassied the statement that The fact
that materials may be present in channels and the term
'channel ller,' with no elaboration, which may refer to
the polystyrene foam (or an analogous substance).[41]

Most of the current ideas on the workings of the

TellerUlam design came into public awareness after the
Department of Energy (DOE) attempted to censor a magazine article by U.S. antiweapons activist Howard Morland in 1979 on the secret of the hydrogen bomb. In
1978, Morland had decided that discovering and exposing this last remaining secret would focus attention onto
the arms race and allow citizens to feel empowered to
question ocial statements on the importance of nuclear
weapons and nuclear secrecy. Most of Morlands ideas
about how the weapon worked were compiled from highly
accessible sourcesthe drawings which most inspired his
approach came from none other than the Encyclopedia
Americana. Morland also interviewed (often informally)
many former Los Alamos scientists (including Teller and
Ulam, though neither gave him any useful information),
and used a variety of interpersonal strategies to encourage informative responses from them (i.e., asking questions such as Do they still use spark plugs?" even if he
was not aware what the latter term specically referred
to).[42]
Morland eventually concluded that the secret was that
the primary and secondary were kept separate and that
radiation pressure from the primary compressed the secondary before igniting it. When an early draft of the article, to be published in The Progressive magazine, was sent
to the DOE after falling into the hands of a professor who
was opposed to Morlands goal, the DOE requested that
the article not be published, and pressed for a temporary
injunction. The DOE argued that Morlands information
was (1) likely derived from classied sources, (2) if not
derived from classied sources, itself counted as secret
information under the "born secret" clause of the 1954
Atomic Energy Act, and (3) was dangerous and would
encourage nuclear proliferation.
Morland and his lawyers disagreed on all points, but the
injunction was granted, as the judge in the case felt that
it was safer to grant the injunction and allow Morland,
et al., to appeal, which they did in United States v. The
Progressive (1979).

Through a variety of more complicated circumstances,

the DOE case began to wane as it became clear that
some of the data they were attempting to claim as seWhether these statements vindicate some or all of the cret had been published in a students encyclopedia a few

12

7 VARIATIONS

years earlier. After another H-bomb speculator, Chuck

Hansen, had his own ideas about the secret (quite different from Morlands) published in a Wisconsin newspaper, the DOE claimed that The Progressive case was
moot, dropped its suit, and allowed the magazine to publish its article, which it did in November 1979. Morland had by then, however, changed his opinion of how
the bomb worked, suggesting that a foam medium (the
polystyrene) rather than radiation pressure was used to
compress the secondary, and that in the secondary there
was a spark plug of ssile material as well. He published
these changes, based in part on the proceedings of the appeals trial, as a short erratum in The Progressive a month
later.[43] In 1981, Morland published a book about his experience, describing in detail the train of thought which
led him to his conclusions about the secret.[42][44]
Morlands work is interpreted as being at least partially
correct because the DOE had sought to censor it, one of
the few times they violated their usual approach of not acknowledging secret material which had been released;
however, to what degree it lacks information, or has incorrect information, is not known with any condence.
The diculty that a number of nations had in developing
the TellerUlam design (even when they apparently understood the design, such as with the United Kingdom),
makes it somewhat unlikely that this simple information
alone is what provides the ability to manufacture thermonuclear weapons. Nevertheless, the ideas put forward
by Morland in 1979 have been the basis for all the current
speculation on the TellerUlam design.

Variations

There have been a few variations of the TellerUlam design suggested by sources claiming to have information
from inside of the fence of classication. Whether these
are simply dierent versions of the TellerUlam design,
or should be understood as contradicting the above descriptions, is up for interpretation.

7.1

In the W88 warhead, the primary (top) and secondary (bottom)

have switched positions, to allow the secondary to be larger than
in the otherwise similar W87.

it inwards, compressing the primary and causing the fusion reaction; the general applicability of this principle is
unclear.[11]

Richard Rhodess Ivy Mike device in 7.2 W88 revelations

Dark Sun

In his 1995 book Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, author Richard Rhodes describes in detail the
internal components of the "Ivy Mike" Sausage device,
based on information obtained from extensive interviews
with the scientists and engineers who assembled it. According to Rhodes, the actual mechanism for the compression of the secondary was a combination of the radiation pressure, foam plasma pressure, and tamper-pusher
ablation theories described above; the radiation from the
primary heated the polyethylene foam lining the casing to
a plasma, which then re-radiated radiation into the secondarys pusher, causing its surface to ablate and driving

In 1999 a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News reported that the U.S. W88 nuclear warhead, a small
MIRVed warhead used on the Trident II SLBM, had a
prolate (egg or watermelon shaped) primary (code-named
Komodo) and a spherical secondary (code-named Cursa)
inside a specially shaped radiation case (known as the
peanut for its shape).[45] A story four months later
in The New York Times by William Broad[46] reported
that in 1995, a supposed double agent from the Peoples
Republic of China delivered information indicating that
China knew these details about the W88 warhead, supposedly through espionage.[47] (This line of investigation
eventually resulted in the abortive trial of Wen Ho Lee.)

13
warhead produced by the United States, thus comes at a
price of higher warhead weight and higher workplace hazard. The W88 also contains tritium, which has a half life
of only 12.32 years and must be repeatedly replaced.[49]

8 See also
Pure fusion weapon

9 References
[1] The misleading term hydrogen bomb was already in
wide public use before ssion product fallout from the
Castle Bravo test in 1954 revealed the extent to which the
design relies on ssion.
[2] From National Public Radio Talk of the Nation, November 8, 2005, Siegfried Hecker of Los Alamos, the hydrogen bomb that is, a two-stage thermonuclear device, as
we referred to it is indeed the principal part of the U.S.
arsenal, as it is of the Russian arsenal.
[3] Teller, Edward; Ulam, Stanislaw (March 9, 1951). On
Heterocatalytic Detonations I. Hydrodynamic Lenses and
Radiation Mirrors (PDF). LAMS-1225. Los Alamos
Scientic Laboratory. Retrieved September 26, 2014. on
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Institute website. This is
the original classied paper by Teller and Ulam proposing staged implosion. This declassied version is heavily
redacted, leaving only a few paragraphs.

In the W87 warhead, the heavier secondary (top) is placed forward of the lighter primary (bottom) to promote aerodynamic
stability during reentry.

If these stories are true, it would explain the reported

higher yield of the W88, 475 kilotons, compared with
only 300 kilotons for the earlier W87 warhead.
The reentry cones for the two warheads are the same
size, 1.75 meters (69 in) long, with a maximum diameter of 55 cm. (22 in).[48] The higher yield of the W88
implies a larger secondary, which produces most of the
yield. Putting the secondary, which is heavier than the
primary, in the wider part of the cone allows it to be
larger, but it also moves the center of mass aft, potentially
causing aerodynamic stability problems during reentry.
Dead-weight ballast must be added to the nose to move
the center of mass forward.

[4] Carey Sublette (July 3, 2007). Nuclear Weapons FAQ

Section 4.4.1.4 The TellerUlam Design. Nuclear
Weapons FAQ. Retrieved 17 July 2011. So far as is
known all high yield nuclear weapons today (>50 kt or so)
use this design.
[5] Broad, William J. (23 March 2015). Hydrogen Bomb
Physicists Book Runs Afoul of Energy Department.
New York Times. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
[6] Greene, Jes (25 March 2015). A physicist might be in
trouble for what he revealed in his new book about the H
bomb. Business Insider. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
[7] Complete List of All U.S. Nuclear Weapons. 1 October
1997. Retrieved 2006-03-13.
[8] Hansen, Chuck (1988). U.S. nuclear weapons: The secret
history. Arlington, TX: Aerofax. ISBN 0-517-56740-7.
[9] Hansen, Chuck (2007). Swords of Armageddon: U.S.
Nuclear Weapons Development Since 1945 (PDF) (CDROM & download available) (2 ed.). Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea Publications. ISBN 978-0-9791915-0-3.
2,600 pages.

To make the primary small enough to t into the narrow part of the cone, its bulky insensitive high explo- [10] Figure 5 Thermonuclear Warhead Components. Resive charges must be replaced with more compact nontrieved 27 August 2010. A cleaned up version: British
insensitive high explosives which are more hazardous to
H-bomb posted on the Internet by Greenpeace. Federahandle. The higher yield of the W88, which is the last new
tion of American Scientists. Retrieved 27 August 2010.

14

REFERENCES

[11] Rhodes, Richard (1995). Dark Sun: The Making of the

Hydrogen Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN
0-684-80400-X.

[28] Carey Sublette, et. al. What are the real yield of Indias
Test?". What Are the Real Yields of Indias Test?. Retrieved 18 January 2013.

[12] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/
W76NeutronTube1200c20.jpg

[29] Former NSA disagrees with scientist, says Pokhran II

successful. The Times of India. 27 August 2009.
Archived from the original on 30 August 2009. Retrieved
20 November 2015.

[13] Improved Security, Safety & Manufacturability of the

Reliable Replacement Warhead, NNSA March 2007.
[14] A 1976 drawing which depicts an interstage that absorbs
and re-radiates X-rays. From Howard Morland, The Article, Cardozo Law Review, March 2005, p 1374.

[30] India tested H-bomb, says New Scientist

[31] "?". Redi.com. Retrieved 27 August 2010.

[15] [Fogbank] Speculation on Fogbank, Arms Control Wonk

[32] Arms Control Today May 1998, pp. 713; Terry C. Wallace, The May 1998 India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests

[16] Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions 4.4.3.3

The Ablation Process. 2.04. 20 February 1999. Retrieved 2006-03-13.

[33] Samdani, Zafar (25 March 2000). India, Pakistan can

build hydrogen bomb: Scientist. Dawn News Interviews.
Retrieved 23 December 2012.

[17] Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions 4.4.4 Implosion Systems. 2.04. 20 February 1999. Retrieved
2006-03-13.

[34] Hersh 1991, p. 271.

[18] The B-41 (Mk-41) Bomb High yield strategic thermonuclear bomb. 21 October 1997. Retrieved 200603-13.
[19] Winterberg, Friedwardt (2010). The Release of Thermonuclear Energy by Inertial Connement: Ways Towards Ignition. World Scientic. pp. 192193. ISBN
9814295914.
[20] Croddy, Eric A.; Wirtz, James J.; Larsen, Jerey, Eds.
(2005). Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History. ABCCLIO, Inc. p. 376. ISBN 1851094903.
[21] The George shot, Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organisation website
[22] Photograph of a W47 warhead (JPG). Retrieved 200603-13.
[23] Holloway, David (1994). Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet
Union and atomic energy, 19391956. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press. p. 299. ISBN 0-300-06056-4.
[24] https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/
17-june-1967-chinas-first-thermonuclear-test
[25] Forces gung-ho on N-arsenal. Times of India. Retrieved 21 July 2012.
[26] Khan, Kamran (30 May 1998). Tit-for-Tat: Pakistan
tested 6 nuclear devices in response to Indians tests.. The
News International. Retrieved 10 August 2011. None
of these explosions were thermonuclear, we are doing research and can do a fusion test if asked, said by Abdul
Qadeer Khan. These boosted devices are like a half way
stage towards a thermonuclear bomb. They use elements
of the thermonuclear process, and are eectively stronger
Atom bombs, quoted by Munir Ahmad Khan.
[27] PTI, Press Trust of India (September 25, 2009). AEC
ex-chief backs Santhanam on Pokhran-II. The Hindu,
2009. Retrieved 18 January 2013.

[35] Cohen, Avner (October 15, 1999). The Battle over the
NPT: America Learns the Truth. Israel and the bomb.
(google Book). New York: Columbia University Press.
pp. 297300. ISBN 978-0231104838.
[36] Karpin, Michael (2005). The Bomb in the Basement. New
York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks. pp. 289293.
ISBN 0-7432-6595-5.
[37] Gbor Pall (2000). The Hungarian Phenomenon in Israeli Science (PDF). Hungarian Academy of Science 25
(1). Retrieved 11 December 2012.
[38] Kim Kyu-won (February 7, 2013). North Korea could be
developing a hydrogen bomb. The Hankyoreh. Retrieved
February 8, 2013.
[39] Kang Seung-woo, Chung Min-uck (February 4, 2013).
North Korea may detonate H-bomb. Korea Times. Retrieved February 8, 2013.
[40] emphasis in original
[41] Restricted Data Declassication Decisions, 1946 to the
present, Volume 7. United States Department of Energy.
January 2001.
[42] Morland, Howard (1981). The secret that exploded. New
York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-51297-9.
[43] The H-Bomb Secret: How we got it and why were telling
it. The Progressive 43 (11). November 1979.
[44] Alexander De Volpi, Jerry Marsh, Ted Postol, and George
Stanford (1981). Born secret: the H-bomb, the Progressive
case and national security. New York: Pergamon Press.
ISBN 0-08-025995-2.
[45] Dan Stober and Ian Homan (2001). A convenient spy:
Wen Ho Lee and the politics of nuclear espionage. New
York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-2378-0.
[46] Spies versus sweat, the debate over Chinas nuclear advance. The New York Times. 7 September 1999. Retrieved 2011-04-18.

15

[47] Christopher Cox, chairman (1999). Report of the United

States House of Representatives Select Committee on U.S.
National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with
the Peoples Republic of China., esp. Ch. 2, PRC Theft
of U.S. Thermonuclear Warhead Design Information.
[48] The W88 Warhead Intermediate yield strategic SLBM
MIRV warhead. 1 October 1997. Retrieved 2006-0313.
[49] Morland, Howard (February 2003). The holocaust bomb:
A question of time.

9.1

Bibliography

Basic principles
Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons from
Carey Sublettes Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
Hansen, Chuck, U.S. nuclear weapons: The secret
history (Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1988). ISBN 0517-56740-7
Hansen, Chuck (2007). Swords of Armageddon: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Development Since
1945 (PDF) (CD-ROM & download available) (2
ed.). Sunnyvale, California: Chukelea Publications.
ISBN 978-0-9791915-0-3. 2,600 pages.
Dalton E. G. Barroso, The physics of nuclear explosives, in Portuguese. (So Paulo, Brazil: Editora
Livraria da Fsica, 2009). ISBN 978-85-7861-0166
History
DeGroot, Gerard, The Bomb: A History of Hell
on Earth, London: Pimlico, 2005. ISBN 0-71267748-8

S.S. Schweber, In the shadow of the bomb: Bethe,

Oppenheimer, and the moral responsibility of the scientist (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,
2000). ISBN 0-691-04989-0
Gary Stix, Infamy and honor at the Atomic Caf:
Edward Teller has no regrets about his contentious
career, Scientic American (October 1999): 4243.
Analyzing fallout
Lars-Erik De Geer, The radioactive signature of
the hydrogen bomb Science and Global Security
Vol. 2 (1991): 351363. Available online (PDF)
Yulii Borisovich Khariton and Yuri Smirnov, The
Khariton version Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Vol. 49, No. 4 (May 1993): 2031.

10 External links
Principles
Hydrogen bomb / Fusion weapons at GlobalSecurity.org (see also links on right)
Basic Principles of Staged Radiation Implosion
(TellerUlam)" from Carey Sublettes NuclearWeaponArchive.org.
Matter, Energy, and Radiation Hydrodynamics
from Carey Sublettes Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
Engineering and Design of Nuclear Weapons from
Carey Sublettes Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
Elements of Thermonuclear Weapon Design from
Carey Sublettes Nuclear Weapons FAQ.
Annotated bibliography for nuclear weapons design
from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues

Peter Galison and Barton Bernstein, In any light:

Scientists and the decision to build the Superbomb,
History
19421954 Historical Studies in the Physical and
Biological Sciences Vol. 19, No. 2 (1989): 267
PBS: Race for the Superbomb: Interviews and Tran347.
scripts (with U.S. and USSR bomb designers as well
as historians).
German A. Goncharov, American and Soviet Hbomb development programmes: historical back Howard Morland on how he discovered the Hground (trans. A.V. Malyavkin), PhysicsUspekhi
bomb secret (includes many slides).
Vol. 39, No. 10 (1996): 10331044. Available online (PDF)
The Progressive November 1979 issue The HBomb Secret: How we got it, why we're telling (en David Holloway, Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet
tire issue online).
Union and atomic energy, 19391956 (New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press, 1994). ISBN 0-300 Annotated bibliography on the hydrogen bomb from
06056-4
the Alsos Digital Library
Richard Rhodes, Dark sun: The making of the
hydrogen bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1995). ISBN 0-684-80400-X

University of Southampton, Mountbatten Centre for

International Studies, Nuclear History Working Paper No5.

16
Peter Kurans Trinity and Beyond documentary
lm on the history of nuclear weapon testing.

10

EXTERNAL LINKS

17

11
11.1

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Thermonuclear weapon Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon?oldid=698056851 Contributors: Damian Yerrick,

Bryan Derksen, Tedernst, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Ixfd64, GTBacchus, Ahoerstemeier, William M. Connolley, Julesd, Palfrey, Evercat,
Schneelocke, Andrewman327, Katana0182, LMB, Finlay McWalter, Auric, Carnildo, Fastssion, Dratman, Leonard G., Nomad~enwiki,
Malyctenar, Proslaes, Brockert, Matt Crypto, Btphelps, Gadum, Xmnemonic, ConradPino, Beland, Oneiros, Thincat, Nickptar, Klemen
Kocjancic, Ehamberg, Trevor MacInnis, Vivacissamamente, Discospinster, Rich Farmbrough, ArnoldReinhold, Jnestorius, CheekyMonkey, Ylee, El C, AreJay, Sietse Snel, Shenme, Scott Ritchie, Aquillion, Kjkolb, PiccoloNamek, Pharos, Eddideigel, Alansohn, Arthena,
Ronline, Andrew Gray, Jaardon, Snowolf, RJFJR, DV8 2XL, Gene Nygaard, Djsasso, Ashujo, Crosbiesmith, LOL, Before My Ken, Former
user 2, Kralizec!, Wayward, Joke137, GraemeLeggett, Deansfa, Tslocum, Magister Mathematicae, BD2412, Bunchofgrapes, Jclemens,
Rjwilmsi, Jivecat, Strait, Bruce1ee, Ligulem, Krash, Rbeas, Titoxd, Mumblingmynah, Nivix, Mark Sublette, Gurch, RobyWayne, Orborde, Wongm, Alphachimp, Miy900, Chobot, Gwernol, YurikBot, JWB, RussBot, Arado, Limulus, Hellbus, Hydrargyrum, Shaddack,
ENeville, Welsh, Ino5hiro, Voidxor, Emersoni, Tony1, Ospalh, Bozoid, Lockesdonkey, Doncram, Anttin, Emesik, Georgewilliamherbert,
Petri Krohn, Jrstewart, JLaTondre, Mais oui!, Criticality, SmackBot, Roger Hui, Prodego, Elminster Aumar, WookieInHeat, Eaglizard,
Boris Barowski, Man with two legs, HalfShadow, Gilliam, Brianski, Ohnoitsjamie, Chris the speller, Master Jay, TimBentley, Rampart,
Jprg1966, Sbharris, Frap, Rrburke, Wen D House, Cybercobra, Glover, Jon Awbrey, DMacks, Ultor Solis, Neil9327, Will Beback, John,
Mgiganteus1, Arhon, Mr. Vernon, Stanley011, TJ Spyke, BranStark, Iridescent, Bockspur, Igoldste, Domitori, Tuttt, Courcelles, Neurillon, Chetvorno, Flubeca, Canis Enigmas, J Milburn, JForget, Sohebbasharat, Phreadom, Tomw91, CMG, UncleBubba, Gogo Dodo, Corpx,
Chasingsol, RottweilerCS, SteveMcCluskey, JodyB, Gimmetrow, Epbr123, Barticus88, Kubanczyk, TonyTheTiger, Headbomb, John254,
RamanVirk, Brainlessdog, Akradecki, Liquid-aim-bot, EP111, Nukemason, TravisCross, Lklundin, JAnDbot, Avaya1, Medconn, Hamsterlopithecus, Igodard, PhilKnight, Parsecboy, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, JNW, Kosmopolis, CTF83!, Roches, The
Anomebot2, Robotman1974, DerHexer, Warren Dew, Cdecoro, S3000, MartinBot, Paracel63, TheEgyptian, CommonsDelinker, Nono64,
Cian584, J.delanoy, JamesR, Maurice Carbonaro, Wikip rhyre, Algotr, Ignatzmice, Ryan Postlethwaite, Ash sul, Robertmclean2, Bobianite, Cmichael, Pbech, Tevonic, Ssantoshs, Holme053, Philip Trueman, DoorsAjar, Psyclet, Captain Wikify, Nukemason4, Imasleepviking,
LeaveSleaves, Cremepu222, Mazarin07, VZakharov, Gilisa, Chrisj1948, Usergreatpower, Burntsauce, Master of the Orchalcos, NPguy,
HowardMorland, SieBot, WereSpielChequers, Yintan, Calabraxthis, Wombatcat, Faradayplank, Also, octopuses, Cmcelwain, Conordunn2007, Coolinschool32, Nimbusania, Mygerardromance, ImageRemovalBot, Martarius, ClueBot, The Thing That Should Not Be, John
Champagne, Polyamorph, Boing! said Zebedee, Cirt, On Thermonuclear War, Leaveextra, Lazoa, Eeekster, Winston365, Zaharous, Coinmanj, Berunbas, Audaciter, Robin09999, Thehelpfulone, APh, Jaewonnie, Good Olfactory, Gameplaya007, Kadellar, Addbot, Xp54321,
Mortense, Roentgenium111, Tcncv, Mentisock, Favonian, Darkness3123, Tide rolls, Yobot, Tohd8BohaithuGh1, TaBOT-zerem, Rsquire3,
Utvik old, Nirvana888, AnomieBOT, Kingpin13, Citation bot, Kalamkaar, Frankenpuppy, LilHelpa, TomB123, Sionus, Capricorn42,
Armbrust, Miesianiacal, Brylan, ProtectionTaggingBot, , AntiAbuseBot, AustralianRupert, Cod1337, Midgetman433,
Legobot III, God94, FrescoBot, Paine Ellsworth, WPANI, DivineAlpha, DrilBot, HRoestBot, Supreme Deliciousness, Merwat, Ski,
Refycul, Xeworlebi, Rotblats09, Poliphile, Saintonge235, Trappist the monk, Bangbangbear, Benefactordyr, Katerenka, Mr.98, Suusion of Yellow, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, RjwilmsiBot, Bento00, Tytung, Genesiser, EmausBot, 478jjjz, Ncsr11, Omegaman99, GoingBatty,
Tommy2010, Dcirovic, K6ka, Yes sey yes127, Ida Shaw, F, Josve05a, MazinX, Ask2264230, Jasuko, MajorVariola, Peterh5322, L Kensington, Epicstonemason, Orange Suede Sofa, Bomazi, GermanJoe, RockMagnetist, Wackjob101, Whoop whoop pull up, Miguel.baillon,
Petrb, Xanchester, Vceinc, ClueBot NG, Gareth Grith-Jones, Stwheel1, Vance&lance, Deer*lake, DarthXavius, Tideat, Frietjes, CaroleHenson, AlexB531, MerlIwBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Strike Eagle, Wbm1058, BG19bot, MusikAnimal, 220 of Borg, Comfr, BattyBot,
Guanaco55, Dec22, Standardengineer, Childish Gaines, Morganson691, T0000000000, MSUGRA, Editfromwithout, Irondome, Hmainsbot1, Webclient101, Aymankamelwiki, Cerabot~enwiki, Lugia2453, I am One of Many, Abishai 300, Debouch, Wistchars, Zenibus,
Slgonzalez, JaconaFrere, TheGuyWhoIsOnTheStreet, Monkbot, Volker Siegel, Vozul, BethNaught, Jamesnottingham, Wikiornah, WC
Jay, Jaacakemonster53, Ericwilloughby, RealFAKER, I know everything man!, Endaine and Anonymous: 444

11.2

Images

File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work, based o of Image:Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat (talk contribs)
File:BombH_explosion.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/BombH_explosion.svg License: CC-BYSA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
File:Edward_Teller_&_Stanislaw_Ulam_1951_On_Heterocatalytic_Detonations_-_Secret_of_hydrogen_bomb_-_p_1.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Edward_Teller_%26_Stanislaw_Ulam_1951_On_Heterocatalytic_
Source:
Detonations_-_Secret_of_hydrogen_bomb_-_p_1.png License: Public domain Contributors: Retrieved October 6, 2014 from <a
data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.nuclearnonproliferation.org/LAMS1225.pdf'>Edward Teller, Stanislaw Ulam,
On Heterocatalytic Detonations I: Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors, Report LAMS-1225, Los Alamos Scientic Laboratory,
March 9, 1951, declassied version, p. 1</a> on Nuclear Nonproliferation Institute website Original artist: Edward Teller and Stanislaw
M. Ulam
File:Edward_Teller_&_Stanislaw_Ulam_1951_On_Heterocatalytic_Detonations_-_Secret_of_hydrogen_bomb_-_p_3.png
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Edward_Teller_%26_Stanislaw_Ulam_1951_On_Heterocatalytic_
Detonations_-_Secret_of_hydrogen_bomb_-_p_3.png License: Public domain Contributors: Retrieved October 6, 2014 from <a
data-x-rel='nofollow' class='external text' href='http://www.nuclearnonproliferation.org/LAMS1225.pdf'>Edward Teller, Stanislaw Ulam,
On Heterocatalytic Detonations I: Hydrodynamic Lenses and Radiation Mirrors, Report LAMS-1225, Los Alamos Scientic Laboratory,
March 9, 1951, declassied version, p. 3</a> on Nuclear Nonproliferation Institute website Original artist: Edward Teller and Stanislaw
M. Ulam
File:Edward_Teller_(1958)-LLNL.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Edward_Teller_%281958%
29-LLNL.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?

18

11

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

File:OperationGrappleXmasIslandHbomb.jpg
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/
OperationGrappleXmasIslandHbomb.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.raf.mod.uk/history_old/line1950-59.html
Original artist: Royal Air Force
File:Operation_Castle_-_Romeo_001.jpg Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Operation_Castle_-_
Romeo_001.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: This image is available from the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada
Site Oce Photo Library under number XX-33. Original artist: United States Department of Energy
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:ShaktiBomb.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/ShaktiBomb.jpg License: ? Contributors:
Government of India (note higher resolution versions on nuclearweaponarchive.org) Original artist: ?
File:Teller-Ulam_device.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Teller-Ulam_device.png License: Public
domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Teller-Ulam_device_3D.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Teller-Ulam_device_3D.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:TellerUlamAblation.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/TellerUlamAblation.png License: CC
BY-SA 2.5 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
File:W-87_warhead_diagram.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/W-87_warhead_diagram.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Fastssion, HowardMorland
File:W-88_warhead_diagram.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/W-88_warhead_diagram.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:W80_nuclear_warhead.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/W80_nuclear_warhead.jpg License:
Public domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: This le was derived from Wiki letter w.svg: <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:
Wiki_letter_w.svg' class='image'><img alt='Wiki letter w.svg' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_
letter_w.svg/50px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png' width='50' height='50' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/
Wiki_letter_w.svg/75px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/
100px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='44' data-le-height='44' /></a>
Original artist: Derivative work by Thumperward from:

11.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0