Cover Image: March 2009 Scientific American Magazine See Inside

Advances in Monitoring Nuclear Weapon Testing [Preview]

Detecting a test of a nuclear weapon has become so effective and reliable that no nation could expect to get away with secretly exploding a device having military significance















Share on Tumblr



France exploded this nuclear weapon at Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia on July 3, 1970. Atmospheric explosions are now banned by treaty and relatively easy to detect. Most monitoring efforts today focus on detecting explosions underground. Image: Sygma/Corbis

In Brief

  • Seismic monitoring can now detect a nuclear explosion with a yield of a kiloton or more anywhere on Earth. In many places, detection is far more sensitive than that.
  • President Barack Obama is likely to ask the U.S. Senate to reconsider its 1999 vote against the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).
  • Treaty opponents have argued that some signatories would cheat by testing explosive nuclear weapons in secret, putting non­cheaters at risk.
  • The objection that secret tests could go undetected is no longer seriously credible.

More In This Article

As president, I will reach out to the Senate to secure the ratification of the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty] at the earliest practical date and will then launch a diplomatic effort to bring onboard other states whose ratifications are required for the treaty to enter into force.

—Barack Obama, September 10, 2008


Subscribe     Buy This Issue

Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.

10 Comments

Add Comment
View
  1. 1. zigyjones 05:53 AM 2/18/09

    Amazing article. Does anyone know any references concerning North Korea and HEU? Was it supposed to say PU?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  2. 2. kettle17 05:15 PM 3/1/09

    What about deep space tests?

    The CTBT prohibit the space tests, but there are no verification methods suggested...

    ctbto.org disingeniously reformulate the the treaty as "no test on Earth", "no tests on the planet" but there is no exception for deep space tests in the treaty itself.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  3. 3. kettle17 05:27 PM 3/1/09

    There are highly classified space missions all the time, and with RTG (radioisotopic thermal generator) and n/reactors being legal on spacecrafts, n/materials on SC could be easily "explained out".

    And many classified mission are designed to be difficult/impossible to track.

    China, Russia, India, and France all have the technology to do deeps space tests. Israel is close.

    And with deep space tests, even if you detect one, it would be extremely difficult to attibute the event to a specific country.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  4. 4. m1rv9n41v5 05:07 AM 3/3/09

    what an arrogance! they already know that there will be a great disaster that will follow if they launch a next nuclear test and they still do it.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  5. 5. w.john 05:35 AM 3/4/09

    Shame about Mike

    Is this actually interesting still?

    Frankly someone needs to use one of these expensive weapons (if they actually work properly). Is Barrak Obama simply soliciting the Schitzophrenia of his nation or recruiting a team of bright young students to try and get a cheap thermonuclear detonator to work?

    Given the the delivery system is 'tired' and and the plutonium is needed elsewhere perhaps the president has the 'proper' approach.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  6. 6. luciferpriestgmk 07:25 AM 3/6/09

    Belief in God
    Muslims believe in one, unique, incomparable God, Who has no son nor partner, and that none has the right to be worshipped but Him alone. He is the true God, and every other deity is false. He has the most magnificent names and sublime perfect attributes. No one shares His divinity, nor His attributes. In the Qur'an, God describes Himself (interpretation of the meaning): "Say, 'He is God, the One. God, to Whom the creatures turn for their needs. He begets not, nor was He begotten, and there is none like Him'" [112:1-4]. No one has the right to be invoked, supplicated, prayed to, or shown any act of worship, but God alone. God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, the Sovereign, and the Sustainer of everything in the whole universe. He manages all affairs. He stands in need of none of His creatures, and all His creatures depend on Him for all that they need. He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing, and the All-Knowing. In a perfect manner, His knowledge encompasses all things, the open and the secret, and the public and the private. He knows what has happened, what will happen, and how it will happen. No affair occurs in the whole world except by His will. Whatever He wills is, and whatever He does not will is not and will never be. His will is above the will of all the creatures. He has power over all things, and He is able to do everything. He is the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful, and the Most Beneficent.

    In one of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), we are told that God is more merciful to His creatures than a mother to her child. [Narrated in Saheeh Muslim, #2754, and Saheeh Al-Bukhaaree, #5999] God is far removed from injustice and tyranny. He is All-Wise in all of His actions and decrees. If someone wants something from God, he or she can ask God directly without asking anyone else to intercede with God for him or her. God is not Jesus, and Jesus is not God. [It was reported by the Associated Press, London, on June 25, 1984, that a majority of the Anglican bishops surveyed by a television program said, “Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God.” The poll was of 31 of England’s 39 bishops. The report further stated that 19 of the 31 bishops said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as “God’s supreme agent.” The poll was conducted by London Weekend Television’s weekly religious program, “Credo.”]

    Even Jesus himself rejected this. God has said in the Qur'an (interpretation of the meaning): "Indeed, they have disbelieved who have said, 'God is the Messiah (Jesus)...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  7. 7. raydogg128 10:03 PM 3/14/09

    The "Fifty Years of Nuclear Testing and Monitoring" side column has a bit of an error. The USSR's bomb was not named the "Big John." It was named the "Tzar (Czar) Bomba" meaning "King bomb" because it was the highest yield weapon.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  8. 8. arpita 01:10 AM 6/24/09

    Great article.....
    Hey people, check out
    http://wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:_Comprehensive_Nuclear-Test-Ban_Treaty#Pro

    Amazing article counter to the above...

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  9. 9. cal 12:18 AM 7/18/09

    From 1966 thru 1979 I worked a the LASA Data Center [ Large Aperture Seismic Array ] . A collection of 500+ seismometers spread out over a 200km circle in eastern Montana. The prime job was to detect earthquakes world wide - and then determine that the detection which had a source time of 12 noon :00.000 with a depth of zero from a non-seismic area - wasn't an earthquake. Philco-Ford had the contract to install and run the facility. It was MIT designed and funded by DARPA. The smallest real earthquake, at any distance, was a mag 3.2 from Japan. Any underground nuclear test from Russia or China would come through the LASA Array at 5000 to 50,000+ nanometers. nominal background noise ran 2 to 10 nanometers. Earthquakes are compressional to 1/2 the world or dilatational to the other 1/2. Nuclear test are compressional, no mater where you are. No one can drill a hole deep enough to generate a pP wave. Plus 20 other finger prints. After 12 years the Government developed "other" inputs ;-)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
  10. 10. pgr1 in reply to zigyjones 12:35 PM 8/18/09

    It should have said plutonium, not uranium. The editors agreed to publish a correction in the July issue.
    Also, the Figure on page 74 (a map showing detection thrsholds by region) should have made clear that it is an estimate of future capability---when all 50 primary stations are built and operated according to specifications. (The map is quite accurate today, for regions where this network is complete.)

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Leave this field empty

Add a Comment

You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
Click one of the buttons below to register using an existing Social Account.

More from Scientific American

See what we're tweeting about

Scientific American Editors

More »

Free Newsletters


Get the best from Scientific American in your inbox

Solve Innovation Challenges

Powered By: Innocentive

  SA Digital

Latest from SA Blog Network

  SA Digital

Email this Article

Advances in Monitoring Nuclear Weapon Testing: Scientific American Magazine

X
Scientific American Magazine

Subscribe Today

Save 66% off the cover price and get a free gift!

Learn More >>

X

Please Log In

Forgot: Password

X

Account Linking

Welcome, . Do you have an existing ScientificAmerican.com account?

Yes, please link my existing account with for quick, secure access.



Forgot Password?

No, I would like to create a new account with my profile information.

Create Account
X

Report Abuse

Are you sure?

X

Institutional Access

It has been identified that the institution you are trying to access this article from has institutional site license access to Scientific American on nature.com. To access this article in its entirety through site license access, click below.

Site license access
X

Error

X

Share this Article

X