+FormationLiaoning+escort+group+4+incl.+subs+Type+052D+Guided+Missile+Destroyer,+Type+052C+,+Peoples+Liberation+Army+Navy+5+Type+052C+Type+052D+destroyers+(7).jpg)
By David Albright and Paul Brannan
ISIS has obtained commercial satellite imagery from DigitalGlobe taken January 30, 2009 of the Khushab plutonium production reactors in Pakistan. The imagery shows that major construction of the buildings associated with the second Khushab reactor is likely finished and that the roof beams are being placed on top of the third Khushab reactor hall (figure 1). The operational status of the second reactor is unknown, but it could start in the near future. A comparison of commercial imagery of the second Khushab reactor from September 3, 2008 and January 30, 2009, shows that in the span of almost four months, there have been few changes to the structures and that there does not appear to be ongoing construction of any additional buildings (figures 2 and 3). This indicates that major construction of the buildings associated with the second Khushab reactor may have been completed. The most recent imagery shows the construction of defined roads and lane dividers on the compound near the second Khushab reactor, whereas the September 3, 2008 imagery shows only dirt tracks made by vehicles (figures 4 and 5). While it is unclear whether these roads are paved in the new imagery, they are well-defined and paving would be likely to follow soon. Such preparation indicates that construction crews do not anticipate using most types of heavy construction equipment on or around the second reactor and its associated buildings. DigitalGlobe imagery from September 3, 2008 showed the reactor cylinder inside the third reactor building because the roof had not yet been placed on top.4 Imagery from January 30, 2009 shows that the roof beams are being placed on top of the reactor hall and the reactor cylinder is no longer visible (figures 6 and 7). Also in the January 30, 2009 imagery is a footprint for a large building adjacent to both the second and third Khushab reactors (figure 8). The arrangement of the footprint, and its location outside the main perimeter fence, indicates it will be a large administrative building with multiple wings, though the basement for this building appears unusually deep.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s increase in plutonium production capability stands to accelerate an arms race with India. In the current climate, with Pakistan’s leadership under duress from daily acts of violence by insurgent Taliban forces and organized political opposition, the security of any nuclear material produced in these reactors is in question. India can easily match Pakistan’s actions, given its own capabilities to produce plutonium for weapons in heavy water power reactors and a breeder reactor currently under construction. Rather than standing by as a dangerous surge in the production of fissile materials for weapons unfolds in South Asia, the United States should make it a key priority to convince Pakistan to join the negotiations of a universal, verified, Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which would ban the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear explosives. As an interim step, the United States should press both India and Pakistan to suspend any production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Current U.S. policy, focused primarily on shoring up Pakistan’s resources for fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda, has had the unfortunate effect of turning the United States into more of a concerned by-stander of Pakistan’s expansion of its ability to produce nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration has an opportunity to make a verified FMCT a top priority again and insist that Pakistan and its rival India join these negotiations in good faith.
Pakistan’s increase in plutonium production capability stands to accelerate an arms race with India. In the current climate, with Pakistan’s leadership under duress from daily acts of violence by insurgent Taliban forces and organized political opposition, the security of any nuclear material produced in these reactors is in question. India can easily match Pakistan’s actions, given its own capabilities to produce plutonium for weapons in heavy water power reactors and a breeder reactor currently under construction. Rather than standing by as a dangerous surge in the production of fissile materials for weapons unfolds in South Asia, the United States should make it a key priority to convince Pakistan to join the negotiations of a universal, verified, Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), which would ban the production of plutonium and highly enriched uranium for nuclear explosives. As an interim step, the United States should press both India and Pakistan to suspend any production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Current U.S. policy, focused primarily on shoring up Pakistan’s resources for fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda, has had the unfortunate effect of turning the United States into more of a concerned by-stander of Pakistan’s expansion of its ability to produce nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration has an opportunity to make a verified FMCT a top priority again and insist that Pakistan and its rival India join these negotiations in good faith.
11 comments:
Aren't Chinese supplied reactors under IAEA safeguards? IAEA guidelines are very clear on recycling fuel only for non-weapon use. So how does Pakistan get plutonium for weapon use?
In 1985, Pakistan atomic energy commission began work on a small nuclear reactor at Khushab called K-1. It is a natural uranium fuelled, heavy water moderated design. As it was designed by a Pakistani Nuclear engineer Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood so it is outside the International Atomic Agency’s safeguards system, this 50 to 70 MWth reactor and was meant for producing plutonium for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. The reactor was reportedly completed in 1996.In 998 USA confirmed that this reactor is operational. Pakistan turned to China for a larger nuclear power plant which is built at Chashma for the electricity generation and this reactor is under IAEA supervision. Agreement for Chashma reactor between Pakistan and the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) was reached in late 1989, with the final contract signed in Beijing on 31 December 1991 and was approved on 19 June 1992 by IAEA.
Khushab-I was used to produce Plutonium and tritium which is to boost fission warheads and to further develop and enhance Pakistan's capability to build thermonuclear weapons.
Thanks for your quick response. Are K2 & K3 also Pakistani designs and outside safeguards? What will be their power and plutonium production capacity?
Anonymous @ May 6, 2009 7:37 AM
You are welcome
Here is answer
Yes K-2 and K-3 will be outside the IAEA safeguards and will be used for the production of plutonium and tritium. Even though ISIS claimed that these reactors could be as capable as 1000MW but their claim was denied by Pakistan and challenged by US. Both K-2 and K-3 are most likely to be in range of 150 to 200MW thus able to provide two to three times the platinum of K-I. At the same time large size of reactor vessel these could be upgraded to higher capacities.
If new Khushab reactors operates at 200 megawatts-thermal each then each reactors could produce enough plutonium for 8-10 nuclear weapons per year. The first Khushab reactor’s plutonium production capacity is about 2-3 nuclear weapons per year.
Will they be used to produce electricity and weapons grade material? Or just making plotuniom for bombs?
Currently K-I has been operational for at least a decade if not more and still it’s not connected to any of the grids so these will be used purely for the military use i.e. to produce Plutonium and tritium. They might be used for producing the small level of electricity for Khushab complex. Once K-II and K-III are operational than it will be very interesting to see if they do connect them with electricity grid or not.
i personaly think they will be used for electricity . Pakistan doesnt need more nuclear weapons than the amount its already getting from the remaining reacters .
These reactors are build in place where they have other nuclear reactor and heavy water production plant for military use and K-I is not connected to the grid. PAEC never mentions the K-2 and K-3 in its civilian nuclear reactors to be build to produce electricity under its national plans to produce 8800MW though nuclear reactors. And with India opting for the ABM would mean that they would need more material just to be on the safe side
Beside that Pakistan have K-I operational and that is only reactor used for military purpose so they have a reactor not reactors beside K-II and K-III
All nations have equal rights.Like India,Russia,USA,UK,Israel,Pakistan has full rights to make nuclear arms.Nuclear arms have been stolen many times in India,Usa and Russia but never in Pakistan.India Israel,Usa have used smaller nuclear arms in war in Labnon, Iraq,Iran,and Kashmeer,while Pakistan never used.Terrosrist are small group and can not beat pakistan army any way.There are more terrorists in Usa,Israel and India than in Pakistan.
This is AntiPakistan group who want to destroy Pak nukes by hook or by crook.
This Idiot Evil group will go to hell.God will demolish it.
God bless and save Pakistan with its Nuclear arms always.
All nations have equal rights.Like India,Russia,USA,UK,Israel,Pakistan has full rights to make nuclear arms.Nuclear arms have been stolen many times in India,Usa and Russia but never in Pakistan.India Israel,Usa have used smaller nuclear arms in war in Labnon, Iraq,Iran,and Kashmeer,while Pakistan never used.Terrosrist are small group and can not beat pakistan army any way.There are more terrorists in Usa,Israel and India than in Pakistan.
This is AntiPakistan group who want to destroy Pak nukes by hook or by crook.
This Idiot Evil group will go to hell.God will demolish it.
God bless and save Pakistan with its Nuclear arms always.
May 16, 2009 6:01 AM
Post a Comment