Prospects of Civil Nuclear Explosions in Pakistan

On 18 May 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in the Rajhistan desert which was labeled as peaceful explosion (for civil applications). In short, nuclear explosive was tested as a super dynamite for mega projects of the civil engineering. Prior to the test of India, almost all nuclear powers had considered using nuclear explosions for civil engineering mega projects. With the adoption of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), all nuclear testing has been banned, whether military or civil. As both India and Pakistan have still not signed/ratified the CTBT, they can at least theoretically conduct nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes.

Another international treaty to consider is the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In fact Article 5 of NPT allows peaceful nuclear explosions (for adhering countries without nuclear arms) [1]. But as India had not signed NPT, it had to face sanctions. Although announced as a peaceful test, it triggered a strong reaction from the nuclear states. Soon after the Indian test of 18 May 1974, nuclear states formed Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which was initially known as London Club. NSG aimed to control and regulate the export of nuclear-related technologies.

Nuclear explosions can be used to make artificial lakes for hydroelectric power stations, to blow open Thar coal mines, Iron ore mines in Swat and many other mineral mines in Balochistan. They can be used to build deep sea ports on the Sindh / Balochistan coast and also to build large canals from the coast to the Inland cities. These canals can also be linked to inland submarine bases for the Navy submarine fleet. Belgium is known for its long canals from the coast to the inland cities like Brugge. During the WW-I, German Navy used this canal system to hide its submarines in the inland bases of Belgium.

In 1971, several ships of Pakistan Navy were hit and sunk when the Indian Navy missile boats attacked them in the harbour. If these ships had been stationed in inland bases, they would have been safe. France also has inland naval bases which are linked to ocean through canals or natural narrow bays. German Navy was able to protect its fleet from British Navy by stationing its ships in such safe harbours like the one at Dieppe in the North-Western France.

The concept of using of nuclear explosives for building canals emerged in early 1960s when many mega projects were planned. Using nuclear dynamites, USA wanted to build a second Panama Canal and Egypt wanted to build a mega canal in the Kattara desert (like the Suez) using 213 nuclear explosions of 1 Megatonne yield. Kra Canal project of Thailand, which was to link the Gulf of Thailand to Andaman Sea, is another example of a project which was to use 139 nuclear explosions with yields between 100 and 1000 Kilotonne each* [1]. These projects could not be realized partly because Egypt and Thailand did not possess nuclear explosives and none were provided by the nuclear powers. Soviet Union and USA did possess nuclear weapons and they went ahead with elaborate testing series of peaceful nuclear explosions.

On 23^rd March 1971, Soviet Union exploded three nuclear charges of 15 Kilotonnes yield each which were buried at a depth of 200 meters near Krasnovichersk. An artificial lake was created which was 600 meters long and 400 meters wide. This was part of a mega project to link Kara Sea to the Caspian Sea. USA started its own program of explosions meant for mega projects of civil engineering called Plowshare. A first test was conducted on 12^th October 1962 in Nevada called Gnome. In an another test, a charge of 100 Kilotonne yield was exploded at 194 meters depth. It ejected 12 million tonnes of rock and earth and created a crater of 390 meters diameter and 97 meters in depth. Looking at this data, the mountain of Chagai (Balochistan, in which the tunnel was dug) should have disintegrated at least partly with five simultaneous nuclear explosions IF the depth had been chosen correctly.

For nuclear deterrence to be effective, the tests should not have been conducted in a very opaque manner. Given the fact that Pakistan has invested a lot in the nuclear infrastructure in the past decades, its nuclear technology should now be employed for civil mega projects. After having conducted nuclear tests in 1998, both India and Pakistan seem to have gone backwards in the nuclear technology instead of benefiting from the huge investments already made. Under the Atoms for Peace program, Pakistan obtained a nuclear research reactor from USA and installed it at Nilore near Islamabad (Pakistan Atomic Research Reactor (PARR)). This reactor used Highly Enriched Uranium as fuel. After mastering the technology of Uranium Enrichment (initiated by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan), Pakistan should have been able to provide fuel for this reactor itself. This would have been enough to validate the capability of Uranium Enrichment. Instead, the reactor was modified to use alternate fuel.

Similar events unfolded in India. Indian Navy had taken a nuclear-propelled submarine on lease from Soviet Union (called INS Chakra) from 1987 to 1991. After this lease was over, another nuclear-propelled submarine was leased from Soviet Union in 2009. The reactors of Nuclear-powered submarines use highly-enriched Uranium because the reactors have to be compact. It was and still is an occasion for India to prove and validate its Uranium Enrichment capability by using its own fuel in the reactors of these submarines. Instead, India is working on alternate fuels for its future nuclear powered submarine fleet [2].

Dr Samar Mubarakmand had been one of the architects of the Pakistan's nuclear weapons program and later on held responsibilities in the Pakistan Planning Commission for Thar Coal Project etc. He should conduct a feasibility study for using nuclear dynamites to blow open these coal mines provided the government can persuade the international community of its peaceful nature. The data of the Plowshare program of USA (27 tests) would prove helpful. This would also reinforce and re-demonstrate the nuclear capability. Similarly artificial lakes for future hydroelectric power stations (given the scarcity of electricity in Pakistan) can be quickly made with super dynamites. This way the whole nuclear-related establishment would positively contribute to the economic development of Pakistan.

* The kilotonne figure does not indicate the weight or mass of the nuclear charge. It indicates the explosive power equivalent to the tonnage of chemical TNT charge.

[1] La Bombe, Jean-Marie Collin, Editions Autrement, Paris, 2009.

[2] Replacing Highly-Enriched Uranium in Naval Reactors, NTI Paper, George M. Moore, Cervando A. Banuelos, and Thomas T. Gray , March 2016.