xpert and former director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, an enrichment facility in Yongbyon with 2000 centrifuge machines similar to the P-2 version, built with maraging steel rotors. The scale, level of sophistication, and brazenness for the North Koreans to have built a (until then) secret enrichment facility at the same site of a previously IAEA-monitored building, caught international attention. The plant is proof of North Korea’s steady pursuit to include uranium enrichment as part of its domestic nuclear fuel cycle.
What does this mean in terms of North Korea’s enrichment production capacity?
2000 centrifuges when operating at full capacity are sufficient to annually produce 1.8 tons of low enriched uranium (LEU) or at 3.5% U-235. This projected output is consistent with the needs of a small LWR currently under construction that was also shown to Dr. Hecker. North Korea may however face some material and quality limitations that would restrict enrichment output. On the other hand, such an enrichment plant can also easily be used for military purposes. There are two options to proceed with to make high enriched uranium (HEU): reconfigure the current 2000 centrifuge installation or add 800 new centrifuges for that purpose. An additional 800 centrifuges would be able to convert annually 1.8 tons of LEU to 40 kgs of HEU, an amount sufficient for the country to generate the necessary fissile material needed for one or two new nuclear bombs. Currently, North Korea is estimated to have between 25-40 kg of plutonium stocks, an earlier ingredient it had used to build and test its first bomb in 2006. Should North Korea use its current 2000-strong centrifuge capacity on an uninterrupted basis to produce 1.8 tons LEU annually, and have additional 800 centrifuges to enriched LEU further to HEU, we can expect its HEU stocks to exceed its current plutonium stockpile after three years.
Feed material in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) is needed in sufficient quantities to power 2000 centrifuges. While no UF6 fabrication plants have been found in North Korea, its existence at undisclosed sites(s) has been traced as far as back in year 2000, when subsequent investigations revealed that North Korea had shipped UF6 to Libya. What this also means is that North Korea’s UF6 production was conducted in violation of the Agreed Framework and Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement that were in force during at that time.
Implications and Consequences
On March 22, 2011, North Korea’s official news agency, KCNA, portrayed Libya’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons as a mistake that opened the country to NATO intervention following its domestic Arab Spring uprising. Such conclusions drawn by North Korea make an already difficult case to engage North Korea to give up its nuclear weapon deterrence that much harder. At the same time, the alternative of disengagement will in all likelihood bring about greater problems.
In engaging North Korea, several key hurdles have to be tackled. First, North Korea shows a poor proliferation record. It was the suspected supply source of UF6 to Libya via the A.Q. Khan network. There is also mounting evidence that North Korea was involved in the construction of a secret nuclear reactor at Dair Alzour in Syria that was subsequently destroyed in 2007. It is plausible that North Korean personnel assisted Syria in building the reactor. There are also allegations of North Korean assistance provided to Myanmar’s emerging nuclear activities, which makes the point of proliferation of North Korean human expertise and know-how an added concern.
Second, North Korea has demonstrated its capability and intent to further develop the full range of its nuclear arsenal including: missiles, precision machining, working with high strength raw materials, and boosting uranium enrichment. Third, with North Korea publicly embarking on uranium enrichment, the prospect of achieving a denuclearized Korean Peninsula has dimmed even further. In contrast to the 1991 Joint Statement that denounced enrichment and reprocessing on th