DECLASSIFIED Amhm y i izL page x Pf lz m 0023185 L DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 4 1-4 SUPPORT AGENCY WASH NGTON 25ADDRESS REPLY To T i CH DEFENSE ATOMIC SUPPORT 4 AUG 1382 DASARA-3 928 14 rvmomnm FOR Asa-saws TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE Atomic Energy SUBJECT Estimate 0f Helsinki Expected Dcse Resulting from Clean weapons in 1 -During the meeting in your office of DASA Air F0rce Plans and AFIC yersonnel on 12 July 1961 you requested that the DASA staff prepare an estimate of the expected dose at Helsinki resulting fram the use of two classes of clean nuclear weayons in the FY 1962 510 The weapon classes specifia were cleau weapons which haVe been tested bu not stockpiled and very clean weaywns which cauld became available in the future 2 The results 0f the ensuing stu y were presented orally in your office at the 2% July meeting of the above group Inclosure to this memorandum provide the written results of this stu y which you requested at hat time ROBERT H BOOTH Majcr General USA Chief i 2 Incl 1 Study T339 2 Map 3 1% TS Copies Furnished w o Inc-3 2 Algermissen AF Plans Cy 3A of Incl TSRD Mr Shure AFIC Cy AA 0f Incl 1 mm this documeuf 35 3 hair 5 a 5 ins 1 96 Wham from musics 83 I A TS COETRDL SYXBOL 7J9 i a 7 meme ENERGY 1954 name mmay am 1954 - 141 AWin 5 data or pagvu 24 July 1961 PROBLEM To estimate the expected dose at Helsinki resulting from the use of two clasaos of clean nuclear weapons in the FY 61 810 ASSUMPTIONS l The expected dose to Helsinki from weapons presently scheduled in the SIOP to be surface burst is a measure of the effect fallout will have upon noanoviet areas 2 The expected dose is that predicted from the annual wind tomplates of gupplement 3 3 The expected dose from any one weapon is the product of arrival probability dose per megaton reduction factor the weapon is not 20 megatons of Supp 3 WSEG-46 effective fission yield and base survival probability The base survival probability is 0 95 for alert weapons and 0 15 for other weaoons Q2 USC 2162 a RD DOE E013526 6 2 a 6 we Soviet weapons to the expected dose DISCUSSION 1 The 308 has directed that take utops in Selecting weapons for use at burst points near non-Soviet area to minimize local fallout in the noanoviet areas Specifically certain control points were selected and maximum dose levels assigned to each to provide a constraining boundary beyond which expected fallout levels should not pass The expected dose was oalculate assuming that only the largest of all the surface bursts i scheduled for any one aiming point actually arrives and that the fallout from this weapon follows the average annual wind pattern for that area 1 When first applied Helsinki became the control point which had the greatest effect upon the targeting process It became neceasary to roasaign weaoons i in the vicinity of Heloinki Some large weapons designed to encompaso several targets were replaced with smallor weapons and some surface burSts were replaced with air bursto TS comma 523530 n5 gluier MGMIC ERERGY ACT 1952 use ii 1 Doold 32586105 142 w Authority Mr Shore at the Air Force Intelligence Center re evaluatedz the expected Belsinki dose from tho FY 1961 SIOP by using the approach of Supplement 3 to Approximately 600 surface burst weapons were considered to be within range of the wsoo oo templates and a complete listing of these weapons was used in the calculation 3 42 use 2162 a - RD 303 3526 6 2 a design Data provided by Roger Batzel and independently confirmed by Lt Morelend of DASA were used to calculate new effective fiseion yields They are expressed as a constant times the total yield See Appendix A Using these expressions the exoeoted dose at Helsinki was calculated for each weapon used by AFIC by multiplying arrival probability dose per megaton reduction factor for non 20 MT weapons new effective fission yield beoo survival probability The only factor that was different was the effective fission yield No air burst weapoos were considered in the study of the problem 3 As an additional exercise all of the above calculations were repeated with the arrival probability and base survival probability factors assumed to be unity While unrealistic this might serve as a measure of the upper bound of radiation dose which could be delivereo to Helsinki No attempt was made to bring any presently scheduled air bursts to the surface in this part of the stooy as it was impossible to distinguish between those weapons lifted from the ground to stay within the constraint and those originally scheduleo for air burst It should be pointed out that the actual winds on the day that the 510 is executed will have a much more profound effect on the maximum possible oose at each oOntrol point than is impiieo in this maximizing exercise The dose calculated from the average annual wind can easily be an order of magnitude or more too high or too low depending upon the meteorological situation o A measure of the effect of meteorological variability is provided by Figure 4 wseowoo and Figure 3 Supp 3 where the probability of exceeding a certain dose or death rate is plotted as a function of the expected dose 7 RESULTS 1 The basic results are broken down into fractional expected doses at Helsinki for alert and nonmalert weapons and for weapons less than and greater than 1 megaton See Aopondix B The total expected doses at Helsinki are Present 91x Clean 23r Immaculate 6 5x w DATA lomomxc ENERGY ACT 1954 oocxd 325861o5 - 143 DECLABSUHLU mm FNnM-Vvtl'm Authority 2 One important feature of the study is that it shows that 26 alert weapons on 16 aiming points within 300 miles of Helsinki produce 4 See map The expected dose from these as weapons could be reduced to 32r and 3 5r reSpectively ii clean or immaculate weapons of the same yield were subStituted for them In addition it is noted that 5% of the total expected dose comes frem a single 69 KT weapon bur t 45 miles sOuth of Helsinki CONCLUSIONS - 42 USC 2162 a - RD DOE E013526 2 An additional reducticn by a factor of about 4 might be made with the production of immaculate super clean weapons This appears to be the irre ucible minimum 3 Ex reme Caution should be exercised in applying the results of this study to other control points because the Spectrum of weapons and burst points may be different Doczd 32586105 144 Authority APPENDIX A v Analysis of the Effective Biological Dose EBB expected from clean and very clean weapcns for application in targeting studi$s The following analysig was performed to determine the effective fission yield equation appropriata to clean and very clean nuclear weapons for use with lates and method of WSEG Staff Study #46 with 3 supplements 3 I This data and that contained in DASA Staff Study 617 allow the calculatian of the E83 expected from clean weapons as described below ASSUMPTIONS 1 The average EBB per kiloton fission yield per square statute miles is numerically equal to twice the H l hour dose rate 1 3 equivalent to the ose from fission products in allout received from 3 6 hours average arrival time to one month after burst In WSEG with supplements this value is 0 8 5 000 4 000 r 2 That the following parameters apply to present and future clean weapons 42 USC 2162 a RD DOE E013526 6 2 a Nw# 44472 DocId 32586105 145 3 Excised Pages E DECQSSIEIED i Authority APPENDIX Expected Dose on Helsinki for Various Types of Weapons A Complete SIOP Base Survival Probability 1 Base Survival Probability i 1 Arrival Prob 1 Arrival Prab 1 Cat NOrmal Clean immaculate Normal Clean Immaculate 1 13Tr 31r lOr Or 4 4r #1 13 5 5 4 1 4 0 0 073 Total 249 Alert weapon #1 Non Alert weapon B 26 Sel oted Alert Weapons Arrival Probability i 1 Normal Clean Immaculate 50r er 3 5r 3 ETGMIC ENERGY ACT 1954 Doc-Id 32586105 149 DECLASSIFIED Authorin 14g bu a wigs 153 Elm rapremms combmo c reqmw- meals for a grapm'a lo smisfy special mililmy operclioru us well a generai navigation we STUDY THE LEGEND I KNOW #002 70013 3 LEGEND RELIEF PORTRAYAL iieml ans cm in Fear Highest TERRNN eievalicm 5 H177 leer hauled at Tums areas of unreliable relief are devoid of Hm Wm 42 use 2162 a RD DOE 31013526 6 2m nAswcu met aging f 2' depicts relatively lavel arms all e evulion levels 10 eiinem e and Quick the reluaively flu ram me ping or mere rugged areas cdc b Ert le GWEN exlen s along the kgor drainage syslem reloin a alley omen lemme CONTOUR feet wilh iniermedEalm' of f 563 909 Contour 950' Inierm ediule SPOT ELEVATIONS gotion 0nd posillcn- occu' max mum vgflica error I feel _ 7 Ellen amumle maximum pew 9 vertical armr - 6 irihawn 97007 yoximuie or doubtful locations 'indicqmd by omission of flue a iocalor dbl or I e eieve on 105a imam 7w - XEMUM DATA was hzghesl TER- bc elevat oa a quad gl bounde by ticked lines do not inciu ice obstruct oaS Rehef mlor- sun is madwuam in Quad- gles Mllmut maximum eleva 150 i lgamwamg l knead 32586105 I 6 Excised Pages A mum p7 an m I I MILES srAruzra MILES 325 350 550 550 I575 I CA Iii chem replaces WAC 353 it or uscm 5- AER INFORMATION CURRENT THROUGH I FEBRUARY m9 Ei- Aeronautics Informmion shown in this I coicr is sub ect It frequent changes - m g The rate of change of air information SCALE iti uo mo BASE INFORMATICN 1958 precludes revigian of Tim's chart #0 insure 5pm Foctluty Charts Bulfa ns for i I I LINES OF EQUAL VARIATION Fm 1955- 4 safest Informursam - 4 Armani Rate of Change 7 Increase                    National Security Archive    Suite 701  Gelman Library  The George Washington University    2130 H Street  NW  Washington  D C  20037    Phone  202 994‐7000  Fax  202 994‐7005  nsarchiv@gwu edu