text:
# Radiative Corrections to Higgs Masses in 𝑍' Models

## I Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the most viable extensions of the Standard Model (SM) for curing the quantum instability of the Higgs sector. SUSY, however, has a new hierarchy problem concerning the natural scale of the Higgsino Dirac mass – the $`\mu `$ problem. Many supersymmetric extensions of SM have been proposed to cure the $`\mu `$ problem. Although there is no natural solution to this problem in the minimal supersymmetric models, the next-to-minimal SUSY ellis1  solves the $`\mu `$ problem, but at the expense of inducing large-tension domain walls, which can over-close the universe. Among all possible extensions of supersymmetric SM, however, the ones that invoke an extra $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry, which forbids a bare $`\mu `$ term kim , are particularly promising since problems with the generation of tadpoles and axion are automatically avoided. Also, extra $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetries, with their associated extra $`Z^{}`$ bosons, naturally arise in effective theories coming from breaking of grand unified theories (GUTs) or in superstring compactifications dine . The above two reasons are the major motivations for our paper.

In general, the presence of a $`Z^{}`$ boson in the low-energy spectrum generates additional neutral current transitions, which can have important implications for precision tests amaldi  or flavor violation langacker . It has been shown that the existing data allow for a light $`Z^{}`$ boson with family-dependent couplings erler . In a general $`Z^{}`$ model, the hierarchy of the soft masses in the Higgs sector leads to different vacua in which the $`Z^{}`$ boson can be heavy or light, although the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing is sufficiently small in all cases. The analysis of Erler and Langacker erler  shows that the $`Z^{}`$ boson can be as light as $`200\text{GeV}`$ with a $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle of the $`𝒪(10^3)`$.

Although a low-scale extra $`U(1)^{}`$ symmetry stabilizes the $`\mu `$ parameter to TeV scale, the tree-level Higgs potential is far from representing the physical observables with sufficient precision. In fact, experience from the minimal model shows that there are large corrections to the Higgs masses, once the radiative effects are taken into account ellis2 . This is also the case with the $`Z^{}`$ models, as the partial analysis of the Higgs sector shows daikoku . Therefore, for a proper analysis of the collider data concerning the Higgs production, it is necessary to compute the Higgs masses and couplings at least at the one-loop level. In fact, this is necessary even for making comparisons or putting constraints on the parameter space using the LEP results lep .

Our main goal in this paper is to work out the neutral Higgs boson masses and mixing angles at the one-loop level in supergravity models with an additional $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry. A general tree-level analysis of such models can be found in cvetic . We will assume that the parameters of the model have already been fixed to the TeV scale via the one-loop renormalization group equation (RGE) running from the string scale with appropriate initial conditions. The low energy mass spectrum and appropriate vacua that naturally suppress the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle have already been derived in cvetic  for the tree-level Higgs potential. We will further assume that there is no violation of the CP invariance in the Higgs sector, which is a simplifying assumption rather than a result following from high–scale model building.

In the next section we review the properties of the tree-level potential. In Sec. 3, we compute the effective potential and derive the Higgs mass spectrum at the one-loop level. We will also briefly comment on the relevance of two-loop effects. In Sec. 4, we present some numerical estimates of the masses and mixing angles for likely values of the parameter values. Here, the lower bound set on the lightest Higgs mass by LEPII is used as a constraint to restrict the values of our parameters. Of course, to improve the bounds on our parameter space and to further restrict the parameter values, we need to consider the Higgs production and decay rates. The dominant channels are the Higgs-strahlung (Bjorken) process, $`e^{}e^+Z_i^{}Z_jh_k`$, and the $`Z`$ decay into two Higgses, $`e^{}e^+Z_i^{}h_jh_k`$. However, we will work out the details of these processes and cross-sections in a separate work. For now, the bounds that we obtain using the lightest Higgs mass as a constraint are still valid. Finally, in Sec.5, we conclude the work and discuss its implications for Higgs phenomenology.

## II Tree-Level Effective Potential

We first describe the structure of the effective potential at the tree level. The gauge group is the same as that of the Standard Model, but with an additional $`U(1)^{}`$ factor, i.e., $`G=SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_Y^{}`$, with coupling constants $`g_3`$, $`g_2`$, $`g_1`$, and $`g_1^{}`$, respectively. The Higgs sector contains two Higgs doublets $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$, and one singlet $`S`$. The matter multiplets are given by left-handed chiral superfields. For specific charge assignments of the chiral superfields with respect to the gauge group, we refer the readers to Ref. cvetic . For our purposes, we only need to know the charges of the Higgs fields under the extra $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry. We denote the Higgs charges by $`Q_1`$, $`Q_2`$, and $`Q_s`$. The superpotential is given by

$`𝒲`$ $`=`$ $`h_s\widehat{S}(\widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2)+h_t\widehat{U}^c(\widehat{Q}\widehat{H}_2).`$ (1)
The most important feature of the above superpotential that distinguishes it from either MSSM or NMSSM, is the absence of a cubic term in $`\widehat{S}`$ and a term proportional to $`\widehat{H}_1\widehat{H}_2`$, usually called the $`\mu `$ term footnote . The gauge invariance of the superpotential under the $`U(1)^{}`$ forbids the appearance of such terms. Although a $`\mu `$ term is absent from the superpotential, an effective $`\mu `$ parameter is generated by the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field $`S`$. We use the hatted fields to denote chiral Higgs superfields, and the un-hatted fields to denote scalar Higgs fields.

We parameterize the explicit soft breaking of supersymmetry by

$`_{SB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}M_i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i+Ah_sSH_1H_2+A_th_t\stackrel{~}{U}^c\stackrel{~}{Q}H_2`$ (2)
$``$ $`m_Q^2\left|\stackrel{~}{Q}\right|^2m_U^2\left|\stackrel{~}{U}\right|^2m_D^2\left|\stackrel{~}{D}\right|^2m_E^2\left|\stackrel{~}{E}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`m_L^2\left|\stackrel{~}{L}\right|^2m_1^2\left|H_1\right|^2m_2^2\left|H_2\right|^2m_s^2\left|S\right|^2,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i`$ are the gaugino fields, and the hermitian conjugate terms are assumed to keep the potential real. The tree-level Higgs potential follows from $`_{SB}`$, $`F`$ and $`D`$ terms:

$`V_F`$ $`=`$ $`\left|h_s\right|^2\left[\left|H_1H_2\right|^2+\left|S\right|^2\left(\left|H_1\right|^2+\left|H_2\right|^2\right)\right],`$
$`V_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2}{8}}\left[\left|H_2\right|^2\left|H_1\right|^2\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_2^2}{2}}\left|H_1^{}H_2\right|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2}}\left[Q_1\left|H_1\right|^2+Q_2\left|H_2\right|^2+Q_s\left|S\right|^2\right]^2,`$
$`V_S`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2|H_1|^2+m_2^2|H_2|^2+m_s^2|S|^2[Ah_sSH_1H_2+h.c.],`$ (3)
where $`Q_i`$ are the $`U(1)^{}`$ charges of $`H_i`$ and $`Q_s+Q_1+Q_2=0`$ due to the gauge invariance of the superpotential under the extra gauge symmetry. Above we notice that $`g_1^{}`$ always appears in combination with $`Q_i`$. Hence, it is convenient to absorb it in the definition of $`Q_i`$ and define new charges $`Q_i=g_1^{}Q_i`$. Therefore, $`g_1^{}`$ will not explicitly appear in our formulae unless stated otherwise.

We assume that all the coupling constants in the above potential are real. At the tree level, the potential cannot violate CP symmetry either explicitly or spontaneously. A possible phase could come from $`Ah_s`$; however, such a phase could be absorbed into the global phases of the Higgs fields. At the one-loop level, CP symmetry can be explicitly broken due to the complex phases in the scalar quark sector. However, we set all the CP-violating phases equal to zero and consider only the CP-conserving scenario.

The Higgs sector of the theory contains ten real degrees of freedom. Each Higgs doublet contains four real fields and the Higgs singlet contains two real fields. After the electroweak symmetry breaking, four of the ten fields become the longitudinal components of the four vector bosons in our model. The remaining six fields result in three scalars, one pseudoscalar, and one charged Higgs. We decompose the Higgs fields as

$`H_1=\left[\begin{array}{c}\varphi _1^0\\ \varphi _1^{}\end{array}\right],H_2=\left[\begin{array}{c}\varphi _2^+\\ \varphi _2^0\end{array}\right],`$
where the neutral components will be further separated into scalar and pseudoscalar bosons below.

The vacuum state of the theory is defined by the Higgs vacuum expectation values (VEVs): $`\varphi _1^{}=\varphi _2^+=0`$, $`\varphi _i^0=v_i/\sqrt{2}`$, and $`S=v_3/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`v_i`$ are real, and $`v^2=v_1^2+v_2^2=(246\text{GeV})^2`$. The effective $`\mu `$ parameter is generated by the VEV of $`S`$, and is defined by $`\mu _s=h_sv_3/\sqrt{2}`$. Here $`v_1=v\mathrm{cos}\beta `$, $`v_2=v\mathrm{sin}\beta `$, and $`v_3x`$. For this to be a physical minimum, the potential must be negative when evaluated at the point $`(v_1,v_2,x)`$, and the masses of the Higgs bosons must be positive. Even when these conditions are satisfied, the above point is not guaranteed to be the absolute minimum. Whether it is still acceptable depends on the location and depth of the other minima and the width between them. At the minimum point, the potential has vanishing first derivatives with respect to the three CP-even scalars, $`i.e.`$, all tadpoles vanish. This enables one to trade the soft mass-squared parameters for their VEVs.

The tree-level masses of the Higgs bosons are obtained by diagonalizing their corresponding field-dependent mass-squared matrices. To this end, we need to substitute $`\varphi _i^0=\left(v_i+\varphi _i+i\phi _i\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`S=\left(x+\varphi _3+i\phi _3\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ into the potential. Here $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\phi _i`$ stand for CP-even and CP-odd directions, respectively. Using the basic definitions

$`\left(_S^0\right)_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V^0}{\varphi _i\varphi _j}},\left(_P^0\right)_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V^0}{\phi _i\phi _j}},`$ (5)
we form the Higgs mass-squared matrix. Evaluation of Eq. (5) at the tree level is straight forward. Defining $`m_3^2=A\mu _s`$, we obtain

$`\left(_S^0\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[Q_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2}{4}}\right]v_1^2+m_3^2\mathrm{tan}\beta ,`$
$`\left(_S^0\right)_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[h_s^2+Q_1Q_2{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2}{4}}\right]v_1v_2m_3^2,`$
$`\left(_S^0\right)_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[h_s^2+Q_1Q_s\right]v_1xm_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{sin}\beta }{x}},`$
$`\left(_S^0\right)_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[Q_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_1^2+g_2^2}{4}}\right]v_2^2+m_3^2\mathrm{cot}\beta ,`$
$`\left(_S^0\right)_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[h_s^2+Q_2Q_s\right]v_2xm_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{cos}\beta }{x}},`$
$`\left(_S^0\right)_{33}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[Q_s^2\right]x^2+m_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{v^2\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta }{x^2}}.`$ (6)
For the pseudoscalar mass-squared matrix, we get

$$\left(_P^0\right)_{ij}=\frac{h_sA}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{v_1v_2v_3}{v_iv_j}.$$
(7)
The eigenvalues of the scalar mass-squared matrix correspond to the masses of the Higgs bosons. Although these eigenvalues can be obtained analytically, they are often too complicated to be useful. However, from the structure of the above matrix we can obtain useful information about its smallest eigenvalue, which corresponds to the lightest Higgs mass. Namely, for any symmetric $`n\times n`$ matrix, its smallest eigenvalue is less than the smaller eigenvalue of it left upper $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix. With this observation, we get

$$\left(M_{h_1}^0\right)^2M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +\frac{1}{2}h_s^2v^2\mathrm{sin}^22\beta +Q_H^2v^2,$$
(8)
where $`Q_H=Q_1\mathrm{cos}^2\beta +Q_2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta `$. The first two terms are familiar from NMSSM ellis1 , while the third term is unique to the model under consideration. Notice that this term allows the lightest Higgs mass to be larger than that predicted by either MSSM or NMSSM.

After appropriate rotations, the pseudoscalar mass-squared matrix gives one non-zero eigenvalue corresponding to the physical pseudoscalar mass. The other two eigenvalues which are zero, are the Goldstone degrees of freedom. After electroweak symmetry breaking, these become the longitudinal components of $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$. The $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mass-squared matrix is given by

$`\left(\right)_{ZZ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_Z^2\hfill & \mathrm{}^2\hfill \\ \mathrm{}^2\hfill & M_Z^{}^2\hfill \end{array}\right],`$ (11)
where $`M_Z^{}^2=(Q_1^2v_1^2+Q_2^2v_2^2+Q_s^2x^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{}^2=(1/2)\sqrt{g_1^2+g_2^2}\left(v_1^2Q_1v_2^2Q_2\right)`$. The eigenvalues of the above matrix, together with the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle, are given by

$`M_{Z_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[M_Z^2+M_Z^{}^2\sqrt{\left(M_Z^2M_Z^{}^2\right)^2+4\mathrm{}^4}\right],`$
$`\alpha _{ZZ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arctan}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}^2}{M_Z^{}^2M_Z^2}}\right].`$ (12)
The mixing angle $`\alpha _{ZZ^{}}`$ has to be smaller than a few times $`10^3`$, so that $`M_{Z_1}`$ would correspond to the observed $`Z`$ boson mass. For completeness, we also give the expressions for the pseudoscalar mass and the charged Higgs mass:

$`\left(M_P^0\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A\mu _s}{\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta }}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{v^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{x^2}}\right],`$
$`\left(M_{H^\pm }\right)^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_W^2+{\displaystyle \frac{A\mu _s}{\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_sv^2.`$ (13)
From the above, it is clear that the pseudoscalar mass is never negative, while the charged Higgs mass can be lower than the $`W`$ boson mass, and can even run to negative values for some choices of the parameters.

In the next section, we include the main one-loop contributions to the tree-level effective potential. In general, the tree-level potential is written in terms of the running coupling constants and masses, which are defined at some renormalization point $`Q`$. However, the tree-level effective potential written in terms of running parameters is too sensitive to the choice of $`Q`$, and one cannot make reliable calculations. The situation is considerably improved when one includes the one-loop contributions to the effective potential Appelquist . We take into account the one-loop top/stop and sbottom effects, which are the main corrections.

## III One-Loop Effective Potential

As explained at the end of the previous section, the most important one-loop contribution to the tree-level effective potential comes from the top and scalar top quarks. However, the contribution of the bottom scalar quarks can also be sizable when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$ or larger. We take both contributions into account. For the rest of this section, we will state our results in full generality, making no assumptions about the numerical values of our parameters.

The stop and sbottom mass-squared matrices are given by

$`\left(_t\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Q^2+k_1^t\left|H_1^0\right|^2+k_2^t\left|H_2^0\right|^2+k_s^t\left|S\right|^2,`$
$`\left(_t\right)_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`h_t(A_tH_2^0h_sSH_1^0),`$
$`\left(_t\right)_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`m_U^2+l_1^t\left|H_1^0\right|^2+l_2^t\left|H_2^0\right|^2+l_s^t\left|S\right|^2,`$
$`\left(_b\right)_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Q^2+k_1^b\left|H_1^0\right|^2+k_2^b\left|H_2^0\right|^2+k_s^b\left|S\right|^2,`$
$`\left(_b\right)_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`h_b(h_sSH_2^0A_bH_1^0),`$
$`\left(_b\right)_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`m_D^2+l_1^b\left|H_1^0\right|^2+l_2^b\left|H_2^0\right|^2+l_s^b\left|S\right|^2,`$ (14)
where $`k_1^t=\left(g_2^2g_1^2/3\right)/4+Q_QQ_1`$, $`k_2^t=h_t^2\left(g_2^2g_1^2/3\right)/4+Q_QQ_2`$, $`k_s^t=Q_QQ_s`$, $`l_1^t=g_1^2/3+Q_UQ_1`$, $`l_2^t=h_t^2g_1^2/3+Q_UQ_1`$, $`l_s^t=Q_UQ_s`$, and $`k_1^b=h_b^2\left(g_2^2+g_1^2/3\right)/4+Q_QQ_1`$, $`k_2^b=\left(g_2^2+g_1^2/3\right)/4+Q_QQ_2`$, $`k_s^b=Q_QQ_s`$, $`l_1^b=h_b^2g_1^2/6+Q_DQ_1`$, $`l_2^b=g_1^2/6+Q_DQ_1`$, and finally, $`l_s^b=Q_DQ_s`$. The cancellation of triangle anomalies gives $`Q_Q=Q_1/3`$, $`Q_U=\left(Q_12Q_2\right)/3`$, and $`Q_D=\left(Q_1+2Q_2\right)/3`$. The eigenvalues of the above matrix are the masses of the left-handed and right-handed stops and sbottoms, given by

$`m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_{1,2}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}tr_q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(tr_q)^24det_q}.`$ (15)
Using the stop and sbottom masses from above, we can express the one-loop correction to the effective potential by the Coleman-Weinberg formula coleman

$`V^1`$ $`=`$ $`k\left[m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_j}^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_j}^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)2\overline{m}_q^4\left(\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_q^2}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)\right],`$
where $`Q`$ is the renormalization scale in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and $`k=3/(32\pi ^2)`$. We sum over $`q=(t,b)`$ and $`j=(1,2)`$. Here, $`\overline{m}_t^2=h_t^2\left|H_2^0\right|^2`$ and $`\overline{m}_b^2=h_b^2\left|H_1^0\right|^2`$. The one-loop scalar and pseudoscalar mass-squared matrices are given by

$`\left(_S^1\right)_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V^1}{\varphi _i\varphi _j}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^1}{\varphi _j}},`$
$`\left(_P^1\right)_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{^2V^1}{\phi _i\phi _j}}\delta _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\varphi _i}}{\displaystyle \frac{V^1}{\varphi _j}},`$ (17)
where the second term in the brackets is due to the fact that the position of the minimum has shifted because of the one-loop effects. By substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (LABEL:Eq13) and substituting the resulting expression into Eq. (17), we get

$`(_S^1)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b}{}}\left[\xi _{ij}^q(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2)+\zeta _{ij}^q𝒢(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2)+\rho _{ij}^q\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2}}\right)\lambda _{ij}^q\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_q^4}{Q^4}}\right)\right],`$
$`(_P^1)_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b}{}}\left[\eta _{ij}^q(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2)\right],`$ (18)
where

$`\xi _{ij}^q`$ $`=`$ $`v_iv_j\left(k_i^qk_j^q+l_i^ql_j^q+\delta _{i1(2)}\delta _{j3}h_s^2h_q^2\right)+\left(1\right)^{1\delta _{ij}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_sA_qh_q^2}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1v_2v_3}{v_iv_j}},`$
$`\zeta _{ij}^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v_iv_j\left[R_i^qR_j^q+\left(k_i^q+l_i^q\right)\left(k_j^q+l_j^q\right)\right],`$
$`\rho _{ij}^q`$ $`=`$ $`v_iv_j\left[\left(k_j^q+l_j^q\right)R_i+\left(k_i^q+l_i^q\right)R_j^q\right],`$
$`\eta _{ij}^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h_sA_qh_q^2}{\sqrt{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_1v_2v_3}{v_iv_j}},`$
$`R_1^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}h_sA_qh_q^2x\mathrm{tan}\beta h_s^2h_t^2x^2(2h_b^2A_b^2)m_Q^2m_{U(D)}^2\left(k_1^ql_1^q\right)_{j=1}^3\left(k_j^ql_j^q\right)v_j}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}},`$
$`R_2^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}h_sA_qh_q^2x\mathrm{cot}\beta 2h_t^2A_t^2(h_s^2h_b^2x^2)m_Q^2m_{U(D)}^2\left(k_2^ql_2^q\right)_{j=1}^3\left(k_j^ql_j^q\right)v_j}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}},`$
$`R_3^q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}h_sA_qh_q^2v_1v_2/xh_s^2h_q^2v_2^2m_Q^2m_{U(D)}^2\left(k_3^ql_3^q\right)_{j=1}^3\left(k_j^ql_j^q\right)v_j}{m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2}},`$ (19)
where $`q=t`$ $`(b)`$ for top (bottom) quark/squarks. Above, $`\lambda _{22}^t=2h_t^4v_2v_2`$, $`\lambda _{11}^b=2h_b^4v_1v_1`$, and the rest of the $`\lambda _{ij}^q`$ are zero. The values in parentheses correspond to the bottom quark/squarks. The $`k_i^q`$ and $`l_i^q`$ are defined above, following Eq. (14). The functions $``$ and $`𝒢`$ that appear in Eq. (18), are the usual loop amplitudes which also appear in the MSSM effective potential. These are given by

$`(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xy}{Q^4}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{y+x}{yx}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{y}{x}}\right)2,`$
$`𝒢(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xy}{Q^4}}\right)(x,y),`$ (20)
where one particularly notices that $``$ depends explicitly on the renormalization scale. By combining Eqs. (7), (13), and (17), we can diagonalize the total pseudoscalar mass-squared matrix to obtain the mass of the pseudoscalar:

$`M_P^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_P^0\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{q=t,b}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{3h_q^2}{32\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_q}{A}}(m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_1}^2,m_{\stackrel{~}{q}_2}^2)\right].`$
We can check the validity of our expressions for $`M_P^2`$ and $`_{ij}`$ by comparing them to the well-known MSSM results. Our model reduces to MSSM if we fix $`\mu _s=h_sx/\sqrt{2}\mu `$ and set $`h_s=g_1^{}=Q_i=0`$. In this limiting case, we identically recover the usual MSSM results computed in ellis2 . We can also obtain a useful upper bound for the lightest Higgs mass at the one-loop level.

$`M_{h_1}^2`$ $``$ $`\left(M_{h_1}^0\right)_{max}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\beta (_S^1)_{11}+\mathrm{sin}2\beta (_S^1)_{12}+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta (_S^1)_{22}.`$
Although we did not take into account the two-loop effects, we do not expect these corrections to be very large. Indeed, as was shown in Ref. espinosa  for MSSM, the two-loop effects are less than a few GeVs. In our future work, we will include the two-loop effects in the model under consideration. But given the fact the not even the one-loop effects have been worked out in this model, it is important to have these corrections first before higher order effects are taken into account.

## IV Numerical Examples

We numerically diagonalize the total one-loop scalar mass-squared matrix, given by Eq. (18), to obtain the mass of the lightest Higgs scalar. In order to get concrete results, we must fix some of the parameters in our model, which include $`g_2`$, $`g_1^{}`$, $`h_t`$, $`h_s`$, $`m_U`$, $`m_D`$, $`m_Q`$, $`A_t`$, $`A_b`$, $`A`$, $`v`$, $`x`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ . The $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry does not affect the mass of the $`W`$ boson. This fixes $`g_2=0.65`$ and $`v=246`$ GeV. According to the one-loop RGE analysis of cvetic , $`h_t1.01.2`$ and $`0.35h_s0.91.0`$. We leave the soft supersymmetry breaking masses $`m_{Q,U,D}`$ and $`A`$, $`A_{t,b}`$, $`h_s`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and $`Q`$ as free parameters against which the lightest Higgs mass will be plotted. Furthermore, because we are considering the electroweak symmetry breaking driven by a large VEV of the singlet field $`S`$, much larger than $`v`$, we fix $`x=1.5`$ TeV.

The values of $`g_1^{}`$, $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are not directly constrained by the experimental data. However, in most GUT-motivated models with an extra $`U(1)^{}`$ factor, $`g_1^{}=\left(\sqrt{5\lambda _g/3}\right)g_1\mathrm{tan}\vartheta _w`$, where $`g_1`$ is the hypercharge gauge coupling, and $`\lambda _g`$ is of the order of one with the exact value depending on how the GUT gauge group is broken down to the SM gauge group robinett . For our calculations, we take $`g_1^{}=0.3`$. To fix the charges $`Q_i`$, we take the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle $`\alpha _{ZZ^{}}`$ to be smaller than a few times $`10^3`$. Without excessive fine-tuning of the theory, this requires $`h_sg_1^{}Q_S`$ (see cvetic  for details). This together with $`0.35h_s0.9`$ imply $`Q_sO(1)`$. Furthermore, the gauge invariance of the superpotential under the $`U(1)^{}`$ gives $`Q_1+Q_2=Q_s`$. Because $`Q_1Q_2>0`$ as is argued in cvetic , we conclude that $`\left|Q_i\right|1`$. A natural choice would be to take $`Q_1=Q_2=1`$.

However, according to Eq. (12), this specific choice restricts the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ severely. In fact, $`\alpha _{ZZ^{}}3\times 10^3`$ implies $`1\mathrm{tan}\beta 1.3`$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is highly sensitive to the ratio of the charges. Fortunately, the masses of the Higgs bosons are not very sensitive to the charges at all. This is because in the mass-squared matrix, each charge $`Q_i`$ is accompanied by a factor of $`g_1^{}`$. At the one-loop level, it is the top quark Yukawa coupling that gives the largest contribution to the Higgs masses. Therefore, we are free to choose $`Q_i`$ without effecting our results significantly. We have also verified this numerically. Because $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the only quantity that is really sensitive to the ratio of the charges, we choose charges that allow $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ to vary over a wide range of values. If we take $`Q_1=3Q_2=3/2`$, then we can have $`1\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$ without violating the bound on $`\alpha _{ZZ^{}}`$. If we choose other values for the charges that are still of the order of one, the masses of the Higgs bosons would not change by a significant amount.

We find that the Higgs masses are sensitive to the value of $`h_s`$. For this reason, we calculate the Higgs masses for $`h_s=0.4`$, $`0.6`$, and $`0.8`$. Finally, we fix the scale at which we carry out the numerical calculations. We take the scale, denoted by $`Q`$ not to be confused with the charges $`Q_i`$, to be of the order of the electroweak scale. This is indeed necessary for the consistency of our analysis. We have also verified that as $`Q`$ varies between $`1002000`$ GeV, the Higgs masses change by less than $`23`$ GeV almost independently of the other parameters, see Fig. 2(c). It is clear that the change in the lightest Higgs mass is because of different choices of $`h_s`$, and not because of $`Q`$. That the Higgs masses are relatively stable against the choice of the scale, is a restatement of the stability of the effective potential against the scale when one-loop effects are taken into account, as we mentioned above. In the actual calculations we fix $`Q=300`$ GeV.

In summary, we are studying the lightest Higgs mass, which is phenomenologically the most interesting one, as we vary $`m_{U,D,Q}`$, $`A_{t,b}`$, $`A`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, and $`h_s`$. We have summarized our results in Figs. $`1`$ and $`2`$. We have plotted the lightest Higgs mass for $`100A2000`$ GeV, $`1600A_{t,b}1600`$ GeV, $`200m_{U,D,Q}1000`$ GeV, $`1\mathrm{tan}\beta 60`$, and $`0h_s1.0`$. We take $`m_{U,D,Q}200`$ GeV to keep squark masses positive. A negative mass for even one of the squarks induces color breaking minima in the potential, which is clearly undesired. The above bounds provide a fairly comprehensive region for our parameters. The physically allowed values must respect the LEPII constraint, $`M_{h_1}114`$ GeV lep .

Using Figs. 1 and 2, we summarize our main results as follows: First, $`h_s0.8`$ is excluded if $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2`$, see Fig. 2(e). For $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2`$, $`h_s`$ can be $`0.8`$ or larger. However, according to Figs. 1(a-f), when $`h_s0.8`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 4`$ is excluded unless $`A13001350`$ GeV. We conclude that $`h_s0.8`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 4`$ cannot be allowed simultaneously. Second, the lightest Higgs mass, $`M_{h_1}`$, is relatively stable against the soft supersymmetry breaking masses $`m_{U,D,Q}`$ and against $`A_b`$, see Fig. 1(a,b,c,e). There is some variation with respect to $`m_Q`$, $`m_D`$, and $`A_b`$, but only when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is very large. $`M_{h_1}`$ varies quite a bit when $`A_t`$ and $`A`$ vary. However, when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not near its extreme values, either too large or close to $`1`$, then $`M_{h_1}`$ is relatively stable against $`A_t`$ and $`A`$ as well, see Fig. 1(d,f). $`M_{h_1}`$ stays pretty much fixed as $`Q`$ varies between $`2002000`$ GeV. This is demonstrated in Fig. 2(c), for different values of $`h_s`$. We have also plotted the lightest Higgs mass as a function of $`\mu _s`$, Figs. 2(a,b). Notice the extreme fine-tuning of the charges $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ in order to have $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ large with no restriction on $`x`$, and respecting the experimental bound on the $`ZZ^{}`$ mixing angle. With Fig. 2(b), we arrive at the same conclusion as above. Namely, for large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, $`h_s0.8`$. Larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, however, are not generally favored by the above model.

We have verified numerically that for nominal values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and $`h_s`$, say, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 415`$ and $`h_s0.40.6`$, the lightest Higgs mass is about $`130`$ GeV, which is very close to the MSSM prediction. This can be seen from our graphs by examining the dashed black and red curves. Based on the MSSM analysis espinosa , we do not expect the two-loop corrections to add more than a few GeVs to this value. That there is an agreement between the above model and MSSM is no surprise, because the above model is just an extension of MSSM. This is in fact a check on the validity of our results.

The above conclusions might be slightly effected when CP-violating effects are taken into account. However, the inclusion of CP-violating phases coming from $`h_sA_s`$ and $`h_tA_t`$ mixes the scalar and pseudoscalar mass-squared matrices. The resulting mass-squared matrix is a $`4\times 4`$ matrix giving four Higgs bosons with no definite CP properties. This requires a different analysis than what we have done in this paper. We consider CP violation in a separate work.

Finally, for phenomenological reasons, it is desirable to know the Higgs mixing angles. In Fig. $`2`$(f), we have plotted the three Higgs mixing angles against $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The derivation of the Higgs mixing angles is shown in appendix A, which is already well known. From the graph, one can see that for smaller values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the lightest Higgs state is dominated by a mixture of $`H_1^0`$ and $`H_2^0`$, while its mixing with the singlet stays less than about $`10`$ percent. However, when $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger than about $`10`$, the lightest state is dominated by $`H_2^0`$, and the total mixing with $`H_1^0`$ and $`S`$ stays less than $`10`$ percent. This result is not surprising because larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ implies a larger VEV for $`H_2^0`$.

## V Conclusions

In this work, we studied the one-loop effects on the lightest Higgs mass in a minimal supersymmetric model augmented by an Abelian $`U(1)^{}`$ gauge symmetry. We calculated the top and stop/sbottom one-loop effects in the framework of the effective potential approach. The most important issue concerning the minimal models extended by a $`U(1)^{}`$ factor, is the mixing of the Standard Model $`Z`$ boson with the $`Z^{}`$ boson associated with the extra gauge symmetry. In order for such models to be phenomenologically viable, the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle has to be very small, less than a few times $`10^3`$. We used the smallness of the $`Z`$$`Z^{}`$ mixing angle, together with the lower bound set on the lightest Higgs mass, $`114`$ GeV, by LEPII data lep , to constrain our parameter space. We showed numerically that the one-loop effects due to the top and stop/sbottom quarks are non-negligible.

The radiative corrections to the Higgs boson masses and mixing angles are crucial for interpreting and predicting the Higgs production and decay rates in upcoming colliders. In linear colliders, for example NLC, the main production mechanisms are the Bjorken process and pair–production process, each of which requires a precise knowledge of Higgs boson masses and their couplings to the gauge bosons. (For the analysis of these processes at the tree level, see $`e.g`$ durmush ). The model at hand predicts a larger upper bound on the Higgs boson masses than MSSM. Therefore, even if the MSSM bounds are violated in the near-future colliders, the model at hand, which generates the $`\mu `$ parameter dynamically, will accommodate larger Higgs masses.

## VI Acknowledgement

We would like to thank D.A. Demir and A. Vainshtein for useful discussions. This work was supported by the University of Minnesota under the Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship grant.

## Appendix A Derivation of the Higgs Masses and Mixing Angles

The Higgs mass-squared matrix is given by a symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrix, $`\left(_{ij}\right)`$. The eigenvalues are given by the solutions of the following characteristic equation: $`x^3+rx^2+sx+t=0`$, where

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`tr\left(_{ij}\right),`$
$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[tr^2\left(_{ij}\right)tr\left(_{ij}^2\right)\right],`$
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`det\left(_{ij}\right).`$ (23)
With the help of the auxiliary parameters $`p=sr^2/3`$, $`q=2r^3/27rs/3+t`$, $`d=p^3/27+q^2/4`$, and $`\vartheta =\mathrm{arccos}\left(q/\sqrt{4p^3/27}\right)`$, we can express the Higgs masses as follows:

$`M_{h_1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r+2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{3}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\right),`$
$`M_{h_2}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r+2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{3}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{3}}\right),`$
$`M_{h_3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}r+2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{3}}}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta }{3}}\right),`$ (24)
where we require $`d,r,t<0`$ and $`s>0`$, to ensure that the masses are physical, i.e., positive. Because the Higgs mass-squared matrix is real and symmetric, it can be diagonalized by means of an orthogonal transformation $`𝒪`$, where

$`𝒪^T_{ij}𝒪`$ $`=`$ $`diag(M_{h_3}^2,M_{h_2}^2,M_{h_1}^2).`$ (25)
In the basis $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)=(H_1^0,H_2^0,S)`$, the mass eigensta mtes are defined by $`h_{4i}=_{j=1}^3𝒪_{ij}\varphi _j`$, for $`i=1,2,3`$. More specifically, we have

$`h_1`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_{31}\varphi _1+𝒪_{32}\varphi _2+𝒪_{33}\varphi _3,`$
$`h_2`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_{21}\varphi _1+𝒪_{22}\varphi _2+𝒪_{23}\varphi _3,`$
$`h_3`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪_{11}\varphi _1+𝒪_{12}\varphi _2+𝒪_{13}\varphi _3.`$ (26)
We are defining our fields such that $`M_{h_1}^2M_{h_2}^2M_{h_3}^2`$. Due to orthogonality, we have $`𝒪_{1i}^2+𝒪_{2i}^2+𝒪_{3i}^2=1`$, for $`i=1,2,3`$. Since we are mainly interested in the mass of the lightest Higgs boson, we only plot the values of $`𝒪_{31}`$, $`𝒪_{32}`$, and *$`𝒪_{33}`$*, as these are the only mixing angles that determine the composition of the lightest Higgs boson.


format: text

text:
# A comparison of delayed radiobiological effects of depleted–uranium munitions versus fourth–generation nuclear weapons

## 1 Introduction

The last two major military campaigns in which the full extent of the Western military superiority was displayed — Iraq and Yugoslavia — were characterized by the extensive use of precision guided delivery systems and depleted-uranium munitions .111According to official accounts, no depleted-uranium ammunition was used in the more recent war in Afghanistan.

While there has been some political opposition in a number of countries to the battle-field use of depleted-uranium projectiles, and considerable reaction from many environmental organizations world-wide, there has been little analysis of the strategic-political reasons why such ammunition was used in the first place. Of course, it has been stressed that opposition to these weapons could have been avoided if the low-radioactive U-238 would have been replaced by some non-radioactive material such as tungsten. However, the possible link of the use of depleted-uranium to a gradual shift towards the actual battle-field use of nuclear weapons seems not to have been fully appreciated.

The purpose of this paper is to show that despite the relatively “low” radioactive nature of U-238, the radiological impact of its use in conventional ammunition is comparable to that of the battle-field use of hypothetical fourth-generation nuclear weapons in which the explosive power would derive from thermonuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission — and in which essentially zero fission reactions would take place because the “fission-trigger” used in ordinary hydrogen bombs would be replaced by some other device .

Fourth-generation nuclear weapons are under active development in all major nuclear weapon states — and all major industrial powers such as Germany and Japan are actively developing the technology required to develop such weapons. In a nut-shell, the principle of these new types of nuclear weapons is to trigger (by some advance technology such as a superlaser, magnetic compression, antimatter, etc.) a relatively small thermonuclear explosion in which a deuterium-tritium mixture is burnt in a device whose weight and size are not much larger than a few kilograms and liters. Since the yield of these warheads could go from a fraction of a ton to several tens, or hundreds, of tons of high-explosive equivalent, their delivery by precision guided munitions or other means will dramatically increase the fire-power of those who possess them — without crossing the threshold of using kiloton to megaton size nuclear weapons, and therefore without breaking the taboo against the first-use of weapons of mass-destruction.

Consequently, if the precision guided delivery systems used in Iraq and Yugoslavia would have been loaded with fourth-generations nuclear warheads rather than conventional explosives, much less of them could have been used to achieve the same military objective — although at the cost of a radiological burden that we estimate in this paper and compare to that of depleted-uranium munitions.

The somewhat surprising fact that the medium- to long-term radiological burden arising from the large-scale battle-field use of depleted-uranium is comparable to that of many kilotons equivalent of fourth-generation nuclear weapons stems from the fact that in these weapons the main source of explosive power is fusion rather than fission. Therefore, the radiological burden induced by the detonation of fourth-generation nuclear weapons derives primarily from the unburnt tritium that is dispersed in the environment by the explosion, and secondarily from the activation of the air, ground, and concrete structures by the neutrons that are produced during the explosion. Since tritium is a relatively “low” radioactive material, very significative amounts of tritium are required to produce a radiological burden comparable to that of the U-238 expended in Iraq or Yugoslavia. This explains why it is meaningful to compare the radiological effect of the conventional-weapon’s use of a relatively harmless nuclear material such as U-238 to the nuclear-weapon’s use of the most important thermonuclear fuel: tritium.

Throughout the paper we tried to remain at the lowest possible technical level in order to make it understandable to as many non-specialists as possible. Similarly, we cite a variety of references to show that there exist many open sources in which the information used in our paper can be found. In particular, concerning the technicalities of thermonuclear weapons and their radiological effects, much can be inferred from papers published in the 1950-60s during the debate over the hydrogen bomb and the atmospheric test of nuclear weapons, e.g., ; papers published during the 1960-70s in support of “peaceful nuclear explosions,” e.g., ; papers published in the 1970-80s during the debate over the “neutron bomb,” e.g., ; and more recent publications related to the quest for fourth-generation nuclear weapons .

The organization of this paper is as follows: In section (1) we calculate an upper limit to the radiological burden due to the battle-field use of depleted-uranium. This burden will be compared in sections 2 and 5 to the corresponding burden calculated by similar methods for the battle-field use of fourth-generation nuclear weapons. In section (2) a simple comparison is made in which the effects of the neutrons produced during the explosion are neglected. In section (3) we calculate the dominant contributions to the delayed radiological effects of the explosion of pure-fusion fourth-generation nuclear weapons. In section (4) we estimate the magnitude of a fourth-generation nuclear weapon’s engagement equivalent to the radiological burden due to the expenditure of a given amount of depleted-uranium ammunition. Finally, in the conclusion, we summarize and discuss the main points established in the paper.

## 2 Upper limit to the radiological burden due to
the battle-field use of depleted-uranium

Armour-piercing munitions containing depleted-uranium (DU) were first used during the 1991 Gulf War, therefore breaking a 46 years long taboo against the intentional use or induction of radioactivity in combat.222Depleted uranium munitions were primarily designed to stop a massive tank attack by the nuclear-armed Warsaw Pact Organization. Despite of this, when the U.S. military’s intention to use uranium bullets became public, the program was denounced in the Congressional Record as “shocking” . Similar ammunition was used more recently in the conflict involving NATO troops in Yugoslavia.

The DU in these anti-tank weapons is initially in solid form, e.g., in the case of the API PGU 14/B projectiles delivered by A-10 ground-attack aircrafts, in the form of a 96 mm long and 16 mm diameters cylinder which constitutes the main component of the armor-piercing penetrators.

“When these penetrators strike a hard target, such as a tank, a large fraction of their kinetic energy is converted into heat in less than a millisecond. This rapid release of energy can convert much of the DU into small, hot fragments and particles. The smaller fragments can burn, generating DU-oxide aerosols. When a penetrator strikes a soft target, such as a personnel carrier, truck, or soil, much less aerosol is generated and much of the DU penetrator may remain intact” \[10, p.132\].

Consequently, there can be much debate about how much of the DU expended in a military campaign has actually been dispersed in the biosphere in the form of aerosols or dust, and how much can be recovered and safely disposed of.

For the purpose of the comparison that is subject of this paper we will make the maximizing assumption that *all* of the DU could have been dispersed so that its radiological impact is directly related to the total amount of DU used in the conflict. This conservative assumption can of course be criticized on several grounds, and we will come back to it in the concluding section. However, it can already be said that the main conclusion of this study will not be affected by this assumption since a corresponding maximizing assumption can be made concerning the dispersal of radioactive materials in the combat use of fourth-generation nuclear weapons.

The overall radiological burden, which we express in units of “Roentgen equivalent for men,” rem,333We use the “old” radiological units (Ci, rad, rem, etc.) in this paper because most of the papers dealing with nuclear weapons, and most of the cited references, still use these units instead of the modern ones: 1 Bq = 1/($`3.7\times 10^{10}`$) Ci, 1 Gy = 100 rad, 1 Sv = 100 rem, etc. is related to the specific radioactivity of the material under consideration, i.e., the number of disintegrations per second and per gram of material. This specific activity $`\alpha `$ is a function of the half-life $`t_{1/2}`$ and the atomic weight $`A`$, and is conventionally normalized relative to the radioactivity of 1 gram of radium-226 whose half-life is 1620 years. Therefore,

$$\alpha =\frac{1620}{t_{1/2}}\times \frac{226}{A}\text{[Ci/g]}.$$
$`(1)`$
For depleted-uranium, i.e., U-238, this gives a specific activity of $`3.4\times 10^7`$ Ci/g which is listed in the last line of Table 1. In order to translate this activity into a radiological burden assuming that somehow the DU will be intaken by human beings, it is necessary to apply a conversion factor which we borrow from the official regulations based on the recommendations of the *International Commission on Radiation Protection* . The concept underlying this conversion is that of the “Equivalent Dose at the Critical Organ” (EDCO), which results in the conversion factors $`D`$ listed in Table 1, that gives a specific burden of $`\beta _U=24`$ rem per gram of U-238 according to the formula

$$\beta =D\times \alpha \text{[rem/g]}.$$
$`(2)`$
The overall burden due to a mass $`m_U`$ of DU is then

$$B(^{238}U)=\beta _Um_U\text{[rem]}$$
$`(3)`$
so that if this equation is applyed to the 400 t of U-238 expended in Iraq, one gets a figure of about $`10^{10}`$ rem, which constitutes the extreme upper limit to the radiological impact of that amount of DU.

## 3 Simplified comparison

It is well known that in nuclear explosions about 5000 to 20000 Ci/kt of tritium are produced by the fusion reaction, while only about 1 Ci/kt of tritium is produced by the fission process .444This is why in some applications of “peaceful nuclear explosions,” such as gas well stimulation, fission devices surrounded by a neutron shield were preferred to fusion devices, despite the fact that fission devices produce large amounts of fission-products, while fusion devices are comparatively much “cleaner” \[5, p.434\] It is also elementary knowledge that *thermonuclear fusion produces an energy equivalent to 133 t of high-explosive for each gram of tritium consumed*, which corresponds to $`1.45\times 10^{24}`$ deuterium-tritium fusion reactions per kt (see, e.g., ). One can therefore derive from these figures a simple estimate of the “tritium-inefficiency” of a thermonuclear explosive, assuming that all its energy yield comes from the burning of tritium, and that the tritium released in the environment is the amount that has not been burnt during the explosion:

$$ϵ=\frac{\text{tritium not burnt during the explosion}}{\text{tritium initially present or produced during the explosion}}.$$
$`(4)`$
This requires to know the specific activity of tritium, which can be calculated using equation (1) and gives the figure listed in the first line of Table 1. Therefore, since $`10^4`$ g of tritium corresponds to 1 Ci, the burning of $`1/0.013375`$ Ci of tritium corresponds to an explosive yield of 1 tons. This means that according to reference  an actual thermonuclear explosive has a tritium-inefficiency of about 7 to 27 %, which is in fair agreement with reference  which assumes $`ϵ=10`$ %.

These estimates show that in terms of tritium economy, thermonuclear explosives are fairly efficient, the efficiency (or burn-up)

$$\eta =1ϵ=\frac{\text{tritium burnt during the explosion}}{\text{tritium initially present or produced during the explosion}}$$
$`(5)`$
being on the order of 73 to 93 % for the high-yield explosives referred to in references .

However, for low-yield thermonuclear explosions, whether in the kiloton range as in “neutron bombs” ,555The neutron bomb, a typical third-generation nuclear weapon, is not a pure-fusion weapon since about half of its explosive power comes from fission. or in the sub-kiloton range as in inertial confinement fusion experiments and fourth-generation nuclear weapons, achievement of high efficiencies is much more difficult and an efficiency of 30 to 50 % is considered as reasonable . Moreover, in such low-yield devices, much less tritium is bred *in situ* during the explosion so that the efficiency $`\eta `$ is essentially equal to the amount of tritium burnt over the amount of tritium initially present in the device.

Therefore, if the short term effects and the radioactivity induced by the neutrons produced in the explosion are neglected, one gets a zeroth order approximation of the delayed radiological impact of a fourth-generation nuclear weapon by assuming that the burden is solely due to the dispersal of the unburnt tritium. Using equations similar to (1) and (2), this burden will be

$$B(^3T)=(1\eta )\beta _Tm_T,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\beta _T`$ is the specific burden listed on the first line of Table 1, and $`m_T`$ the mass of tritium initially present in the weapon.

Combining equations (6) and (3) we can therefore estimate the amount of tritium equivalent to a given amount of DU, i.e.,

$$m_T=\frac{1}{1\eta }\frac{\beta _U}{\beta _T}m_U.$$
$`(7)`$
With a tritium efficiency of of $`\eta =0.5`$, we therefore find that 400 t of DU correspond to 9.6 kg of tritium, which are equivalent to an explosive power of 0.5 $`\times `$ 9.6 kg $`\times `$ 133 kt/kg = 640 kt of high explosives.

## 4 Delayed radiological effects of pure-fusion
fourth-generation nuclear weapons

The delayed radiological effects of the neutrons produced during thermonuclear explosions have been extensively discussed during the hydrogen bomb debate of the 1950s , and to a lesser extent during the neutron bombe debate of the 1980s . In the realm of non-military applications of nuclear energy, the problem of shielding nuclear reactors , and particle accelerators , from the environment has lead to the study of similar problems. Consequently, we know from these studies that there are only a few critical nuclear reactions, i.e., reactions producing radioactive nuclei with a life-time larger than a few years.

For neutrons escaping into the air, the critical reaction is the $`{}_{}{}^{14}N(n,p)^{14}C`$ process in which carbon-14 is produced; and in interactions with the ground (e.g., the soil and concrete structures) the critical reactions are $`{}_{}{}^{23}Na(n,2n)^{22}Na`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{59}Co(n,\gamma )^{60}Co`$ in which sodium-22 and cobalt-60 are produced. The radiobiological characteristics of these nuclei are listed in Table 1. For interactions with other materials, e.g., iron, most activation products are short-lived and their effect can be considered as part of the prompt lethality of the weapon.

In order to simplify the discussion, we will further assume that the fourth-generation nuclear weapons under consideration can be considered of the “pure-fusion” type . Therefore, we assume that they derive the bulk of their explosive power from the deuterium-tritium reaction, and that their overall radiological impact is dominated by this reaction so that the effect of other radioactive materials that may be present in the device can be neglected.

### 4.1 Neutron interactions with the air

In good approximation, the vast majority of neutrons released into the atmosphere are ultimately captured by nitrogen which then decays into carbon-14. Since each tritium nucleus fusing with a deuterium nucleus produces one neutron, $`m_T`$ g of tritium, $`A=3`$, will produce $`\frac{14}{3}m_T`$ g of carbon-14, $`A=14`$. Therefore, the radiological burden due to neutrons interacting with air will be

$$B_a(^{14}C)=\frac{14}{3}\varphi _a\beta _C\eta m_T$$
$`(8)`$
where $`\varphi _a`$ is the fraction of neutrons escaping into the atmosphere, and $`\beta _C`$ the specific burden of carbon-14 (see Table 1).

### 4.2 Neutron interactions with concrete structures

We assume for concrete a typical composition of the kind used in normal construction which contains about 0.5 % of sodium per weight \[13, Table.22a\]. For comparison, a special barytes concrete of the kind used in nuclear reactor shielding contains only about 0.1 % of sodium per weight \[13, Table.22b\].

The fraction of neutrons which interact with the sodium nuclei and produce the radioactive isotope sodium-22 is given by the macroscopic activation cross-section

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{act}=\kappa n\sigma $$
$`(9)`$
where $`\kappa `$ is the concentration of sodium nuclei in the concrete, $`n`$ the nuclear density, and $`\sigma `$ the fusion-neutron sodium-22 activation cross-section given by  (see Table 2).

Similarly to the argument that lead to equation (7), since each tritium nucleus fusing with a deuterium nucleus produces one neutron, the radiological burden due to neutrons interacting with concrete is

$$B_c(^{22}Na)=\frac{22}{3}\varphi _c\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{act}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{abs}}\beta _{Na}\eta m_T$$
$`(10)`$
where $`\varphi _c`$ is the fraction of neutrons escaping into concrete and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{abs}`$ the macroscopic fusion-neutron absorption cross-section of concrete \[7, p.186\] (see Table 2).

### 4.3 Neutron interactions with the soil

Contrary to air, the chemical composition of the soil can considerably vary from place to place. The average concentration of sodium in rocks can vary from less than 1 % (average limestone) to about 4 % (average igneous rock). Moreover, the sodium concentration will obviously be significantly higher in coastal regions because of the proximity of sea water. In the case of cobalt, reference  gives a concentration of $`10^5`$ which seems rather high compared to other sources. In the present paper we take the soil composition used in reference , a cobalt concentration of $`10^6`$ together with the cobalt-60 activation cross-section given by , and the macroscopic fusion-neutron absorption cross-section in soil published in \[7, p.184\] (see Table 3).

By the same reasoning that lead to equation (10), the contributions $`B_s(^{22}Na)`$ and $`B_s(^{60}Co)`$ to the radiological burden due to neutrons interacting with the soil are given by equations identical to (9) and (10), where all variables and parameters are given the appropriate values.

## 5 Fourth-generation nuclear weapons yield equivalent do the radiological burden due to the use of depleted-uranium munitions

Collecting the results of the two previous sections, the overall burden is

$$B(\eta ,m_T)=B(^3T)+B_a(^{14}C)+B_c(^{22}Na)+B_s(^{22}Na)+B_s(^{60}Co)$$
$`(10)`$
which becomes, putting all the numbers in,

$$B(\eta ,m_T)=2\times 10^6(1\eta )m_T$$

$$+\left(6.5\times 10^3\varphi _a+8\times 10^4\varphi _c+6\times 10^4\varphi _s+9\times 10^3\varphi _s\right)\eta m_T$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\varphi _a+\varphi _c+\varphi _s=1`$. This expression gives, as a function of the tritium burn-up $`\eta `$, the radiological burden in units of rem due to the combustion of $`\eta m_T`$ g of tritium, which correspond to an explosive yield of

$$Y=133\eta m_T\text{[t HE]}$$
$`(12)`$
tons equivalent of high-explosives (HE).

Expression (11) shows that for “ground bursts” (i.e., explosions due to the engagement of targets on the ground) the radiological burden due to neutron interactions is dominated by the activation of concrete structures and the soil because in this case it is likely that $`\varphi _a<\varphi _c+\varphi _s`$. Moreover, the combined numerical factor obtained by adding the contributions of the activation of $`{}_{}{}^{22}Na`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{60}Co`$ in the soil is $`6.9\times 10^4`$, i.e., nearly equal to the factor multiplying the contribution of concrete. Therefore, in the case of ground bursts, we can simplify (11) and write

$$B_g(\eta ,m_T)2\times 10^6(1\eta )m_T+8\times 10^4\varphi _g\eta m_T$$
$`(13)`$
where $`\varphi _g=\varphi _c+\varphi _s`$ is the fraction of neutrons interacting with the ground (i.e., not escaping into air).

The first conclusion that can be draw from (11) and (13) is that for tritium burn-ups on the order of $`\eta 0.5`$ the radiological burden is to a good approximation determined by the dispersal of the unburnt tritium — so that the assumption made in section 2 was justified.

The second conclusion is that in ground bursts the contribution from the ground materials’s activation becomes only important when $`\eta `$ gets close to one, more precisely, when

$$\eta 1\frac{8\times 10^4}{2\times 10^6}\varphi _g,$$
$`(14)`$
i.e., $`\eta 0.96`$ for $`\varphi _g=1`$.

We can therefore make two extreme assumptions to estimate the amount of tritium, and thus the explosive yield, equivalent to the radiological burden of a given amount of DU:

* $`\eta <0.9`$ Combining (7) and (12):

$$Y133\frac{\eta }{1\eta }\frac{\beta _U}{\beta _T}m_U\text{[t-HE/g-DU]}.$$
$`(15)`$
* $`\eta >0.9`$ Combining (3), (12), and (13):

$$Y133\frac{1}{\varphi _g}\frac{\beta _U}{8\times 10^4}m_U\text{[t-HE/g-DU]}.$$
$`(16)`$

As can be seen, (15) corresponds to a lower-limit of the yield, while (16) gives an upper limit which corresponds to the fact that in high-tritium-efficiency pure-fusion weapons the radiological burden is dominated by the neutron activation of the materials in the proximity of the explosion.

## 6 Conclusion

The main technical result of this paper are equations (15) and (16) which give reasonable estimates of the total explosive yield of a hypothetical engagement of fourth-generation nuclear weapons that would result in the same radiological burden as a given total amount of depleted uranium expended in combat. In deriving these equations the respective radiological burdens of the two types of weapon systems are used only as a means for comparing their relative medium- to long-term radiological impacts on human beings and the environment. The absolute values of the burdens calculated in this paper should therefore not be trusted. However, since similar conservative assumptions are made for both types of weapon systems, the *ratio* of these burdens provides a significative means for comparing their respective delayed radiological impacts, and to derive the yields given by equations (15) and (16).

In particular, the assumption made in section 2 of “total dispersal” of the depleted-uranium is matched by the assumption that the unburnt tritium is also totally dispersed in the environment. In order to improve the accuracy of our comparison one would have to study complicated scenarios of the engagment of both types of weapon systems, which may imply many self-compensating hypothesis that are not likely to significantly change our major conclusion — *that the expenditure of many tons of DU has a radiological impact comparable to the combat use of many kilotons of pure-fusion thermonuclear explosives*.

Indeed, assuming a tritium burn-up of 50 % ($`\eta =0.5)`$ in equation (15), and that half of the neutrons interact with the ground ($`\varphi _g=0.5)`$ in equation (16), we get a total yield of circa 60 kt, respectively 3 Mt, in the expenditure of 40 t of depleted-uranium as in Yugoslavia — and ten times more in Iraq.

These total explosive yields mean that in order to match the radiological burden due to the combat use of depleted-uranium in these countries, one could have hypothetically used several thousands precision guided delivery systems, each carrying a fourth-generation nuclear warhead with a yield in range of one to hundred *tons* of high-explosive equivalent, instead of the few tens or hundreds of *kilograms* of high-explosives currently delivered by these systems.

Such a possibility, which is far from being hypothetical , is shedding a dramatic light on the strategic-political significance of the breaking of the taboo against the battle-field use of depleted-uranium. Of course, it has been repeatedly stated that the absolute burden due to the combat use of depleted uranium is small , but such a use is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of a norm that was in force since 1945.