How I learned to love the bomb (AHC: 36 powers with the bomb)

[Pragmatic Progressive]

Before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, experts were predicting three dozen nuclear powers by the year 2000. The NNPT has had its problems, but no one really expected it to do as well as it has at the time, especially because early on many countries refrained from signing.

How can you get 36 powers with the bomb by 2000, with a POD in 1945 at the earliest, i.e. after World War II? Which powers would that be? Would all of these powers be as rational as we know it, or would the bomb be used once or more in war?
What about civil and proxy wars? Would we see World War III, if 36 powers had nukes?

 

[Lalli]

Including current nuclear powers (if we suppose that Israel has the bomb, so there is nine nuclear weapon countries), there hardly could be many more. But these could be possible too:

Sweden (it had nuclear program on 1950's and 1960's)
South Africa (continues that on 21st century)
Iran (perhaps with surviving monarchy)
Germany and Japan could be possible but not very plausible
Spain could continue its own nuclear program
Brazil, Argentina and Mexico could be possible
Indonesia
Australia and Canada perhaps could get their own nuclear weapons.
Israel could let Iraq continue its own nuclear program on 1980's. But this probably demand more democratic country.
Perhaps Syria too?

So 23 countries could have nuclear weapons.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Don't forget Yugoslavia, which was grouped with Israel, South Korea, South Africa, and Taiwan as "Nuclear Capable" states back in the 70's.

 

[freivolk]

Germany and Japan could be possible but not very plausible
.

Still in the 1960th every Egghead was convinced, that nuclear-armend Germany and Japan were just behind the Corner. (and nuclear-armend Israel and India were quite unrealistic)

I think Switzerland had also a nuclear program (they wanted to test the bomb on a Glacier).

France, Germany and Italy had in 1958 a aggrement to produce nukes together, but DeGaulle cancelled it.

 

[Mike D]

Germany and Japan could be possible but not very plausible

I'd say both are more plausible than states like Argentina or Indonesia getting nuclear weapons - Japan has nuclear power plants which produce plutonium and the capability to build delivery systems (ie ICBMs). Germany shared NATO nuclear weapons during the Cold War (B61 tactical nuclear bombs to be carried by Luftwaffe Tornados).

 

[Seleucus]

A Soviet nasty breakup with nuclear states everywhere would do it.

 

[Kung Fucious]

I'd say both are more plausible than states like Argentina or Indonesia getting nuclear weapons - Japan has nuclear power plants which produce plutonium and the capability to build delivery systems (ie ICBMs). Germany shared NATO nuclear weapons during the Cold War (B61 tactical nuclear bombs to be carried by Luftwaffe Tornados).

What would prompt Japan to build nukes? Same goes for West Germany, which would be a hell of a provocation for the Warsaw Pact.

 

[Mike D]

What would prompt Japan to build nukes? Same goes for West Germany, which would be a hell of a provocation for the Warsaw Pact.

Japan has at least four or five possible nuclear states within a short missile hop (Soviet Union, both Chinas and both Koreas) while (West) Germany has the 3rd Shock Army camped just over the border and is already part of a nuclear alliance.

I wouldn't have though it would take all that many changes to see either develop their own nuclear weapons.

 

[TumblrShipper]

What would prompt Japan to build nukes? Same goes for West Germany, which would be a hell of a provocation for the Warsaw Pact.

re-isolationist USA & a fear that France and the UK will throw the Germans to the wolves (WARPAC) in exchange for peace.

 

[Kung Fucious]

Japan has at least four or five possible nuclear states within a short missile hop (Soviet Union, both Chinas and both Koreas) while (West) Germany has the 3rd Shock Army camped just over the border and is already part of a nuclear alliance.

I wouldn't have though it would take all that many changes to see either develop their own nuclear weapons.

Japan would have to have both a serious cultural shift (and we're talking a seismic, here) and an absolutely unquestionable existential threat to their existence (along the lines of China in Fear and Loathing, which is basically Super North Korea), and zero faith in the United States ability to defend them from outside aggression. That's a lot of dominoes that need to topple before Japan decides to build a nuclear weapon.

West Germany has a similar series of difficult boxes that need to be checked (desire for nukes, lack of faith in NATO/the United States), and you also have to contend with the fact that a Nuclear armed West Germany would be a clear and present danger to East Germany, and by extension, the rest of the Warsaw Pact.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I imagine you could get some sort of commonwealth POD where the UK shares development with Canada, Australia, South Africa (not under NP rule) and New Zealand, that would make 5 where there had been 1.

That is not to say NZ would be building lots of bombs or ICBMs or the like, just in possession and maybe able to service or build new ones, in combination with the others.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Traveling at the moment so I don't have my documents (declassified CIA reports on proliferation risks from the 1960s) but it was believed then that Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands were likely to get a nuclear capability in the 1960s. Sweden and Switzerland were considered highly likely, India and Israel less so but probable. Canada was considered a dead cert - they were, after all, part of the Manhattan Project. There weren't too many real surprises, but the reports actually went so far as to predict the year in which the various countries would gain nuclear capability.

 

[sloreck]

Well, if Israel gets the bomb before any Arab powers, and that's almost 100% even in a big time proliferation POD, they will never, ever let an Arab power (or a hostile Iran as opposed to Shah) get the bomb.

One problem with this sort of massive proliferation is that the infrastructure to produce bombs/fissile material is very expensive, even to produce just a few bombs, and also delivery systems. Sure you can share costs, but there is the issue of where infrastructure is built if several countries "share" either you put different bits in each country (inefficient) or if in one country an issue of trust. Also once production starts, if several countries share who gets first "production model" especially if production slow.

For NATO countries (other than UK & France) as long as NATO & the US shield exist why should they expend huge amounts of money to build a small number of bombs, and then spend to buy/develop bombers/missiles to deliver them? For countries in South America, Mexico, why nukes are of what use - unless the whole area gets in to a crazy arms race they cannot afford.

If you had this many countries with nukes, I'm afraid you'd see them used either in local wars or even cases like the Falklands War, imagine Argentina dropping a nuke on the invading British fleet or over the islands if the Uk was on the verge of taking them back - gets worse from there. Of course the possibility of sale or theft of nukes to terrorists goes up the more that are around.

 

[Delta Force]

I came up with almost four dozen, actually:

Pre-PoD:
1. United States
2. Soviet Union
3. United Kingdom
4. France
5. PRC

Post-PoD (1960s):
6. Australia (defense against Communist Indonesia, Commonwealth assistance)
7. Canada (tactical use by RCN and RCAF)
8. Israel (historical reasons)

Post-PoD (1970s):

9. Sweden (maintenance of neutrality and independent nuclear shield)
10. Switzerland (maintenance of neutrality and independent nuclear shield)
11. Yugoslavia (defense against Soviet Union, help from NATO)
12. Nationalist Spain (Franco wanted a Spanish nuclear program)
13. Albania (defense against Soviet Union, help/purchased from PRC)

14. India (defense against PRC, Soviet help)
15. Pakistan (defense against India, Commonwealth/United States help)
16. Communist Indonesia (Australia has them, help from PRC and/or Soviet Union)

17. Argentina (historically strong nuclear program, nuclear weapons legitimized)
18. Brazil (defense against Argentina)
19. Chile (defense against Argentina and Brazil)

20. South Africa (historical reasons)

Post-PoD (1980s, massive breakout):

21. West Germany (NATO pressure)
22. Italy (NATO pressure)
23. Greece (rivalry with Turkey)
24. Nationalist Portugal (nationalism)

25. Democratic People's Republic of Korea (historical reasons)
26. Republic of China (defense against PRC and others)
27. Japan (earlier remilitarization, defense against everyone else, even the DPRK has a bomb)
28. Burma (defense against others and independent nuclear shield)
29. Malaysia (defense against everyone else)
30. Singapore (defense against everyone else, unable to field a large army)

31. Imperial Iran (seems like something the Shah would do)
32. Turkey (Israel and Iran have them)
33. Egypt (Israel has them, Arab bomb)
34. Saudi Arabia (defense against Israel and Iran, rivalry with Egypt)
35. Iraq (defense against everyone else)
36. Syria (defense against everyone else, rivalry with Iraq)

37. Algeria (Maghreb bomb)
38. Libya (Gaddafi or the King wants it, unable to field a large army)

Post-PoD (1990s, massive breakout):

39. Vietnam (defense against everyone else, help from Soviet Union)
40. Philippines (defense against everyone else, help from the United States)

41. Colombia (everyone else is doing it)
42. Venezuela (everyone else is doing it)

43. Jordan (defense against everyone else)
44. United Arab Emirates (defense against everyone else, unable to field large army)
45. Kuwait (defense against everyone else, unable to field large army)

46. Nigeria (African bomb)
47. Angola (rivalry with Nigeria)

 

[SAVORYapple]

I came up with almost four dozen, actually:

I'd remove some of the Arab states or delay their acquisition of the bomb, since Mossad will definitely be playing merry hell with their nuclear programs, like they were doing OTL to Iraq's.

But still, quite a sobering list.

 

[Delta Force]

I'd remove some of the Arab states or delay their acquisition of the bomb, since Mossad will definitely be playing merry hell with their nuclear programs, like they were doing OTL to Iraq's.

But still, quite a sobering list.

It's unscientific of course, but I noticed that the number of nuclear weapons states tends to double almost every decade in the list I made. The 1990s could very well be worse due to the number of weapons states and the ease of developing such weapons even in OTL 1990s.

In a way, nuclear proliferation seems to be a chain reaction of its own, as it appears that each state leads to more than one other state acquiring weapons by assisting it or encouraging it to acquire such weapons due to being a rival or enemy nation. The other thing is that once enough nuclear weapons states emerge, there doesn't really need to be as much immediate reason to do so beyond others having such weapons or general fear of not acquiring nuclear weapons. If you can stop proliferation early on, you might be able to contain it, but it seems that eventually the chain reaction reaches a critical mass and just leads to panicked acquisition of nuclear weapons.

It almost models something like this:
1940: 1.25 states
1950: 2.5 states
1960: 5 states
1970: 10 states
1980: 20 states
1990: 40 states
2000: 80 states
2010: 160 states, saturation

At saturation, only the states that aren't going to acquire nuclear weapons for whatever reason are likely to remain without them. The Vatican probably isn't going to acquire nuclear weapons, and other states with moral reservations about nuclear weapons or that are too small or don't have enough money to do so (Palau, Lichtenstein, etc.) probably wouldn't acquire them either.

Still, that's a rather interesting potential pattern.

 

[SAVORYapple]

Still, that's a rather interesting potential pattern.

Also a recipe for a disaster, since increasing the number of state actors with nuclear weapons increases the chance of someone pressing the big red button. On the other hand, the world might generally be a somewhat more peaceful (but tense) place, since there'll be mini-MAD situations all over the place (Small Country A having enough nukes to destroy all countervalue targets of Small Country B, and vice versa).

 

[Delta Force]

Also a recipe for a disaster, since increasing the number of state actors with nuclear weapons increases the chance of someone pressing the big red button. On the other hand, the world might generally be a somewhat more peaceful (but tense) place, since there'll be mini-MAD situations all over the place (Small Country A having enough nukes to destroy all countervalue targets of Small Country B, and vice versa).

The key to deterrence theory, and realist theory in general, is that it examines the actions of rational state actors. If one of the states that acquires a nuclear weapon isn't rational or loses it to a non-state actor, deterrence breaks down. That's before you get into situations of asymmetric information and other issues that could lead to a problem with deterrence.

Also, all that only applies to deliberate acts. More nuclear weapons means more of a risk of an accident, and smaller and more vulnerable states without second strike capabilities (most landlocked powers) aren't going to have the ability to wait things out to see what happens if things don't look right like the great powers and larger nations can.

 

[jlckansas]

With the USSR out of the way, Poland and the Czech's could be on target to get the bomb. They have the scientific an technical know how to make them, all they would need would be the Nuclear infrastructure.


In Japan you might not need that many people who need to know about the bombs. They have all 3 things needed to make them, scientific, technical and nuclear, they even have reactors that make Plutonium. All you need is a place secure enough and people who keep their mouths shut.

 

[TumblrShipper]

With the USSR out of the way, Poland and the Czech's could be on target to get the bomb. .

Poland might be able to get nuclear weapons even WHEN it is part of the WARPAC, as OTL there apparently was a program for Poland to develop hydrogen weapons.

I came up with almost four dozen, actually:

<snip>Pre-PoD:
11. Yugoslavia (defense against Soviet Union, help from NATO)

I think Yugoslavia also developed nukes for defense against the NATO also. They were non-aligned after all

32. Turkey (Israel and Iran have them)

Also, rivalry with Greece, and defense from USSR/NATO pressure

39. Vietnam (defense against everyone else, help from Soviet Union)

Mainly the PR China I think

40. Philippines (defense against everyone else, help from the United States)

Filipino Wanks lol

41. Colombia (everyone else is doing it)
42. Venezuela (everyone else is doing it)

lol

46. Nigeria (African bomb)
47. Angola (rivalry with Nigeria)

Why wouldnt Nigeria engage in rivalry with South Africa? Also I think Ethiopia would get nukes before Angols