All this talk of a worst genocide assumes, as i've pointed out, that the Nuclear arsenal is stored in Serbian dominated regions. If its in say, deep within future Croatia and the Serbians aren't able to obtain it before that no longer becomes possible... well that suddenly becomes a massive problem for the Serbians. Did this program advance far enough that we have any idea what their plans were for basing and delivery methods?
WI: Yugoslavia with nuclear weapons
- Thread starter Mort the Reaper
- Start date
Unless there was some sort of major change politically and socially (i.e. the population sees themselves a "Yugoslavian", not Serbian or Croatian or Bosnian or Orthodox or Catholic or Muslim) there is an even money chance that the world sees at least one NUDET, possible more. That in turn puts a 1 in 10 chance of an extended war including NATO members and Russia on the table, with all that implies.
And how would the Yugoslav Wars be affected by a nuclear-armed Yugoslavia, CalBear?
Depends who is holding them and if they can get through whatever steps are needed to enable the weapons (as an example, U.S. and British warheads are unhealthy paperweights without the proper codes these days, in the 1970s that was much less the case). If only one side has access and can enable them it's 6:5 & pick'em if a weapon is used (the shocking levels of brutality shown during the Civil War rather speaks for itself). Now if all the players can hold everyone else hostage, it may become a MAD scenario.
There is also a really good chance that there is a multi-national attempt to secure any weapon stockpile early in the War. That has a slightly better than even money chance of at least disabling a smaller stockpile.
Good point and we could end up in a race between the VDV & a NATO QRF to do so, which hopefully doesn't end with a Pristina airport incident that turns hot ITTL.
One important bit that needs to be dispelled is that during the late 1980's and during the war Serbian leadership wasn't a nationalistic one. It was an opportunistic one cloaked in nationalism that decided to stoke nationalistic feelings among the population and ride the wave for their own economic benefit.
On top of that as the YPA while having a plurality of its personnel of Serbian descent was not a Serb nationalists tool until some time into the actual conflict. The army leadership was even considering a clean slate coup that would have removed leaderships in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia at the same time. What turned YPA into a "serbia" army was the leaving of personnel of other ethnicities and because the goal of preserving Yugoslavia in the end overlapped with the goal of creating greater serbia.
Yugoslavia with nuclear capabilities would be too dangerous to be pushed down the spiral of collapse as happened in OTL, not to mention mechanisms within the state that could have acted at various points during that spiral would be more motivated to do so understanding what an eventual civil war in a nuclear armed state could result in.
I mean just take a look at N.Korea that has a comparable population size to SFRY at the time of dissolution but double the size and on top of that is in the heart of Europe. If world actors aren't willing to risk destabilising N.Korea I doubt they would be willing to do the same to SFRY.
On top of that as the YPA while having a plurality of its personnel of Serbian descent was not a Serb nationalists tool until some time into the actual conflict. The army leadership was even considering a clean slate coup that would have removed leaderships in Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia at the same time. What turned YPA into a "serbia" army was the leaving of personnel of other ethnicities and because the goal of preserving Yugoslavia in the end overlapped with the goal of creating greater serbia.
Yugoslavia with nuclear capabilities would be too dangerous to be pushed down the spiral of collapse as happened in OTL, not to mention mechanisms within the state that could have acted at various points during that spiral would be more motivated to do so understanding what an eventual civil war in a nuclear armed state could result in.
I mean just take a look at N.Korea that has a comparable population size to SFRY at the time of dissolution but double the size and on top of that is in the heart of Europe. If world actors aren't willing to risk destabilising N.Korea I doubt they would be willing to do the same to SFRY.
Last edited:
This assumption would be true. Belgrade was the capital, and YPA was run from there. The highest-ranking generals were mostly Serbs.
Yugoslavian Civil War was so brutal because the war went so close to the civilians and no party was dominant enough to end the war. The threat of nuclear strike will make the dynamics of the civil war so lopsided there's probably is no war at all. If nuclear weapons make the dynamic asymmetrical there could be extended independence-motivated terror campaigns like IRA / ETA had.
Last edited:
Any chance if rump Yugoslavia unofficially becomes greater Serbia instead opting to partition Croatia between its self and Greater Slovenia leaving behind a minimalist Croatia?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Inversely (and likely less dystopian) is there any chance of reviving the Cvetkovic-Macek agreement as the basis for a partition of Bosnia between Serbia and Croatia by restoring the briefly existing Banovia of Croatia in order to make a maximal Croatia (it existed between 1939 and 1941 as a internal compromise in the Yugoslav state between the Croatians and Serbs with the latter set to likly also get a Banovia of serbia which never came to fruition do to the nazies and niether plan was restored after the war)?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
United Slovenia - Wikipedia
Greater Serbia - Wikipedia
Banovina of Croatia - Wikipedia
Banovina of Serbia - Wikipedia
Partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina - Wikipedia
Cvetković–Maček Agreement - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Mostly they were, but Italy retained an indigenous nuclear weapons programme until (IIRR) 1975. A communist nuclear state on it's border would have weakened the influence of the anti-nuclear Communist party in this matter and strengthened the CDs; Yugoslavian weapons could not have been subject to Soviet control and the Italians may have considered they needed a non-NATO, non-US, arsenal of their own.
Now historically there were actually two serious Yugoslavian programmes to develop nuclear weapons; the first was from the late '40s until about 1962 (and the beginnings of the NPT) and the second was much later in the 1980s, ending in 1987. Italy's serious exploration of the idea began in 1955, and was pursued more-or-less jointly with Sweden and Switzerland (both of whom continued into at least the late '60s). I can well see the Italians watching Yugoslavia develop nuclear weapons and deciding to continue it's own programme to completion, probably bringing it's partners along too. So this is likely to kill the NPT; in 1960 there were five nuclear states historically, now there could be nine and all the other potential nuclear weapon powers will be encouraged. Depending on the US administration I could see them assisting the Italian programme covertly, in an attempt to influence it.
Now while Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia are NANA the fact that Italy has nuclear weapons is likely to cause a general NATO push, which is likely to persuade both the European members and the US that the MNF (which Italy was a proponent of) is a better solution.
There may well be further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and their delivery systems. Japan was studying the matter in the late '60s (quietly given the political opposition) before it decided on its current strategy. Norway, Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, Taiwan, South Korea and Iran are likely candidates to continue their historical programmes and India and Pakistan to accelerate their (Israel probably has the capability by 1965, certainly by '67). Egypt and Argentina less so.
The US was often quite willing to assist actual nuclear weapon states with PAL technology for that reason, however it was not trusted.
The UK never deployed any PAL system, both the RAF and RN vehemently opposed such devices; tactical weapons were keyed (with something less secure than an average bicycle lock). There was never any 'dual key' or combination lock.