AHC: Highest number of nuclear-armed states
- Thread starter Laqueesha
- Start date
It only takes ww2 era technology to build a nuke and that's nearly 100 years old. Pretty much any middle income country or above can do it plus the biggest ones (Indonesia etc).
Brazil and Argentina are believe to have tried OTL. South Africa had some I think. Sweden had a go too.
Brazil and Argentina are believe to have tried OTL. South Africa had some I think. Sweden had a go too.
Riain
Banned
With a PoD of 1940 perhaps the most fertile area would be Britain. A better arrangement with the US regarding the Manhattan project for starters could see the British have their independent weapon before the Soviets. If this was combined with a reduction in costly military fuckups during the war Britain could be in the position to have its own dual key arrangements with the Commonwealth and Dominions having offshoot weapons projects.
Sweden could easily be made a nuclear power and was in fact very close OTL but decided to buy new jets instead of nukes. And thanks to Swedish nukes the Norwegians might use their oil money to get some nukes for themselves.
Commonwealth nukes are easy. Give the Tuber Alloy Program some lucky breaks to get earlier British nukes, then make the world more violent and relations with the USSR colder so that Brotain has something to fear. Than remove the American nuclear umbrella by chilling those relations with some worse analogous Suez Crisis. In fact if you can break NATO that would do wonders, but that might be hard to do.
For European proliferation have France start its nuclear weapons program right after WWII, because they don't want to ever be under the threat of invasion again. Then prevent the NATO nuke sharing deal, weaken NATO, and make the USSR more belligerent, so that the Europeans are more worried about the possibility of a soviet invasion. Now just have the Europeans focus on nuclear weapons programs to protect themselves. Also have some incidents between Spain and other countries to give Spain a reason to seriously pursue a nuclear program.
In Asia have Pakistan and India be more stable post division but still aggressive with each other over Kashmir. This way you can promote earlier nuclear programs there.
The Middle East needs a bigger humiliation for the Arabs in their first war with the Israelis and higher oil prices to give the Arabs a reason to seek nukes earlier and to give them a way to accomplish that task.
Finally worsen relations between Chile, Argentina, and Brazil in South America and its possible to get them to all have nukes.
Commonwealth nukes are easy. Give the Tuber Alloy Program some lucky breaks to get earlier British nukes, then make the world more violent and relations with the USSR colder so that Brotain has something to fear. Than remove the American nuclear umbrella by chilling those relations with some worse analogous Suez Crisis. In fact if you can break NATO that would do wonders, but that might be hard to do.
For European proliferation have France start its nuclear weapons program right after WWII, because they don't want to ever be under the threat of invasion again. Then prevent the NATO nuke sharing deal, weaken NATO, and make the USSR more belligerent, so that the Europeans are more worried about the possibility of a soviet invasion. Now just have the Europeans focus on nuclear weapons programs to protect themselves. Also have some incidents between Spain and other countries to give Spain a reason to seriously pursue a nuclear program.
In Asia have Pakistan and India be more stable post division but still aggressive with each other over Kashmir. This way you can promote earlier nuclear programs there.
The Middle East needs a bigger humiliation for the Arabs in their first war with the Israelis and higher oil prices to give the Arabs a reason to seek nukes earlier and to give them a way to accomplish that task.
Finally worsen relations between Chile, Argentina, and Brazil in South America and its possible to get them to all have nukes.
Last edited:
Wow; this is an alarming scenario, lol. One school of thought advocates that everyone having nukes doesn't really deter everyone else, due to the M.A.D. theory.
Here is a list:
1. USA
2. UK
3. France
4. Israel, yes I know but everyone knows they have them.
5. Russia
6. PRC
7. Pakistan
8. India
9. South Africa, had them gave them up.
10 North Korea
Could have really easy:
1. Japan
2. Germany
3. Sweden
4. South Korea
5. Republic of China, Taiwan
6. Brazil
7. Poland
8. Italy
9. Australia
10. New Zealand
11. Iran
12. Iraq
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Egypt
15. Chile
16. Argentina
17. Canada,OOPS should have put them higher.
18.Czech republic
19. Yugoslavia, before they imploded.
20. Turkey
ALot of folks could make one, they have the talent, technology and money to do it. They just choose for what ever reason not to. Would not be surprised that Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, and Yugoslavia before it imploded, had or have plans to put one together really darn quick if they had to.
1. USA
2. UK
3. France
4. Israel, yes I know but everyone knows they have them.
5. Russia
6. PRC
7. Pakistan
8. India
9. South Africa, had them gave them up.
10 North Korea
Could have really easy:
1. Japan
2. Germany
3. Sweden
4. South Korea
5. Republic of China, Taiwan
6. Brazil
7. Poland
8. Italy
9. Australia
10. New Zealand
11. Iran
12. Iraq
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Egypt
15. Chile
16. Argentina
17. Canada,OOPS should have put them higher.
18.Czech republic
19. Yugoslavia, before they imploded.
20. Turkey
ALot of folks could make one, they have the talent, technology and money to do it. They just choose for what ever reason not to. Would not be surprised that Japan, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, and Yugoslavia before it imploded, had or have plans to put one together really darn quick if they had to.
Riain
Banned
Owning nuclear weapons is a pain in the arse. There are huge and costly fixed overheads (for example a budget crunch cannot be used as an excuse to not upgrade the nuclear delivery system, not matter what financial crisis you are going through) and a lot of serious policy that needs to be properly thought out, agreed to in a multi-partisan fashion and then stuck to through thick and thin and not changed without a similar prolonged and multi-partisan process. Without a serious, prolonged military threat there are few countries that would want that sort of hassle.
War ends before deployment
If the war ended before they were dropped, then I would expect a fair number of nations to have them that, in OTL, don't. The understanding of just how horrible they are won't be there...so others will want the BIG BOMB. Of course, deployable weapons are another story, at first, due to the aircraft needed to carry them...but that changes quickly enough.
If the war ended before they were dropped, then I would expect a fair number of nations to have them that, in OTL, don't. The understanding of just how horrible they are won't be there...so others will want the BIG BOMB. Of course, deployable weapons are another story, at first, due to the aircraft needed to carry them...but that changes quickly enough.
NamelesStatistic
Banned
Pretty much any developed country with a significant industrial base could build nuclear weapons in a couple ears if they wanted to, they just don't want to. Not only is it expensive to build them, but they are expensive just to maintain and have limited use for most developed countries that are not superpowers or great powers, especially if you are in a defense alliance with the US (and UK and France) which provides them with nuclear protection at no cost. So your challenge is really to make the rest of the developed world WANT to make nuclear weapons and be willing to pay for them, because otherwise countries like Canada, Australia and Japan (which all have the nuclear technology and fissable material to crash build a nuke in a matter of months if need be) will just continue to use their reactors to produce energy or to export abroad (eg. India's nuclear material for its nuclear program was from a Canadian nuclear reactor that was sold to India). How you will do this is an interesting quandary, essentially you have to somehow raise an external existential treat to these countries that itself has a nuclear arsenal and remove the US nuclear shield so that these countries are obliged to build their own nuclear arsenals.
Good lord, just give everyone f'n Metal Gears and be done with it lol.
Yeah, I made a thread about that.....
If you want really big numbers why not just get the USA to use them in the Korean war ?
Have them just be bigger conventional weapons and then just have at least tactical weapons sold to any client states that want/can afford them ?
You would get a very long list,
all of NATO, all WP, most of Commonwealth etc......
Have them just be bigger conventional weapons and then just have at least tactical weapons sold to any client states that want/can afford them ?
You would get a very long list,
all of NATO, all WP, most of Commonwealth etc......
The cost of nuclear weapons isn't the weapons themselves but the delivery system.
The most effective delivery system, SSBNs, are also the most costly. ICBMs are expensive but no-where near the cost of SSBNs while aircraft are usually dual use making them very low cost.
Australia was seriously looking at nuclear weapons in the 50s and 60s. If the Australian was as scared of Indonesia as the military was we probably would have gotten them. If we stayed out of Vietnam or Vietnam was more tasteful we would probably still have them.
Can't see Australia having boomers but I definitely can see Australia having gravity bombs as well as air and sea launched cruise missiles. We could potentially have ICBMs (we have plenty of unused land for them) but I think they are too expensive.
(snip)
You just showed the reason that others might need/want nuclear weapons. The USA becomes isolationist again, and European nations, secure behind their nuclear forces, simply concern themselves with domestic affairs and insuring that they can trade freely for oil. (And their nukes are sufficeint to tell the USSR, "You can invade if you want to--but MAD is in effect..."
In short, areas of the world that the USA doesn't care to defend, and that don't want someone else marching in, may want them.
You just showed the reason that others might need/want nuclear weapons. The USA becomes isolationist again, and European nations, secure behind their nuclear forces, simply concern themselves with domestic affairs and insuring that they can trade freely for oil. (And their nukes are sufficeint to tell the USSR, "You can invade if you want to--but MAD is in effect..."
In short, areas of the world that the USA doesn't care to defend, and that don't want someone else marching in, may want them.
I believe that Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan inherited some nukes from the fall of the Soviet Union, but returned them all to Russia. Maybe they could've kept them as a deterrent against any potential threats (be it the EU/NATO for Ukraine and Belarus or China for Kazakhstan or Russia)?
With a PoD of 1940 or even 1950, there could be dozens of nuclear armed nations.
Assume that NonProliferation fails. Israel openly admits it has one, India and Pakistan get theirs, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil, then Chile has to get one to match Argentina, then Peru to match Chile...
Canada and Sweden decide they can't be left out, then Italy and Spain.
The USSR 'assists' Warsaw Pact nations to get theirs.
Which leads to the US/Britain/France selling weapons to other NATO countries, and France starts selling openly to just about anyone with cash. Pakistan sells to any Muslim country...
The price of Uranium climbs, more reserves are discovered, and enriched Uranium power plants become far less sustainable.
Slow and fast breeders come into vogue.
So....
I'm guessing that basically any country with a 'modern' jet fighter force (which they need for delivery, anyway) will have bought a bomb or two.
So. 50 nations?
Assume that NonProliferation fails. Israel openly admits it has one, India and Pakistan get theirs, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil, then Chile has to get one to match Argentina, then Peru to match Chile...
Canada and Sweden decide they can't be left out, then Italy and Spain.
The USSR 'assists' Warsaw Pact nations to get theirs.
Which leads to the US/Britain/France selling weapons to other NATO countries, and France starts selling openly to just about anyone with cash. Pakistan sells to any Muslim country...
The price of Uranium climbs, more reserves are discovered, and enriched Uranium power plants become far less sustainable.
Slow and fast breeders come into vogue.
So....
I'm guessing that basically any country with a 'modern' jet fighter force (which they need for delivery, anyway) will have bought a bomb or two.
So. 50 nations?
Delta Force
Banned
A simple program could be based around reprocessing plutonium from a relatively small reactor, but a more advanced program needs uranium and tritium (used in thermonuclear weapons). Uranium requires extensive energy resources to operate the enrichment facilities (traditionally near gigawatts of hydropower, coal, or nuclear capacity), and tritium is best produced in heavy water reactors. Heavy water reactors need heavy water (an isotope extracted from regular water), which tends to be produced at large hydroelectric facilities due to the energy and water requirements.
The largest bottleneck is acquiring weapons grade material, either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. HEU is probably more difficult to acquire due to the need for enrichment facilities of some kind, traditionally gaseous diffusion although more recently centrifuges. Plutonium can be acquired by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
The easiest plutonium pathway is using a gas cooled reactor, which can use natural uranium and common gases such as carbon dioxide, although it isn't as good at making tritium. Heavy water is the ideal, since it is the best for tritium, but while it can use natural uranium it requires heavy water. Light water doesn't really excel at weapons production, since it needs low enriched fuel and doesn't excel at tritium production, but it's a good option for naval propulsion and commercial programs and thus the most common type of reactor in general use. Gas cooling was a common option when nuclear energy started (the first commercial power reactors were gas cooled units in the United Kingdom) and it could make a comeback in the future due to its high efficiency and high output temperatures (waste heat has potential industrial and heating uses), but it's currently not commercially available and the most advanced commercial plants (British Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors) are 1960s/1970s technology.
The answer is thus that it depends. A simple program just needs a small reactor and reprocessing capabilities, but a large and/or advanced one would really benefit from access to large hydroelectric facilities to help run enrichment plants (nuclear can take over later) and provide heavy water.
The largest bottleneck is acquiring weapons grade material, either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. HEU is probably more difficult to acquire due to the need for enrichment facilities of some kind, traditionally gaseous diffusion although more recently centrifuges. Plutonium can be acquired by reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.
The easiest plutonium pathway is using a gas cooled reactor, which can use natural uranium and common gases such as carbon dioxide, although it isn't as good at making tritium. Heavy water is the ideal, since it is the best for tritium, but while it can use natural uranium it requires heavy water. Light water doesn't really excel at weapons production, since it needs low enriched fuel and doesn't excel at tritium production, but it's a good option for naval propulsion and commercial programs and thus the most common type of reactor in general use. Gas cooling was a common option when nuclear energy started (the first commercial power reactors were gas cooled units in the United Kingdom) and it could make a comeback in the future due to its high efficiency and high output temperatures (waste heat has potential industrial and heating uses), but it's currently not commercially available and the most advanced commercial plants (British Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors) are 1960s/1970s technology.
The answer is thus that it depends. A simple program just needs a small reactor and reprocessing capabilities, but a large and/or advanced one would really benefit from access to large hydroelectric facilities to help run enrichment plants (nuclear can take over later) and provide heavy water.
Any program will be expensive but does that matter ?
Since we only need 'the most nuclear armed states' I think you just need a world without NNPT and where nuclear weapons are sold/given to others to get the largest numbers easily.
Delta Force
Banned
Actually, nuclear weapons are fairly easy and inexpensive for a state to acquire if it decides to pursue them. The most difficult part is acquiring the fissile material, and once that is done the actual assembly can be done in a fairly simple machine shop. The South African nuclear weapons program is estimated to have cost $400 million and it produced six nuclear weapons and parts for an seventh. At is peak it had a few thousand people involved. If there wasn't a need for secrecy, the nuclear weapons program could certainly have been carried out faster, and likely at a lower cost.
Also, even in a world without the NNPT, it's likely that many nuclear suppliers will place conditions on countries they supply regarding authorized use of their fissile material, fuel, reactors, nuclear equipment, etc. Countries seeking to build weapons would probably want to in-source as much of their program as possible, and it's feasible for most reasonably industrialized countries to do so because the costs and technology aren't too high. Even if countries didn't place constraints on their exports, it would make sense to in-source to minimize vulnerability to other countries. Just as countries tend to do all but the most intensive maintenance work for military equipment at their own depots, a country would want to be able to maintain its nuclear weapons without shipping them back to the factory.