So, in OTL the highest combined stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world was a bit over 60,000 in 1986, of which maybe a bit over 20,000 at most would fly. While there are threads about how many nations could develop nuclear weapons, not much at all has been said about how large the arsenals themselves could have grown. Having extra nuclear-armed nations in this scenario would be nice but not necessary, what I'm looking for is a plausible way in which the world's usable nuclear stockpiles could be much larger.

For reference, here's some info:

http://fissilematerials.org/library/gfmr15.pdf
https://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/IT064-Glaser-CSIS.pdf
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/emergingnuclearweaponstates/

Also I'm setting the "Big Kaboom" for this scenario in 2015 since that's where I've got the best demographic information.
 
If you throw in everything from small man portable nukes to gravity bombs, the total stockpiles by 2015 could be several times what they were in 1986. This would also involve the lesser nuclear powers building up more than OTL, and also some powers that gave up nukes or nuclear research like South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan deciding they needed their own toys.
 
If you throw in everything from small man portable nukes to gravity bombs, the total stockpiles by 2015 could be several times what they were in 1986. This would also involve the lesser nuclear powers building up more than OTL, and also some powers that gave up nukes or nuclear research like South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan deciding they needed their own toys.
Taiwan’s program was only stopped by a rouge scientist defecting to the USA and revealing their plans, so that’s an easy start.
 
Keep the Cold War going with as little in the way of arms control treaties as possible (or have both sides tear them up before 2015) and allow nuclear proliferation to spread.
 
Top