DBWI: A nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

As we all know, negotiations over a nuclear non-proliferation treaty faltered in the 1960s with the proposed nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty being stillborn. Now, here is a list of countries with nuclear weapons with their first nuclear weapons test in parenthesis:

United States of America (1945)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1949)
United Kingdom (1952)
Republic of France (1960)
People's Republic of China (1964)
Republic of India (1972)
Republic of Argentina (1978)
Republic of South Africa (1979)
State of Israel (1980)
Shahdom of Iran (1984)
Islamic Republic of Arabia (1986) (OOC: Bad things happened to the Saudis)
Federative Republic of Brazil (1987)
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1989)
United Arab Republic (1991)
Republic of China (1996)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (1998)
Democratic Republic of Vietnam (2000)
State of Japan (2001)
Republic of Vietnam (2002)
Republic of Korea (2004)
Republic of Turkey (2009)
Republic of Indonesia (2014)

With 22 countries in possession of nuclear weapons and six more countries (Ethiopia, Chile, the Philippines, Burma, Germany, and Spain) developing nuclear weapons. I ask you, what if the NPT wasn't stillborn? Would the world be more stable or less stable in such a scenario?
 
As we all know, negotiations over a nuclear non-proliferation treaty faltered in the 1960s with the proposed nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty being stillborn. Now, here is a list of countries with nuclear weapons with their first nuclear weapons test in parenthesis:

United States of America (1945)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1949)
United Kingdom (1952)
Republic of France (1960)
People's Republic of China (1964)
Republic of India (1972)
Republic of Argentina (1978)
Republic of South Africa (1979)
State of Israel (1980)
Shahdom of Iran (1984)
Islamic Republic of Arabia (1986) (OOC: Bad things happened to the Saudis)
Federative Republic of Brazil (1987)
Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1989)
United Arab Republic (1991)
Republic of China (1996)
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (1998)
Democratic Republic of Vietnam (2000)
State of Japan (2001)
Republic of Vietnam (2002)
Republic of Korea (2004)
Republic of Turkey (2009)
Republic of Indonesia (2014)

With 22 countries in possession of nuclear weapons and six more countries (Ethiopia, Chile, the Philippines, Burma, Germany, and Spain) developing nuclear weapons. I ask you, what if the NPT wasn't stillborn? Would the world be more stable or less stable in such a scenario?
Well Israel and the Arab states didn't end up showing why a nuclear war was bad to the rest of the world. The dictatorship of Argentina in act to save face didn't end up nuking the Royal Navy and end up not existing. Yeah less death and destruction all around because of people doing insane things.
 
Well Israel and the Arab states didn't end up showing why a nuclear war was bad to the rest of the world. The dictatorship of Argentina in act to save face didn't end up nuking the Royal Navy and end up not existing. Yeah less death and destruction all around because of people doing insane things.
Yeah, the only "winners" of the May 11 nuclear exchange between Israel and the United Arab Republic (and Arabia) were the Iranians and the Turks, who managed to carve out many puppet states from the wreckage of Israel and the Arab states.
 
Yeah, the only "winners" of the May 11 nuclear exchange between Israel and the United Arab Republic (and Arabia) were the Iranians and the Turks, who managed to carve out many puppet states from the wreckage of Israel and the Arab states.
And they are on the verge along with their puppets of doing it again, irony (I am assuming the situation maybe worse than the Indo-Pakistani one)
 
And they are on the verge along with their puppets of doing it again, irony (I am assuming the situation maybe worse than the Indo-Pakistani one)
Iran and Turkey have learned their lessons from the May 11 nuclear exchange in 2004 and it's likely that the only nukes used in such a war would be tactical ones. Also, what about East Asia? How likely is it for the two Vietnams or the two Koreas to nuke each other to oblivion?
 
Iran and Turkey have learned their lessons from the May 11 nuclear exchange in 2004 and it's likely that the only nukes used in such a war would be tactical ones. Also, what about East Asia? How likely is it for the two Vietnams or the two Koreas to nuke each other to oblivion?
Only when the US and China/Russia do I feel. I think personally the whole world is a minefield now, to many tripwires now. One wrong move and boom.
 
That's why I'm part of a group called space now. We're trying to get supplies to we can make the ISS or IMB (International moon base) self sufficient. This way the survival of the human race is assured when (not if) the nukes fly.
 
That's why I'm part of a group called space now. We're trying to get supplies to we can make the ISS or IMB (International moon base) self sufficient. This way the survival of the human race is assured when (not if) the nukes fly.
good luck, we barely missed the worse of it the last time. The fact that biological weapons were used as well and devastated Africa as well as everything south of Turkey, Russia and west of Iran.
 
Last edited:
How likely do you think is North Vietnam/Korea going to go ballistic as China and the Soviet Union, who have liberalized long ago, steadily lose control over their increasingly hardline communist regimes?
 
OOC: you missed Canada, Sweden, Germany, ....

Actually, you can call pretty much every country with nuclear reactors a 'nucle-capable' nation. In Germany and the Netherlands at least there were many students in engineering school who build nuclear weapons as a project with over the counter available goods, only missing the fission material.

It would take all these nations only a few months to convert a reactor to produce fissile material, and they're good to go.
 
Top