A world without the NPT

[uk 75]

Back in the 1960s it was feared that by the 1970s up to 30 States would acquire nuclear weapons.
The 1968 Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

is rightly regarded as having helped avoid this happening.
Britain and France's keenness to have nuclear weapons is usually seen in the context of the Soviet Union. But in a world where 20 to 30 countries have nuclear weapons the UK and French deterrents make even more sense.
For the UK Egypt and Indonesia come to mind as nuclear headaches. Nasser's Egypt was hostile to the Gulf Rulers who Britain backed. Indonesia confronted Malaysia and Singapore but also might threaten Australia.
A nuclear armed Argentina would be a much bigger risk to British interests in the South Atlantic.
Even in Africa the Apartheid South Africa might face nuclear armed neighbours. As it was, it was SA that built nuclear weapons.
A world in the 1970s without NPT would have been a much nastier place.
The Shah's Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey were all possible nuclear nations.
A 1973 Arab Israel war or Iran takeover of the Gulf with a nuclear dimension does not bear thinking about.

 

[Archibald]

That was integral part of 2001 the novel background: Clarke had 38 nuclear powers in a rather unstable and dangerous world, including the Chineses - "vintage 1966 whacky maoists" rather than "the equally threatening, but turned half capitalist greedy pigs", present-day chinese.

As if 38 nuclear powers weren't enough, the Chinese were selling "off the shelves" nuclear deterrents, 250 million dollars a piece, with advantageous credits / loan / rates.

Curiously enough, Clarke added these "black friday nuke sales" might be related to the chinese having found even more powerful weapons than plain old nukes "including blackmail with a plague only them had the antidote" (COVID from Wuhan lab, is that THOU ?)

 

[riggerrob]

Let's start with 3 lists: 1968 nuclear powers; failed/suspended attempts; and current contenders.

1968 nuclear powers: Britain, Communist China, France, USA and USSR. Both Australia and Canada assisted with the British nuclear program.

Failed or cancelled: Argentina, Brazil, Iraq (bombed into rubble), Israel (successful but suspended), South Africa (successful but suspended) and Yugoslavia.

Current contenders: Iran and North Korea.

From here we can extrapolate lists of possible fictional nuclear powers.

Please feel free to add details to my lists.

 

[lancer21]

Ironically, while more nuclear armed states is always daunting, IF no one is crazy enough to start lobbing nukes around (still fairly unlikely imo even if the chance is higher higher than OTL, once the leaders of nuke armed states find out what's involved for them and those around them in a nuclear war, i'm sure they would lose appetite to use them for petty reasons, other than national survival), there is the potential that the world is a BETTER place.

If say Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. had nukes the americans would never invade or attack them, so MILLIONS more peoples will have lived, destruction worth trillions avoided and the resulting humanitarian catastrophes would not have happened.

DPRK i guess is an example, if they didn't build nukes almost certainly they would have been invaded by the americans by now.

Oh and i wouldn't call Israel's nuclear program "suspended", whatever they claim, they do have nukes, and way too many of them for such a small country.

Possible nuclear powers apart from those listed above might be Switzerland, Sweden, Romania, Libya, Algeria, Syria, Vietnam, Myanmar (Bangladesh might want nukes then) etc. etc. I also wonder in this scenario if Italy, Spain and Germany could eventualy get their own nukes, and Japan too, ROK, Taiwan... crickey the list can go on and on.

 

[Dilandu]

Please feel free to add details to my lists.

Sweden and Switzerland have nuclear programs running. If there is not NPT, Sweden would almost certainly get a bomb, and quite possibly, Switzerland, too.

Italy would most likely get either Polaris missiles for their cruisers, or at least American warheads to arm their Alfa SRBM's.

 

[Arjen]

Saddam Hussein, alive, with nuclear weapons, a much, much better world than the one we are living in now... right?

Give me a break.

 

[Dilandu]

DPRK i guess is an example, if they didn't build nukes almost certainly they would have been invaded by the americans by now.

DPRK have one important point that, say, Iran lacked. North Korea have zero external ambitions. They are not interested in building sphere of influence, or protecting some political goals. Their only desire is to be left alone. That's why, despite all traditional US mad rambling, Washington is actually pretty much okay with North Korea nukes; they knew that North Korea did not actually have any desire to meddle with US politics.

 

[Dilandu]

If say Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. had nukes the americans would never invade or attack them, so MILLIONS more peoples will have lived, destruction worth trillions avoided and the resulting humanitarian catastrophes would not have happened.

I agree about Yugoslavia, arguably agree about Syria, but frankly, I wouldn't trust Saddam Hussein with nukes. Saddam was ambitious and aggressive. Recall that the largest war of late XX century - the Iran-Iraq war - was essentially started by Saddam's ambitions to use the temporary weakness of post-revolution Iran. And Saddam have no problems with using chemical weapon against both Iranians and rebelling Kurd civilians.

Atomic bomb in hands of Saddam would be enormous problem for everyone; he would most likely become even more aggressive, trying to use nuclear umbrella to protect his wars of conquest (and quite possibly using nukes to scare neighbors into submission).

Dunno about Gaddafi; while he have his share of (unsuccessful) aggressions, he generally seems to be much more interested in well-being of Libya. I suppose, he would not do anything stupid, endangering his country. Still... can't say that Libyan nukes are as good idea as Yugoslavian ones.

 

[lancer21]

I broadly agree with what you say in the above posts, but i do stand by what i said even about Saddam, he won't use nukes if he knows he will be nuked in return, what's the point? He only wanted prestige, power, influence and to get filthy rich like any other ME dictator (i'm oversimplifying, but you get the point), why would he want himself and his country get nuked? He used chemicals weapons in Iran because he knew that nor the americans nor the soviets would do anything about it (and possibly got their tacit approval behind closed doors) because they wanted Iran weak, and also because Saddam was stuck militarily (in no way i justify doing that, just saying). He invaded Kuweit because he thought he had the US go-ahead (i still think the US tricked him to do something stupid, ie invade Kuwait, so they could move against Iraq as justification- Iraq had the most powerful military in ME after Israel in 1990). It was pretty much the same as KSA invading Yemen recently (again, whether invading Kuwait or Yemen, i will never justify such actions, just putting things into prspective). Would he have invaded Iran if both Iran and Iraq had nukes in 1980? Would he have invaded Kuwait if the americans said no, or if the americans had bases and/or nukes in Kuwait? The answer would be no to both imho.

Oh, he may have used nukes if for instance americans invaded anyway and he had them, but that would be a matter of national survival, if Iraq stood to be destroyed who could blame him for making the attacker pay as dearly as he can? Isn't that the justification often offered for the israeli Samson option? But again, if he had nukes it's unlikely Iraq would be invaded in the first place.

Same goes to Iran, nukes would guarantee that Iran will not be invaded (which is why i believe they're a bunch of idiots for NOT getting nukes already), they won't start lobbing nukes around as all kinds of rabid US and israeli propaganda claim. Recall reading how many of the mullahs have relatives and fortunes in the hated west, so why would they just stupidly get themselves vaporized?

Before DPRK got nukes i remember reading the same apoplectic arguments about them start throwing nukes around if they ever get any, and how as soon as there is an inkling of them getting nukes Russia and China will rush in to invade alongside the US to prevent such a thing (which made me laugh at such stupidity). How did that worked out again?

 

[lancer21]

Oh and something i recall now about Saddam and Iran invasion, as soon as he got stuck militarily in 1981 as i understand he repeatedly asked the mullahs for a settlement ante-bellum, but the mullahs refused and decided to invade Iraq in 1982, the rest being history. So there's that to ponder, he seemed to be someone who knew when he bit too much.

 

[Arjen]

Unfortunately for Iraq and Iran, Saddam's moment of insight arrived too late. If he ever had one. With 1,000,000+ dead as a result. Now add nukes to the mix.

 

[Dilandu]

Oh and something i recall now about Saddam and Iran invasion, as soon as he got stuck militarily in 1981 as i understand he repeatedly asked the mullahs for a settlement ante-bellum, but the mullahs refused and decided to invade Iraq in 1982, the rest being history. So there's that to ponder, he seemed to be someone who knew when he bit too much.

Yeah, after he invaded their country and killed thousands of Iranians in the act of unprovoked aggression, he suddenly started to talk peace after it become obvious that his invasion failed? You know, I did not like Iranian regime, but here I'm in absolute agreement with ayatollah; they could not just let Saddam waltz out of massacre he orchestrated. They need to kick him back, if not put him down for good.

 

[Dilandu]

Same goes to Iran, nukes would guarantee that Iran will not be invaded (which is why i believe they're a bunch of idiots for NOT getting nukes already), they won't start lobbing nukes around as all kinds of rabid US and israeli propaganda claim. Recall reading how many of the mullahs have relatives and fortunes in the hated west, so why would they just stupidly get themselves vaporized?

Iran have an active external policy. Iran support Yemen against Saudi-backed invasion. Iran clashed with Turkey over the influence in Syria. Iran have great influence in Iraq. If Iran get nukes, they would inevitably use them to cover their external actions, not merely for self-defense.

 

[lancer21]

That may be true, but what happened was the mullahs played right into the hands of those who wanted the war prolonged as much as possible so that Iran and Iraq bleed themselves dry, i think the bulk of iranian losses, both manpower and economical, were after 1982. So if the mullahs had a bit of common sense they could have taken Saddam's offer, and try to get rid of him through other means afterwards if that's what they wanted. Thus avoiding hundreds of billions lost materially, and almost a million iranian dead and maimed in addition to iraqi casualties and economical losses.

 

[archipeppe]

Please feel free to add details to my lists.

Sweden and Switzerland have nuclear programs running. If there is not NPT, Sweden would almost certainly get a bomb, and quite possibly, Switzerland, too.

Italy would most likely get either Polaris missiles for their cruisers, or at least American warheads to arm their Alfa SRBM's.

Not only Italy has or had the technology to build the bomb, and even without American's help, in case French's help would be enough....

 

[lancer21]

Same goes to Iran, nukes would guarantee that Iran will not be invaded (which is why i believe they're a bunch of idiots for NOT getting nukes already), they won't start lobbing nukes around as all kinds of rabid US and israeli propaganda claim. Recall reading how many of the mullahs have relatives and fortunes in the hated west, so why would they just stupidly get themselves vaporized?

Iran have an active external policy. Iran support Yemen against Saudi-backed invasion. Iran clashed with Turkey over the influence in Syria. Iran have great influence in Iraq. If Iran get nukes, they would inevitably use them to cover their external actions, not merely for self-defense.

It may be cynical, it may be oversimplifying, i'm not even comfortable saying this (i'm pro-russian to the core) but i will add this analogy. See Russia, US (which have the larges nuke arsenals in the world) and Ukraine today. The bigs dogs have grabbed one end each of their prey, they snarl and growl and threaten eachother, but it's the prey who gets ripped apart. My point is neither US nor Russia would want Washington or respectively Moscow vaporized for the sake of Ukraine (unless they're crazy)

So it's the same with a hypothetical nuclear Iran and whoever imo, even Israel.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Please feel free to add details to my lists.

Sweden and Switzerland have nuclear programs running. If there is not NPT, Sweden would almost certainly get a bomb, and quite possibly, Switzerland, too.

Italy would most likely get either Polaris missiles for their cruisers, or at least American warheads to arm their Alfa SRBM's.

the Swedish bomb from Ikea... the thought of some Swedish technicians with an Allen wrench putting it together made me smile

 

[Nik]

Non-Proliferation Treaty...

IMHO, it's probably prevented three or four 'brush-fire' wars sprouting tac-nuke mushrooms...
With the obvious exceptions of Norks & Iran, it's probably stifled manufacture beyond one-off devices using 'bought' materials...
And, to date, has kept nukes out of terrorists' hands...

FWIW, I saw NPT in title, read it as 'National Pipe Thread', did a double-take...

 

[Lascaris]

I should ask what are the circumstances that get NPT scuppered? That should matter quite a bit on what happens afterwards...

 

[chimeric oncogene]

Oh and something i recall now about Saddam and Iran invasion, as soon as he got stuck militarily in 1981 as i understand he repeatedly asked the mullahs for a settlement ante-bellum, but the mullahs refused and decided to invade Iraq in 1982, the rest being history. So there's that to ponder, he seemed to be someone who knew when he bit too much.

Yeah, after he invaded their country and killed thousands of Iranians in the act of unprovoked aggression, he suddenly started to talk peace after it become obvious that his invasion failed? You know, I did not like Iranian regime, but here I'm in absolute agreement with ayatollah; they could not just let Saddam waltz out of massacre he orchestrated. They need to kick him back, if not put him down for good.

Eh, Saddam would quickly realize the risks he was taking with nuclear warfare. Like you said, he started to talk peace pretty quickly when things went south.
He would have been an even quicker study had both Iran and Iraq had nukes - although the question of a loose nuclear deterrent after the Iranian Revolution is horrifying to contemplate. I'm a bit more worried about the revolutionaries being a few weeks too slow on the ball than a dictator with lots to lose.

 

[lordroel]

Let's start with 3 lists: 1968 nuclear powers; failed/suspended attempts; and current contenders.

1968 nuclear powers: Britain, Communist China, France, USA and USSR. Both Australia and Canada assisted with the British nuclear program.

Failed or cancelled: Argentina, Brazil, Iraq (bombed into rubble), Israel (successful but suspended), South Africa (successful but suspended) and Yugoslavia.

Current contenders: Iran and North Korea.

From here we can extrapolate lists of possible fictional nuclear powers.

Please feel free to add details to my lists.

You can add the ROC (Taiwan) to the failed or cancelled list.

As well as Sweden.

 

[Yellow Palace]

There are a succession of CIA estimates from the 1960s on likely fourth/Nth nuclear powers. I can't find them right now, but it was felt that strong candidates included

• Sweden, potentially as early as 1963
• Canada, potentially as early as 1964
• Belgium and/or Italy, perhaps a joint venture, potentially as early as 1967

More were on the list - but, notably, Sweden and Canada were expected to become nuclear powers before China, right up until China actually did become one.

In 1975, the CIA's list of potential nuclear powers by 1985 was
Taiwan, the Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa, Iran, Egypt and Spain.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I should ask what are the circumstances that get NPT scuppered? That should matter quite a bit on what happens afterwards...

Well, the events of 24 Feb 2022 sure seem to have stuck a knife into the NPT today...

"Despite written guarantees from both the Americans and the Russians, a nuclear power invading one without results in little harm to the nuclear nation."

So every country with hostile neighbors is looking at a nuclear program since then.

 

[Archibald]

Saddam Hussein, alive, with nuclear weapons, a much, much better world than the one we are living in now... right?

Give me a break.

Saddam sons, notably the murderous psycho one, can't remember his name ? Ussai or Uddai ? (I used to call them "gousse d'ail" and "poiscaille" which translates as "garlic clove" and "fishy" )

 

[BlackBat242]

Maybe just like this?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw

 

[Arjen]

Saddam sons, notably the murderous psycho one, can't remember his name ? Ussai or Uddai ? (I used to call them "gousse d'ail" and "poiscaille" which translates as "garlic clove" and "fishy" )

Uday, the elder, was the erratic killer and sports enthusiast. Qusay was the systematic killer, and Saddam's heir apparent.
Both were killed in a Mosul gun battle when US soldiers tried to arrest them in 2003.