Proliferation of nuclear weapons and submarines

[uk 75]

In the 60s it was believed/feared that various countries would have their own nuclear weapons and or submarines by the 70s
An article about Italy's plans features in the new WARSHIP 2019 book and Italian Swiss Yugoslav nuclear cooperation was covered in an old thread here.
The former East Germany was rumoured to have had a clandestine nuclear weapons programme. West German had access to US nuclear weapons through NATO but some feared that a right wing government might come to power and either take over these weapons or develop their own.
The Dutch and Canadians looked at building their own SSNs. They might also have developed their own weapons if NATO had fractured in the 70s.
Franco's Spain as far as I know had too many other worries and had US nuclear weapons based in Spain.
Brazil and Argentina looked both nuclear weapons and submarines.
South Korea was at one point thought to want its own warheads for use by NIKE missiles in surface role.
Japan built a civilian nuclear surface ship. If the US had disengaged fromAsia in the70s there might have been pressure to build SSNs and acquire nuclear weapons.

 

[Archibald]

In Clarke 2001 novel, there are 38 nuclear powers - and cash-strapped Chinese make money helping proliferation, selling "nuclear deterrent packages" $200 million apiece.

 

[uk 75]

I have a paperback book published in the 70s about various levels of wargaming by governments. Cant find it, but the 38 figure was similar to what was thought likely. Guess up until now Non proliferation was an unsung success. Apart from the original 5 nuclear powers we still only have India and Pakistan as declared nuclear states. Israel and North Korea are undeclared.

 

[zen]

Sweden and Australia had some efforts.
South Africa of course.
Taiwan was feared to be ready to go for it in the 80's

 

[uk 75]

There is a good thread somewherevon this site on the South African programme.
One of the reasons for the 60s fears was the idea that everyone would have civilian nuclear power and that nuclear powered ships and weapons would substitute for larger numbers of conventional ones.

 

[uk 75]

The unhappy events of the last year have reminded me of this thread. Not least because it is worth remembering how difficult and expensive it is to acquire nuclear weapons. Moreover for all the tons of srudies and houra spent discussing how to use them, we do know that we have no idea what would happen, but it is likely to be very bad.
The original three nuclear powers all had their bombs as a result of the Second World War. The US, Soviet Union and UK for much of the 50s had large bombs carried by bombers evolved from USAF and RAF aircraft.
In the 1960s France and China join the nuclear powers, with some help from the US and Soviet Union.
We now know that France and the US helped Israel to get bombs and then delivery systems.
During this period various other countries around the world looked at acquiring nuclear weapons but seemed usually to find it easier to rely on existing nuclear powers.
The 1971 India Pakistan war seems to have been the major spur to the two countries developing and then deploying nuclear weapons.
South Africa panicked by political isolation and growing Soviet support for its enemies briefly had nuclear weapons.
South Africa and Ukraine wisely got rid of nuclear weapons to focus on domestic issues.
The Kim dynasty meanwhile had begun to cast around for various sources of nuclear technology. It decided that the weapons were essential to its survival.
The saga of Saddam's weapons is similar but they seem to have been an excuse for Iraqis to get rich rather than a viable nuclear force.
Iran had begun its nuclear ambitions under the Shah. Surrounded mainly by hostile countries and after a disstrous war with Iran the Iranian Regime came to the same conclusion as others above. Nuclear weapons could preserve the regime.
And so in 2023 we still only have declared nuclear weapon states in single figurea rather than the thirty something once feared.

 

[zen]

And yet......we may be at the horrific tipping point if certain events happen.

It should not be taken for granted that the likes of Poland have not examined and laid plans for a nuclear weapons program. As I imagine exist in similar clandestine form in Romania and the Czech and Slovakian states.

These states and their respective peoples remember being traded away for a peace.....that wasn't.

What is most obviously going spur on such efforts is an explicit example of cutting off a country from much needed aid, especially military and financial aid. With the clear intention of undermining that country's ability to preserve it's independence and survival of it's population.

It needs be born in mind, that the UK, France, Israel and North Korea all pursued such weapons in the fear of betrayal by their patron and superior ally.

The cascade that could follow from certain events described in some quarters as "a dirty but necessary compromise" and likely trigger others outside Europe as well. Is quite conceivable, and currently possible.

 

[uk 75]

The lessons of the existing nuclear powers suggest that deploying nuclear forces takes at least a decade even for those who get active assistance.
Unless NATO and the EU fall apart I do not see any of the countries Zen mentions going down the nuclear path.
Ukraine if it survives as a nation state or recovers some or all of its territory is another matter. The bitter memory of 1994 and 2014 may well lead Kiyv down the nuclear path.
A small number of tels and missiles.would be sufficient to threaten major cities in western Russia. Ukraine is a big enough country to hide them in.
NATO membership for Ukraine in return for not acquiring nuclear weapons may be another reason.

 

[Lascaris]

The unhappy events of the last year have reminded me of this thread. Not least because it is worth remembering how difficult and expensive it is to acquire nuclear weapons. Moreover for all the tons of srudies and houra spent discussing how to use them, we do know that we have no idea what would happen, but it is likely to be very bad.
The original three nuclear powers all had their bombs as a result of the Second World War. The US, Soviet Union and UK for much of the 50s had large bombs carried by bombers evolved from USAF and RAF aircraft.
In the 1960s France and China join the nuclear powers, with some help from the US and Soviet Union.
We now know that France and the US helped Israel to get bombs and then delivery systems.
During this period various other countries around the world looked at acquiring nuclear weapons but seemed usually to find it easier to rely on existing nuclear powers.
The 1971 India Pakistan war seems to have been the major spur to the two countries developing and then deploying nuclear weapons.
South Africa panicked by political isolation and growing Soviet support for its enemies briefly had nuclear weapons.
South Africa and Ukraine wisely got rid of nuclear weapons to focus on domestic issues.

As seen for the past twelve months not so wisely in the case of Ukraine. Unless someone thinks the country would had been invaded if it still possessed a nuclear arsenal. But in the end it seems to me NPT could be scuppered fairly easily. If frex either the Swedish or the Swiss nuclear programs had produced results in the 1960s which both countries probably had the technical ability to do...

 

[uk 75]

Sweden and Switzerland both had the resources to complete nuclear weapons programmes but instead opted for strong conventional forces and civil defence as they reckoned the Soviet Union would find them too difficult to invade and they were also useful to the rulers of the USSR as places to stash money etc

 

[zen]

Sweden and Switzerland both had certain communications 'under the table' that changed their perception of what was necessary.

 

[uk 75]

Sweden and Switzerland both had certain communications 'under the table' that changed their perception of what was necessary.

What the f**k does that mean? If based on classified info it should be deleted. if based on open valid source please elaborate.

 

[zen]

Sweden and Switzerland both had certain communications 'under the table' that changed their perception of what was necessary.

What the f**k does that mean? If based on classified info it should be deleted. if based on open valid source please elaborate.

Based on rational supposition. We know Sweden gained access to certain things from the US around the time they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. We have evidence for US 'under the table' and over the table sales to Sweden.

 

[Zoo Tycoon]

Based on rational supposition. We know Sweden gained access to certain things from the US around the time they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. We have evidence for US 'under the table' and over the table sales to Sweden.

I’m sure I’ve read the core compression explosive configuration known as “The Swan*”
originated in Sweden and was passed the US in the mid fifties.

* “The Swan”is so called because it’s an elegant twin detonation arrangement which is underpinned by monstrously complex mathematics.

 

[uk 75]

Sources gentlemen please