Iran and North Korea are oft in the news of late because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. What do you think would happen if a stable democracy, say somewhere like Denmark, decided tomorrow it was going to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and build a nuclear bomb?
What would be the international ramifications? Failing diplomatic measures would the use of military force by NATO, the EU, or other parties in order to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons be likely?
Inasmuch as we haven’t used military force against Iran or North Korea yet, I doubt we’d do so against Denmark. OTOH, because it’s a stable democracy we might be more blunt in our diplomatic language and even more aggressive with sanctions and economic tactics, knowing that Denmark is much less likely to attack the US or our allies than North Korea or Iran is. And we wouldn’t have to worry about pissing off China or Russia, since Denmark’s allies are our allies.
The really interesting question is what the rest of Europe would do!
It has happened, namely Israel. And I think the international reaction to that was typical. Namely the Western democracies aren’t crazy about the idea, they would prefer that they didn’t do it, they’re not going to give them any official sanctioned help, but in Israel’s case behind closed doors all the Western democracies couldn’t deny that Israel had a genuine need for them. Even more of a need for them than Britain, France, or even the WWII-ending United States! So none of them were going to take preemptive action to physically stop them from getting them.
Aside from the unique Israeli situation (a small democracy completely surrounded by often fanatical enemies) it’s highly unlikely that any other democratic country would want or try to build a bomb. They’re usually surrounded by other democracies. Plus a nuclear weapons program is phenomenally expensive. So if for whatever reason they still felt they needed nukes the US could easily talk them out of it by guaranteeing them military protection if needed in exchange for not building them (as well as other agreements, trade, foreign aid etc.) We prevent nuclear proliferation and a democracy avoids having to spend billions of its citizens taxes on an unnecessary program.
Probably something similar as what happened when India confirmed they had nuclear weapons. In the short term there would be some sort of sanctions and diplomatic backlash. In the long term there would be acceptance. No way the US would attack a western democracy or allow anyone else to do so.
Practically speaking there already are five western democracies (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey) that currently have the bomb while maintaining their status as non-nuclear states. Officially the bombs are owned by the US and are only hosted by the other state. And while they are maintained by a joint team of the host nation and the US military, and they would (at least in theory) require US permission to use, in a war they would be delivered by the host’s personnel, using the host’s aircraft. There has been more than one argument that this violates both the letter and the spirit of the NPT and that these host countries and the US should be considered in violation of the NPT. But so far the US has been able to prevent any official sanction against itself or the host nations.
Likewise there are roughly a couple dozen countries that have enough highly enriched uranium and/or plutonium and the technical expertise that they could manufacture warheads in a matter of month. Japan for example has as waste from its reactors enough material on hand for 700+ weapons. Thus putting it in what a lot of analysts have called the de facto nuclear state category. There has been more than one analyst that has suggested that this is what Iran is really seeking. Not an active nuclear arsenal… but a latent capability to quickly produce an arsenal.
The smart move for Denmark in your scenario would be to quietly build their arsenal, or even better the latent ability to quickly assemble one without triggering the NPT, and then to officially deny it had an arsenal, while unofficially leaking it. That is how Israel has done it. Officially Israel doesn’t have nuclear capability. Unofficially everyone knows they do. But until that is confirmed, there is no official sanction.
Canada has nukes.
We’re just too polite to brag.
At worst, they’d get a stern talking to.
Until now, anyway.
Any thoughts on what would happen if Mexico tried to develop nuclear capabilities?
India is a democracy. One might argue that although it is stable now, it wasn’t quite so clear how stable it was when it first developed nukes.
THey don’t need no stinkin’ nukes!
I would be pleased if that was the UN’s official statement.
They kind of already have. Mexico is in the de facto Nuclear club. It had an active program and achieved weapon grade uranium in the '70s. And around the same time it developed basic ballistic missile technology (like a SCUD). They could clearly assemble a small number (10s of bombs ala Pakistan) in a matter of a year or so. But as far as anyone knows they never actually built a nuclear bomb, let alone tested one. But functionally you have to treat them as if they could with very little notice. There was a treaty to hand over all highly enriched uranium to the US, but as far as I (or Wikipedia) knows that still hasn’t been ratified or carried out.
I imagine that Mexico would cause more hand-wringing, and it might only get a response similar to Pakistan and India, immediate sanctions and eventual acceptance. But it is quite possible that it might cause a much stronger response.
The US in particular might take a much stronger stand. We would be the only reasonable target for such a program, the only nation who could attack Mexico that Mexico could reach with a nuke. It would be exceptionally provocative and depending on the US leadership at the time might actually trigger a military preemptive action. At the very least there would be a huge furor over it. And the conjured thought of “illegals” smuggling bombs across the border, would cause a civilian panic. At the very least NAFTA as it is would disappear. And the US/Mexico border would functionally be shut down.
I can’t imagine that the rest of Latin America would be happy to see a nuclear Mexico either. In addition to the NPT, there is a treaty (the Treaty of Tlatelolco) explicitly barring any weapons from being manufactured or hosted in Latin America and the Caribbean. Countries like Argentina and Brazil would hate to see that breached. As they might feel like they have to start up their programs again in defense. And if one of them did, the other certainly would. Likewise Cuba would almost certainly restart their program in response.
Denmark would be just another European nation adding a few bombs to an area that already has plenty (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Russia, Turkey, UK). Mexico would introduce the weapon to an area of the world that doesn’t have any, and where they are explicitly banned. At the very least Mexico would likely become a pariah state like North Korea. At the most, the marines would storm the “Halls of Montezuma” again.
Thanks Bartman.
Fascinating post there Bartman.
Thanks guys. I’m certainly not an expert, but I’ve been fascinated by the proliferation question for years.
It is surprising how much political effort has gone into the question, and how many specific private agreements there are backing up the main treaty (NPT). I think the Mexico question does a great job in highlighting how fragile and balanced the whole thing is. You get a single country to back out, and suddenly everyone else is questioning their own lack of a program. Even if that country doesn’t necessarily directly threaten the other countries. Mexico weaponizes? Suddenly Chávez wants them too. Brazil can’t allow Venezuela to have them without a possible response. And Argentina has to match Brazil. Which may make other countries feel threatened. And if Bolivia, Chile, or Peru get them the other two have to as well. Suddenly we have a lot of nations with a history of less than perfect stability and human right questions with nukes. And they are all going to be poorer for having spent the money to acquire them.
That is one of the reasons Iran and North Korea are so disturbing. It isn’t just that we worry what they will do. Although that is a worry. We have to worry if this makes neighboring nations decide to restart their programs. If NK has the bomb, then South Korea and Japan get pretty motivated to do the same. Then maybe Taiwan decides they need one too. And who knows if that pushes any countries in SE Asia into doing the same. It destabilizes the whole region. Now you not only have to worry about one crazy dictator, you have to worry about a dozen less than perfectly stable nations who likely won’t have very good controls in place and a lot of corruption. Proliferation increases the odds of both rogue nations and non-state actors getting their hands on the weapons. Imagine the Arab spring if half of the countries involved had some less than ideally secured stockpiles. Even if a theoretical Assad decided not to use them to maintain his own neck, how secure would they be from the jihadists?
Europe is perhaps the only area where more nukes wouldn’t be much of a specific concern, because of how many there already are, how long they have been there, and how stable most of the western democracies are. No one would really have much concern about Denmark becoming aggressive any more than they worry about France. Of course the very act of seeking the weapons would raise some questions. Africa would be the other area of little concern, simply because virtually no counties are capable of building or maintaining the weapons. If South Africa were to re-weaponize, there is little worry that Zimbabwe could weaponize in response. But even where there aren’t specific concerns, the international community sure wouldn’t want to have a precedent set. Even if a weaponized Denmark doesn’t make Sweden weaponize in response, it may be used as a precedent argument by Burma/Myanmar. And then we are back to another round of arm races in some pretty volatile areas of the world. Even where things are currently pretty stable, say South America, the introduction of a nuclear arms race might well act as a destabilizing force. We certainly don’t need a Argentina-Brazil cold war to start back up again, especially if both parties are backed up by WMDs.
Of the 200 odd countries in the world something like 30 either have weapons or could fairly easily make them. And maybe three times as many could do so given time and a national focus. Hell, given that NK has done it, I’m probably underestimating. All but the very poorest and educationally disadvantages nations could probably build nukes if it came down to it. If too many of that 30 or so weaponize, at some point everyone else will feel the need. And if that would happen, the odds of one being used goes way up. And no one knows where the tipping point may be. Right now we have nine known nuclear states. How many can we have before everyone suddenly thinks they need one too? So everyone is strongly motivated to at least hold the line, and prevent further proliferation.
I must have missed it…when did Israel come out and officially say they were developing nuclear weapons (or even acknowledge that they were doing so)? And when did they sign the NNPT?? And when did ‘Western democracies’ acknowledge that Israel has the right and need to develop the things (leaving aside the first request of when ISRAEL came out of the closet and said they were/had developed the things in the first place)? Because your assertions in this paragraph pretty much turns my understanding of the entire situation on it’s head, could I trouble you for some cites to fight my ignorance??
Per this article (a reprint of an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists) Israel has never officially confirmed or denied the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons. The article goes into the attempts by a Knesset member to discuss the program in an open session of the Knesset. It did not go far, though he at least got the subject onto the floor for debate. As you’ve stated, Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. I am not privy to how much ‘winking’ went on within Western democracies towards Israel’s development of these weapons. My understanding is that it was discouraged both formally and informally, regardless of Israel’s perceived need for nuclear weapons. The links at globalsecurity seem to be an interesting primer on Israel’s development of them. I have not read Avner Cohen’s book, Israel and the Bomb, but it looks useful to one interested in the subject. And, unlike Moredecai Vanunu, Mr. Cohen made his disclosures without using classified material. (One reason he didn’t end up spending 18+ years in prison like Vanunu has done.)
Re: other democracies with nuclear weapons, it would surprise me if countries like Taiwan—countries that have hostile, WMD-possessing neighbors—did not already have nuclear weapons, officially or not, and not just the means to produce them rapidly, as Bartman has already ably written. My reasoning for that is that these countries face existential threats, and cannot fully rely upon other countries with WMDs to deter an invasion. Is the United States really going to defend Taiwan if push came to nuclear shove? Really? Would you take that risk if you were Taiwan, vs. the risk of being known to be a nuclear power? They also will not have the time to build up an arsenal, should they need it. Of course, per Dr. Strangelove, you have to tell everyone you’ve a Doomsday device, or it fails to deter. I would expect that a Taiwanese envoy has done just that with the PRC.
Though not democracies, I would include many of the wealthier nations in the Persian Gulf region in that category, particularly with the threat of a nuclear Iran. To think otherwise is to agree that the former Soviet Union—IMHO, the most likely source of already-weapon-grade fissionable material—fully accounted for all of their weapons and fissionable material through their breakup. While programs such as Project Sapphire, (and similar ones not publicly known) did account and dispose of much of the excess, I doubt that all of it has been recovered. No evidence, just a hunch, based on the abysmal controls detailed in works like, e.g., the Cockburn’s One Point Safe or, for biological WMDs, Handelman’s (and Dr. Ken Alibek) Biohazard.
I do have a question for Bartman though. When and why did Mexico refine uranium to ‘weapons-grade’? I was under the impression that it was quite difficult to refine uranium to that level of purity—one reason Sapphire was so important to pull off—and that such a high level (>80% U-235) was unneeded unless it was for weapons or very compact reactors such as those for nuclear submarines? As Mexico has neither an official nuclear weapons program, nor a nuclear navy, why would they spend the money and time to refine uranium that far?
The prospect of Mexican drug cartels having potential access to nuclear WMDs (and if the Mexican Gov’t has it, the cartels do too.) is quite concerning. Much more of a potential concern for the United States, IMHO, than a nuclear-armed Iran would be.
It had an unofficial program that started in '68 and continued into the 70s. It had to be unofficial because it was after Mexico had signed onto the Treaty of Tlatelolco. My understanding is that actual weapon grade material was only produced in very small quantities, about enough for 1-2 bombs. This was in or about 1974. But a much larger amount of weaponizable highly enriched material was produced and could have been made weapons grade relatively rapidly. At some point the program was dropped. I have no idea when. But while the agencies involved have since ceased to exist, the material and the research was kept around.
However, I did do some quick searches, and it does look like the planed transfer of material did finally take place this spring. So Mexico officially doesn’t have any HEU or weapon grade uranium any more. And the plant has been converted to only produce LEU. So Mexico is off the list of de facto nuclear states. They could undoubtedly produce weapons. But they would have to build a new breeder reactor, so that puts them back to a 5-10 year time frame to build a bomb.
And as to why? You would have to ask the PRI leadership of the time. They were pretty ruthless, and they were explictly working toward nuclear weapons. Why they felt the need is an interesting question. Was it aimed at the US? Echeverría was certainly pretty willing to antagonize Nixon. Was it aimed at the domestic enemies? They certainly had plenty, they managed to piss off both the Socialist Left, the business community, and much of the rest of the PRI. And they were more than willing to commit a massacre from time to time. Was it aimed at other Latin American nations? Who knows? I’ve never read a good account of that. Unfortunately we don’t have a Mexican Vanunu who has revealed any of the details. So even much of what we think we know may be more speculative than fact.
Thanks Boyo Jim. Should have previewed before submitting.
I had an advantage. I saw a documentary about the last shipment of it out of Mexico some moths back.