How much time for specific country to go nuclear

Hypothetic situation. Take any of appx. 200 countries in this planet. Something happens, and some particular state would go benevolent that far, that would want to go nucular (NK or Tropico style). Not counting already nuke-able countries.

Speculate, how long it would take to go Manhattan project for that country (working prototype). And they can only use their own resources (manpower, scientists, industrial, institutes, etc). In this global world I realize that this is impossible, but for sake of debate, let take it with at lot of conservatism. Internet use still allowed.

With a help of some insomnia, I’d guess for my country (Slovenia) it would take about 10 - 20 years to make some gizmo. Elaboration: One working nuclear plant, one experimental nuclear “building”, one nuclear institute and 1 (mothballed) uranium mine. GBP would main problem, as things like building cyclotrons and other shit would deal a lot of money and other damage.

And not even sure where to test that thing. Some deep mine shaft, I guess, since any land test would destroy half of the country.

For other countries, I’m speculating, that Canada, Germany and Japan are good candidates, to have their own gizmo in a year range. Go, speculate for others.

For nucular capability, you need one Homer Simpson and a pile of glowing green metal, and it will probably just take a few hours. But stand well back – probably a few miles away, just to be safe.

nm

If a country doesn’t already have a program started, then it is going to take them longer than a year.

Not to mention that most societies today are much more bureaucratic and safety/environmentally conscience. That slows things down.

In the US, the government probably can’t build a storage shed in less than a year due to regulations, approvals, environmental impact statements, community comment periods, etc.

Germany, Japan, Canada. 3-5 years. More likely 7.The Manhattan project (depending on when exactly you count the project to have “begun”) took between 3-6, and that was a complete balls to wall effort, with money being no object; which you are never going to get in a peacetime economy, anywhere basically, even if the programme is the highest priority.

It took the other nations:
USSR: 5 years
UK: 7 years
France: 5 -10 (again depending on when you begin counting the time from).
China: 10
Israel: 11
India: About 30 (same caveat as with France)
Pakistan: 9
SA: 10
N Korea: 15

Its not just having a reactor/centrifuges. Getting the required knowledge, developing and fabricating the necessary equipment, setting up the Industrial units needed, training the personnel required, and establishing reliable production lines and quality conrol, all takes time.

For many countries, that would be (and was) the stumbling block which turned the expected time to nuclearisation to; forever.

Even for advanced industrialised countries, a lot of the infrastructure has to be built, nuclear weapons programme require lots of unique skills and machinery/equipment, which you won’t bother with sans an active programme.

The big issue for most countries is getting the fissile material in a form that’s useful in a nuclear weapon. There are two types of fissile material useful in bombs- plutonium 239 and uranium 235.

U235 is a very small constituent of natural uranium, so huge quantities of uranium have to be isotopically separated via centrifuge, calutron or gaseous diffusion, leaving large amounts of U238 behind (“depleted” uranium). As you can imagine, this is a huge, industrial scale process that’s not easily hidden, nor is it cheap.

Plutonium is generated in working nuclear reactors from U238 through normal reactions. Pu239, the useful isotope is created, along with Pu240, which is a contaminant that emits a lot of spontaneous neutrons and causes predetonations. So if you’re trying to produce plutonium, you want short fuel cycles to minimize Pu240 generation. This is expensive as well.

However, separating Pu from U is relatively easy. So that’s the route most countries with nuclear reactors follow.

Once you have your fissile material, you have your design choice. U235 allows you to produce a relatively simple gun-type bomb (think Little Boy/Hiroshima) but requires a relatively huge amount of expensively separated U235 for a relatively small yield- Little Boy had 140 lb of U235 for a 15 kiloton yield. U235 is also suitable for implosion type weapons as well.

Plutonium’s inevitable contamination with Pu240 rules out gun-type weapons, as they aren’t physically fast enough to overcome the excess neutrons from the Pu240, and result in predetonations. So if you use plutonium, you’re required to make implosion type bombs, which are MUCH more technically demanding, but much more efficient. Fat Man (Nagasaki) for example, produced a 21kt yield from 14 lbs of plutonium, which was drastically more efficient than Little Boy.

Most of the Manhattan Project was spent trying to figure out implosion bombs and how to produce enough the proper fissile material(U235 and Pu-239) correctly. Most of the design of Little Boy was determined by mid-1944 (Thin Man) as part of an abortive gun-type plutonium bomb, and was actually simplified for use with U235. Manhattan Project scientists were so certain of Little Boy’s functioning that there was no test- the design was used for the first and only time in combat over Hiroshima.

The implosion method, on the other hand, was a MUCH more involved engineering task, and required a test (“Trinity”) to see if it would indeed work.

From what I gather, some aspects are much easier today- computer assistance in engineering and manufacturing makes parts more precise, for example. But certain aspects are difficult, and getting certain parts/items is actively discouraged/impeded by other countries- things like krytron/spryrton tubes, maraging steel (used in high speed isotopic enrichment centrifuges), etc…

So some countries, primarily Western industrialized ones like say… Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Italy, etc… could probably gin up a working nuclear weapon in a relatively short time- a year or two, IMO- they have developed nuclear power infrastructures, as well as highly advanced manufacturing bases. They can make their own maraging steel and krytron tubes, for example. Plus, most of the physics is relatively well understood as are the industrial processes, so they’re not having to reinvent nearly so much of the Manhattan Project’s wheel.

Other countries, like say… Slovenia or Mexico would have to develop a lot of scientific and industrial infrastructure just to get to the point where they could start development work.

It took actual Western, Industrialised countries like the UK and France over 5 years to develop the Bomb (and the French struggled with the H-Bomb), why do you think the ones you mention could do it in a “year or two”?

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of Industrial infrastructure and specialised Industrial infrastructure you need to make a Bomb. A lot which will not exist because sans an active Bomb project, you don’t need it.

Even the ones you can adapt (like reprocessing and enrichment plants) will take some significant time to become operational. It takes ~ 3 years, to setup a car assembly plant; and about a year (with prior planning) to retool one.Why would nuclear infrastructure take so little time in comparison?

Japan could probably pull it off in less than 2 years. I honestly wouldn’t be shocked if they had multiple components already engineered “just in case”.

South Korea, should they decide they’ve had enough of North Korean developments only eliciting “No one do anything provocative now that the North Koreans already have” responses from the Chinese, would probably take 5-7 years.

Mauritania? Probably never.

It depends also on just how urgently/desperately your country wants the nukes. Is it like South Africa, which didn’t really need nukes but liked to have them on the side as a side project? Then it can be done somewhat “leisurely” and not consume too much of your resources, and take its time. I think countries like India were able to take it slow as a side project alongside of their economy and everything else.

Or is it a “We desperately need nukes immediately” situation and your country is willing to spend every available resource and take every drastic measure to get those nukes? Then the time to get nukes might be considerably shorter, maybe just half what it would have been in the non-urgent situation.

Incidentally, I wonder what the international reaction would be if an NPT-abiding country like Canada or Italy were to break the rules and begin building nukes. Would they get sanctioned? Obviously it wouldn’t be anything like the sanctions put against North Korea, but would there be any meaningful penalty imposed upon them?

The US would come down like a massive ton of bricks on any Canadian or Italian project or indeed any by a NATO country, with at the very least immense behind the scenes pressure… Non-proliferation has been a tenant of US foreign policy for half a century, and the U.S is not going to tolerate an ally breaking that; it would give China and Russia carte blanche to support their allies nuclear programmes.

You might as well ask how the US would respond to Germany invading France.

The Manhattan Project did it from the ground up in less than 4 years, and that was building everything from scratch- reactors, enrichment plants, etc… some 75 years ago, more or less. We know it was a crash project

And I’m talking about A single Fat-Man style bomb, not a nuclear weapons production infrastructure. The main sticking point would be getting enough of the right fissile material, and the rest is pretty much one-off custom engineering and fabrication that would be greatly aided by the fact that we have better machining, better simulations, better calculating, etc… Plus, due to the ongoing research in nuclear physics, I’d wager that say… German nuclear scientists today know more about the physics behind the bomb than their American counterparts at Los Alamos did in 1945.

Outside of the actual enrichment/plutonium generation problem, the rest doesn’t require particularly specialized equipment, and if you already have reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, you’ve got a huge leg up.

I am not sure what “allies” Russia and China have that they would want to see go nuclear. North Korea having nukes isn’t exactly in Beijing’s interests. Iran having nukes doesn’t really serve Moscow’s interests. Maybe a nuclear Cuba or Venezuela?

I don’t even begin to understand the logic here.

The United States had to actually invent the atomic bomb and literally every single process needed to make one. Canada, to use it as an example, has actually possessed nuclear weapons. Canada has functioning nuclear reactors, every type of material needed, and industrial capability far more than capable of making any part a thermonuclear weapon requires.

The only reason a country like Canada or Japan couldn’t create a working nuclear weapon in less than a year would be because they didn’t want to. If the will was there, it could happen with (alarming) swiftness. Of course, it would be an insane thing to do, so it won’t happen. But technically, there’s no way it have to take as long as you suggest.

The UK took 7 years and had undertaken most of the basic research and had access to most of the data and knowledge from the Manhattan project. France took 10 years. And if possessing nuclear weapons were a criteria, then Greece and Turkey can make them in about a year too, by that logic.

No, I am not doubting that a big, technologically advanced and resource-rich nation like Canada would succeed, I am simply talking about the time frames needed. Canada has (from memory) one of the largest civilian nuclear industries on earth, IIRC 1/3 of global Uranium production and 80% of medical isotopes.

However, Canada has onlylaboratory scale reprocessing facilities and non no current uranium enrichment facilities. This could be rectified of course, but setting up a reprocessing or enrichment plant will take time, certainly something like 18-36 months, if you include the time needed to train people. And add to that, the needs to design detonation system, electronics etc.

The biggest expense and time-consuming parts of the Manhattan project were the facilities at Oak Ridge and Hartford

That is a major roadblock for most countries.

The Manhattan Project cost $2 billion (=$26 billion in 2016) – that is a huge amount of money. (It might be somewhat cheaper now – we know what blind alleys to avoid spending money on – but it’s still a massive investment, at the expense of other investments for your citizens.) For some of these countries, that exceeds their entire GDP.

For example, Chimera’s Mauritania “Probably never” is correct.
Their entire GDP is $11-12 billion a year; a Manhattan Project would mean spending 100% of their economy for over 2 years. By that time, every citizen in the country would have starved to death (or, more likely, overthrown the government).

Could Mauritania spend $1 billion a year on a 15-20 year nuke program?

I wonder why the US didn’t just build two of the simple gun-type U-235 assembly Little Boy weapons, drop them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, end the war sooner, and then focus on the more complex implosion Pu-239 Fat Man design later on after the war’s end.

Well, I did not specify Mauritania in myOP, but it is good case for debate. They have enough mining resources (and testing grounds), but they lack everything else. 100 - 200 y for them.

It really depends on a lot of factors

How much capital does the country have (human capital, financial capital)? A nation with an educated workforce, 50 million people and a trillion dollar economy is not the same as Somalia.

How much help can they get from international sources? Virtually no nation built their nukes solely from domestic sources and tools (even the manhattan project was a multi nation project). They all had help. The USSR stole ideas from the allies. Israel had help from France (I believe, at the very least France helped Israel build nuclear plants). Iran is getting help from North Korea. AQ Kahn and North Korea have been big sources of proliferation in the modern era. The idea of an isolated nation building nukes from scratch either has never happened, or happened rarely. Almost all of them got technical knowledge and materials from overseas sources. AQ Kahn stole his info from Europe, then sold it to multiple nations.

Having said that, getting the fissile material is the hard part. Building a bomb is not the bottleneck.