Why isn't every small nation bum-rushing nuclear weapons development?

Not that it needs to be said, but it is abundantly clear that the only insurance guarantee against a nation outright invading you is obtaining functional nuclear weapons. Only reason we are able to bully Iran is because (As far as we know) they don't have nukes yet

So why aren't they all doing it?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because everyone on the whole entire planet fears nuclear bombs.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The political ramifications are too extreme.
    Why do you need nukes if you will lose half of your trading partners?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ahhh, the "fear". As in, NATO. As in, we can have them, but you may not. I love my country, i sleep well at night.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        no, as in all your neighbors and international trading partners go
        >uhhhh why are you pursuing nukes? Are you about to do something that you want to use nukes to protect yourself from??
        >if you don't already have nukes you probably don't have the facilities to prevent losing your nukes
        >you aren't going to be able to have enough nukes to make a difference for MAD, so the only reason you'd want a nuke is to use it on someone
        it's got nothing to do with NATO, hell most NATO members don't have nukes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      what if everyone does it at the same time?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You get CIA black budgeted

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sanctions and the US specifically allies with chosen thirdie countries so they went just join up with other thirdie countries to bumrush nuke development for obvious fricking reasons

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so they wont* my bad

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are mostly moronic. American boyscouts built up their own nuclear piles and were about to start producing fissible material.
    Multiple. American. Teenagers.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FRICKING GODDAMIT
      I GAVE THE ANSWER AND ALL THESE PSEUDO SCIENTIST COME OUT MAKING UP BULLSHIT ABOUT MAGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND HOW HARD ONE IS TO MAKE

      HERE'S THE ACTUAL ANSWER. MOST OF THE THIRD WORLD IS BIOLOGICALLY moronic. THE ONLY THING HOLDING PEOPLE BACK IS THEY ARE moronic AND ITS EASY TO SPOT FROM SPACE FOR AMERICA

      ITS NOT FRICKING HARD TO FRICKING DO. YOU CAN BUY ALL THE MATERIALS AT A FRICKING WALMART.

      JUST FRICKING FOREIGNERS.YOU ARE JUST FRICKING STUPID

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >autistic all-caps outburst over being ignored
        When you spout utter bullshit don't expect anyone to care. People in polite society ignore morons like you, that's why nobody cared to respond until you made a fool of yourself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      FRICKING GODDAMIT
      I GAVE THE ANSWER AND ALL THESE PSEUDO SCIENTIST COME OUT MAKING UP BULLSHIT ABOUT MAGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND HOW HARD ONE IS TO MAKE

      HERE'S THE ACTUAL ANSWER. MOST OF THE THIRD WORLD IS BIOLOGICALLY moronic. THE ONLY THING HOLDING PEOPLE BACK IS THEY ARE moronic AND ITS EASY TO SPOT FROM SPACE FOR AMERICA

      ITS NOT FRICKING HARD TO FRICKING DO. YOU CAN BUY ALL THE MATERIALS AT A FRICKING WALMART.

      JUST FRICKING FOREIGNERS.YOU ARE JUST FRICKING STUPID

      making fissile materials in your shed is completely different from mass producing weapons grade uranium/plutonium, manufacturing and testing nuclear warheads, manufacturing and testing MRBMs and then building both in quantities sufficient for deterrence, all while trying to prevent your nuclear engineers from getting merc'd by Mossad

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *merked

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It's easy enough that the North Koreans managed it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The other nuclear powers straight up gave them the PUREX process, the actual challenging science, for signing the NPT. North Korea then broke the treaty.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >North Korea then broke the treaty.
            I wonder when we'll realize that communists can't be relied on to adhere to treaties they sign.

            We really should just maintain a perpetual state of war against all communist states.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          North Korea is directly protected by China, which is how they can get away with it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I could be wrong, but I'm gonna guess that they didn't build a breeding reactor to produce weapons grade plutonium.
      And they probably didn't make the enriched uranium they would need for that either.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No they didn’t, you fricking moron

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >only insurance guarantee against a nation outright invading you
    Are you stupid?
    In your territory landmines are better than nukes.
    You need good BMs...

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It is moronly expensive to just collect the materials, let alone refine it and turn it into a weapon. Not to mention you also have to be able to afford to pay intelligent& motivated scientists& engineers enough money to want to live in your small shithole country, when they could easily live in a better place making more money elsewhere
    Tl;dr most countries are too poor

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    NATO encompasses every European country except Bosnia, Switzerland, Moldova, Serbia (kek) and Austria. Belarus/Russia and China have nukes and every place that isn't one of the above is irrelevant and nobody cares about invading.

    Georgia should be the next country to receive nukes since it would effectively wienerblock Russia from half the middle east. Then some allied country someplace in SEA that could help keep China from expanding

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Have you ever been to Georgia? Those inbred dipshits cannot be trusted with nukes

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You forgot Ireland

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Why would we give Pakistan more nukes?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We don’t need thermonuclear car bombs, anon

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          IRA would like to visit you boyo

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      bosnia is not a country its a province of serbia

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Only reason we are able to bully
    That's the reason. Nobody wants to lose the ability to bully, harass, pressure, coerce and bomb at will. Imagine if all countries had nuclear ICBMs. Who is left for the US to bomb or for Russia to invade or for Israel to genocide?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >bomb at will. Imagine if all countries had nuclear ICBMs
      A few nukes aren't particularly effect, they aren't even capable of stopping an armored assault due to how resistant tanks are to the blast effects and their NBC systems(ie just filters and overpressure really). Everybody having nukes wouldn't change much in their benefit it would just mean that if they piss of the big boys they now get nuked since they have nukes and they are fair game.

      I'm fine with it but it gives you little for what you get. Note that against Murica it doesn't matter as some a dozen shitty ICBMs which are likely to be jumped up R-7s which take hours to fuel, because mudmen cannot into space, are unlikley to scare anybody.

      Also I wish we had an actual genocidal white nationalist empire. If that were the case we'd be so spread out and cities so valueless other than as ports that we wouldn't care about taking nuke. And it wouldn't change our policy of "murder everybody a shade darker than milk and take their land" anyway.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because this line of thinking is a two-way street.
    Yes, on paper having a functional nuclear arsenal kind of indemnifies you against invasion. It also now elevates you to a place where there's only so much frickery you can pull before your frickery begins to present a huge problem to other nuclear powers.
    Look at a country like Russia or North Korea. Belligerence increasingly makes your continued existence as a nuclear power problematic, one of the reasons why is the issue of precedence. There's only so much precedence you can be allowed to set before the implications start to get too fricking bad.

    We're actually in a pretty critical moment for proliferation right now, specifically as it relates to Russia. Why do you think the EU and NATO are doubling down on the idea that Russia can't be allowed to even have the veneer of victory to sell to the third-world? It's because the implication will be that that victory came because when it came down to it, Russia wasn't Desert Stormed because they have the bomb. So serious, serious consequences pretty much *need* to happen to nuclear armed states that rock the boat too hard, otherwise every despotic thirdie in the world will want what Russia has guaranteed to be a "invade your neighbors brutally for free" card.

    I'm not a doomer but I do see the real possibility of nukes flying before this whole crazy era is said and done.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Our data set is pretty small, but North Korea really is the best example. Yes no one is attacking them, but nukes made them isolated from the world with few trading partners. They are backwards and behind with a starving populace. All for 1960's nuke tech level.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine is a great example of the opposite though, look how hard things have become for them since they traded nuclear arms for paper guarantees.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Good point and fair enough, on North Korea. I'd agree that's the best case scenario for belligerent nuclear despotic regimes, but what worries me is that a country like Russia seems to be almost intentionally trying to force how far things can go for a despotic regime that still fancies itself globally relevant (the whole multipolar shit). That's part of the show they're putting on with how their economy is
        >"totally doing just fine, the sanctions don't work, stop asking why we're sucking off Xi"
        It's like they're really trying to work the idea and image that they *can* do whatever they want and weather the consequences because they have the bomb.
        I never really believed Kim could become such a problematic issue that he'd demand a nuking, but Putin is really pressing his luck on this score. Maybe even more than he realizes or is willing to acknowledge.

        The whole mentality that OP demonstrates is setting the existing nuclear powers up for a really bad game of chicken, as I see it. The world simply can't exist as it does today if thirdies actually start taking that shit as gospel, and Russia seems to be writing the book in realtime (or at least trying to).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          A few problems with that assessment. One is that most countries are neither as large nor as resource abundant as Russia and lack the autarkic capacity to maintain conventional capacity needed to do whatever they want. The second is that the smaller the country, the less places you can hide and disperse your nukes which means you're at risk of preemptive conventional strike that can degrade or eliminate your stockpile before launch. That's before getting into the expenses; it's not just your nuke program, it's the delivery systems, and how to defend them and maximize their chances of success. It's ironically why soft power has so much impact regarding nuclear development, it's such a monetary and resource sink that the slightest disruptions have snowballing knock-on effects.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The opposite. Nobody could trade with them because nobody was allowed to out of fear that they would be North Korea'd too or sanctioned and bombed. The US alone decides who is allowed to trade and who is not. They have made examples of many countries and that has made the world kowtow. But with NK having nukes the situation has changed. More and more countries started to lose their fear of the US and began to trade with NK. Having nukes means you're a strong and sovereign country and as the saying goes those you cannot defeat you must embrace. The weak do not have friends. The US has shockingly allowed NK to get nukes and that has hurt the US ability to terrorize the world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It all comes to a cost benefit analysis. Most countries don't have the resources (money, knowledge, raw materials) to build their bombs or maintain a nuclear arsenal. Some may have all of these but don't want to deal with the repercussions that would come with it (sanctions, international pressure). But overall I agree with , if this is the message of the war in Ukraine, if there is no more international order and countries can annex territories with no major consequences, then having nukes will become more attractive and proliferation will be unavoidable.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just look at what the countries were saying after the the Iran attack. Every country (China, Russia, US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia). Every one said they don't want it to escalate. Hard to get them all to agree, but they did. Imagine a nuke! Shit man no one is going to support that.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The science behind nukes isn't hard but the industry behind it is niche and very expensive. You can't hide a nuclear program. As soon as your seriously start, everyone else will find out. gaseous diffusion is a massive industrial undertaking, go look up the old US plants on google maps. You can't hide them. The modern way is with gas centrifuges but those are very niche equipment and heavily regulated and monitored. Either way you go, you will leave a trail and wont hide it. Then comes the sanctions. The developed world will punish you with sanctions and if you are weak enough and a big enough problem, they might just take direct action. Intelligence services have assassinated nuclear scientists and engineers. Israelis did an air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80's.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because most countries actually capable of producing them have already made them or are under a military alliance, nuclear umbrella.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The short answer is possessing nuclear weapons is a fricking headache. It makes you figure into geopolitics in a way that requires so much fricking work that it's usually beyond what most small nations are willing to deal with, upon thinking about it. North Korea is what happens when they don't think about it as hard as they should. India and Pakistan are what happens when you think about it in the most local, short-sighted way imaginable. Israel and South Africa is what you get when you're thinking more or less out of very-real raw fear and petty spite simultaneously.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      At least South Africa's nuclear weapons program was mostly for bluffing and leverage. Even the top brass in their government never intended on deploying them.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >getting enough uranium is a pain in the ass
    >plutonium has a horrific chemistry and is extremely difficult to process
    >international political backlash
    >process areas are moronicly obvious targets
    >delivery systems are difficult and expensive to produce and often easy to destroy
    >maintenance of warheads, particularly thermonuclear ones is expensive
    >you have to test them to be sure
    The core bottlenecks are political fallout (heh) from neighbors and great powers, obtaining enough uranium, effective missiles, and maintaining the stockpile, in that order

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    because of glowies
    look at these dudes, a few mere weeks ago they were rocking homemade rifles and getting btfo left and right against the junta
    now they have uniforms and brand new m4s and fricking artillery support
    and thats only against a junta. if you go for nuclear, this happens in your country x100 within WEEKS

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >that pic
      With Ukraine, Hamas, and now the Burmese rebels using ARs, have they finally replaced the AK pattern rifles as the symbol of global armed resistance?

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because it's not like digging up water pipes and filling them with AN and sugar, brainlet.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even trying for nukes makes you a pariah state because nobody wants the international status quo upset.
    And no, you can't claim "we just want Nuclear power because there's a world of difference between weapons grade material and what goes into a power plant.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because its not worth it for everyone who can do it. Countries who are rich enough and have the expertise to pull it off (Germany, Japan, South Korea) are instead under American nuclear protection, because surprise surprise the current world order doesn't like nuclear weapon proliferation and its cheaper to let the American taxpayer pay for the US to use nukes on their behalf rather than an expensive nuclear program. Countries who aren't in the US good boy list are either too poor to go for it, or are actively sabotaged constantly trying to get it as is the case for Iran

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    a developed nation could make a couple of nukes over summer break, it's not 1943 anymore

    coincidentally if you're a developed nation you're probably not fricking moronic and are already in an alliance with multiple nuclear armed developed countries, or doing the cheese strat where you're merely surrounded by them and in no danger whatsoever as a consequence

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's hard and expensive to build and after it's built it's expensive to maintain.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Most countries don't even have tanks or jets.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    which nations are the most likely to be quietly building nuclear arsenals?
    Taiwan and Japan seem likely allies in such an endeavor.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'd be well impressed if Singapore has clandestinely procured a dozen nukes to completely clarify their "poisonous shrimp" military ethos.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because making a nuke worth the political cost is expensive and requires intelligence. The insurance of nukes only comes from second strike capability, predominately by ICBM. So on top of a nuclear program you need a missile program. Even further you need hundreds of warheads to pose such a cost it cannot be stomached. At which point we've reached the kind of cost the majority of nations cannot afford.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. America will sic the CIA on them
    2. They are moronic and incapable of such a feat.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because Muscovites chimped out and invaded a nation they pledged to respect the borders of in exchange for that nation's nukes, showing the world that there are too many subhumans around for agreements to mean dick so you're better off packing heat.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    many are in secret and most of the rest will be very soon

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Actually had a mandatory briefing about this while I was in my 2nd degree year as a cadet at the Air Force Academy. Most of them can by now. The 'secrets' for building nuclear weapons isn't really a secret anymore. If too many countries, especially the smaller ones that don't matter, start building nukes it will just lead to the US unveiling a weapon that makes modern nuclear weapons obsolete. The US doesn't actually give a shit about other countries getting nukes even though the mainstream would say different. Countries like China & Russia actively try to prevent other smaller countries from getting nukes. Why? Because then the US will disclose their new weapon that will immediately make all nuclear armed countries obsolete. Russia & China can't have that happen - they are both too dependent on their 'superpower' meme by having nukes. They want to be taken seriously by all the thirdies. Even France goes out of their way to prevent other small countries from getting nukes. The ONLY country the US would share its new weapon tech with is the UK - which then forms an umbrella over the other Anglo Saxon nations i.e. the Five Eyes. So, to answer your question in the most simple way - smaller countries don't have nukes because the nuclear powers, except for the US, have an interest in maintaining their meme statues as a 'nuclear armed country'.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I will add this to part to my post: remember the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration? Go back and research which news outlets threw the most shade at it. As you probably guessed, it was Russia & China, especially RT. Why would they care about Iran getting nukes? Aren't Russia & Iran supposed to be allies back then? Although they are 'more' of allies right now compared to back then. But still. My point is, why would Russia be angry at the Iranian nuclear deal. Would Iran nuke Russia? Is that why Russia was opposed to it? LOL. No. It was because Russia loves their 'nuclear armed' superpower meme status. Russia & China, especially Russia, have a huge interest in not allowing other small nations to get nukes as I wrote in my post. One ting I forgot to mention about the US weapon tech in terms of making nuclear weapons obsolete. The weapon would have a dual-purpose. On purpose would be to inflict damage greater than a nuclear weapon, but also with a 2nd purpose of stopping any inferior nuclear attack on the US with ease. This is the future of advanced weaponry; instead of having nukes along with a completely different system to shoot down nukes, you have a single system than can do both. When the US started its space force, we had already been doing that shit for 20+ years after 9/11. In fact, 9/11 was practically the birth date of space force.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I will add this to part to my post: remember the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration? Go back and research which news outlets threw the most shade at it. As you probably guessed, it was Russia & China, especially RT. Why would they care about Iran getting nukes? Aren't Russia & Iran supposed to be allies back then? Although they are 'more' of allies right now compared to back then. But still. My point is, why would Russia be angry at the Iranian nuclear deal. Would Iran nuke Russia? Is that why Russia was opposed to it? LOL. No. It was because Russia loves their 'nuclear armed' superpower meme status. Russia & China, especially Russia, have a huge interest in not allowing other small nations to get nukes as I wrote in my post. One ting I forgot to mention about the US weapon tech in terms of making nuclear weapons obsolete. The weapon would have a dual-purpose. On purpose would be to inflict damage greater than a nuclear weapon, but also with a 2nd purpose of stopping any inferior nuclear attack on the US with ease. This is the future of advanced weaponry; instead of having nukes along with a completely different system to shoot down nukes, you have a single system than can do both. When the US started its space force, we had already been doing that shit for 20+ years after 9/11. In fact, 9/11 was practically the birth date of space force.

      Absolutely pants on head moronic LARP.
      KYS

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If too many countries, especially the smaller ones that don't matter, start building nukes it will just lead to the US unveiling a weapon that makes modern nuclear weapons obsolete.

      So they officially teach cope at the air force now? hahah

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The vast, overwhelming super-majority of nations aren’t real sovereign countries, they’re despotic hyper-corrupt fiefdoms which exist only to sell minerals and/or exploit peasant labor to put oligarchs in palaces and establish dynasties. They only have an approximation of a sovereign border and government because Western democracies and Western financial and security institutions make them so. The problem for the typical peasant fiefdom is that they’re always at risk of having their dynasties toppled by Western democracies for one reason or another — maybe you’re ethnically cleaning a problematic group, maybe you want to grab some other fiefdom’s stuff, maybe you’re aligned with a non-Western power center, etc and so, but whatever the reason your sad, useless pretend-country which is just a vehicle for enriching yourself and your supporters has no way to protect itself from the Western bloc from wrecking your shit if they ever feel like. You only exist as a country with a pretense of a border and national determination at all because the Western bloc says you do, but if they decide to retract that then you’re fricked. That’s what nukes are for. No one will touch you if you have nukes. Sure they could ruin your wealth generation prospects but it’s vastly better than being regime-changed. It’s absolute security against the overwhelming power of the Western bloc. Why? Because the same Western bloc says it is.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They just aren't allowed to, sure if everyone started doing it at once there's no coalition that could a stop to it but no one wants to be the first one to try and get stomped by one of the great powers of the world.
    Einstein anticipated an era of nuclear peace brought to civilization by the bombs since logically every nation would try to arm itself, guaranteeing that the cost of invasion would be too high for any adversary so nation to nation wars would be a thing of the past.
    Instead the US and the USSR became a nuclear mafia of sorts and anyone without one is free pickings so countries weren't allowed to have their own programs because that would threaten or at least make them more independent of Soviet/American hegemony, so most countries were stuck with aligning themselves with one side or the other.
    After the Soviets and the Americans the only who still got their nuclear program off the ground were silently allowed to do so because locking the British Empire or the French Empire or China, India and Pakistan out of the nuclear club wasn't a viable option and most of them have tied their ship to one of the hegemons already regardless of their programs.
    North Korea and Israel are more unique cases. NK made it's existence important enough to Russia and China while the US alone didn't have enough leverage over them to get them to stop, at least not without kickstarting another Korean war and getting Seoul turned to dust so after a lot of handwringing they were allowed to have their program, with the Trump-Kim meeting probably being the one that truly sealed the deal once and for all.
    Israel similarly exploited the rift between the world's powers and got to arm itself, they also did it at the right time and in secret.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1. it's expensive as shit, so it's outside of a lot of their budgets
    2. you need some eggheads to get it to work, so the under-developed countries are going to have some difficulties with this
    3. it's escalatory as frick, and unless you're on good terms with the west, you're going to get sanctioned to hell and back.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What, are you stupid? The ones who can and have the means to do so, do so. The ones who haven't yet, are being watched and prevented from developing nukes by more powerful countries, for obvious reasons.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nukes are just smashing 2 rocks togther really hard, if you want powerful nukes then you add some nuke NOS like you would a car which increases the yield and efficiency of the explosion.
    As others have stated above, thirdies arnt even really human and lack the capability.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *