Public sentiment on nuclear weapons proliferation is marked by deep concern and skepticism. Many view the current non-proliferation regime as hypocritical and ineffective, particularly regarding the disparities between nuclear and non-nuclear states, such as Israel and Iran. There is a pervasive fear of escalating global tensions and catastrophic consequences due to the ongoing arms race, compounded by frustrations over geopolitical influences and the inadequacy of international diplomacy in addressing these challenges.

United States

Israel

Iran

The Vela Incident was supposedly a joint Israeli-South African test of a nuclear weapon

jolly_rodger42

Regardless of the back story “stolen” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.

Bloedvlek

&gt; Israel maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity, never officially denying nor admitting to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that "Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East".[24][25][26] However, in November 2023, amid the Gaza war, the junior Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu publicly considered dropping a nuclear bomb over Gaza, which some took to be a tacit admission that Israel possesses such a capability. Prime Minister Netanyahu reprimanded and suspended the minister in question.

&gt;Israel has not signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), despite international pressure to do so.[29] It argues that nuclear controls cannot be implemented in isolation of other security issues and that only following the establishment of peaceful relations of all countries in the region could controls be introduced via negotiation of "a mutually and effectively verifiable regime that [would] establish the Middle East as a zone free of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons".[30] Additionally, comments by then prime minister Yair Lapid in 2022 referring to the ability of "other capabilities" to "keep us alive as long as we and our children are here" has been interpreted as a reference to the need to retain nuclear weapons.

&gt; Additionally, Israel developed the Begin Doctrine of counter-proliferation and preventive strikes, denying other regional actors the ability to acquire their own nuclear weapons. The Israeli Air Force conducted Operation Opera and Operation Orchard, destroying the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors in 1981 and 2007, respectively, and the Stuxnet malware that severely damaged Iranian nuclear facilities in 2010 is thought to have been developed jointly by the United States and Israel. As of 2019, Israel remains the only country in the Middle East believed to possess nuclear weapons.[23] The Samson Option refers to Israel's ability to use nuclear weapons against attackers as a deterrence strategy in the face of existential military threats to the nation.

&gt;Israel began to investigate the nuclear field soon after it declared independence in 1948 and, with French co-operation, secretly began building the Negev Nuclear Research Center,[d] a facility near Dimona housing a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant in the late 1950s. The first extensive details of the weapons program came on October 5, 1986, with media coverage of revelations from Mordechai Vanunu, a technician formerly employed at the center. Vanunu was soon kidnapped by the Mossad and brought back to Israel, where he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.

soalone34

Such a trustworthy ally, steal uranium, enrichment behind close doors away from those pesky inspectors, building wmds just like they accused Saddam. 😂 Sounds like Israel is a terrorist state and should not have access to nuclear weapons.

chungushusky

&gt;The CIA believes that their first bombs were made with highly enriched uranium stolen in the 1960s from the U.S.

That's not in the wikipedia article because it's almost certainly not true. Israel got the nuclear material for its first bombs in the same place it got most of the know-how and its reactor: France.

Old_Wallaby_7461

Why is it that Israel can claim ownership to nuclear weapons but its neighbours can’t? Why is it that it is ‘reasonable israelistically’ to bomb Iran for holding nuclear weapons ‘cos it remains a “threat to Israel” but vice versa is not true.. All I can see from my end is Israel trying to bomb each of its neighbours.. Isn’t Israel the real threat to regional security?

Due_Airport_5778

ComplexWrangler1346

Israel is such an aggressor in its region while being the only one there to possess nukes. 

Iran's government is deplorable but it doesn't give Israel a pass to use all its neighbors as punching bags.

The region needs mutual respect and peace!

Still_There3603

They killed navy sailors and sunk an American warship at that time too! Also we pay them 11 million dollars a day!

TesalerOwner83

OP is a paid bot. Better get all of your posts in quick, buddy. Not sure how long those Iranian checks will keep clearing.

KevinNoMaas

everything_is_bad

"Stolen" is a lie, they paid for every gram of it, they just did so without revealing they were the ones buying it.

PairBroad1763

Biggest mistake the French have done in recent history. Giving Israel nukes.

Mushgal

Wasn’t there some info about this in the JFK files released?

JudgeArthurVandelay

If you can't save yourself without nukes.... Wait are we supposed to use it only for russia?

Lost-Letterhead-6615

"We don't have nukes but if we do we need it"

jacrispyVulcano200

hasbaha

Right_Inevitable9874

More Iranian propaganda. You’re posting this now to imply an equivalence between Israel having nukes and Iran having nukes.

AzorJonhai

Fletch009

Oh but they demand Iran to comply with international atomic standards and guidelines lol. What a joke.

PanzerKomadant

Apartheid South Africa and Israel did their programs together. The U.S. covered up their test.

Neborh

Yet another sub converted into r/politics. Is there no more to Wikipedia than Israel-obsessed articles?

AsinusRex

France literally gifted Israel with anything that has to do with nuclear bombs, US has nothing to do with it lol

nnooaa_lev

Op is an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist. Interesting article though. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/s/sM7tKcXSnv

DonutUpset5717

Money says the war between them and Iran goes Nuclear within the year. Their leaders are pathologically incapable of deescalation.

Kithzerai-Istik

Iranian propaganda posting in full swing on this sub, as usual.

Dampened_Panties

Might now arise a nuclear war between Iran and Israel?

MindlessNectarine374

Gonna be real interesting to see how this map changes in the next 10 years.

PirateSanta_1

What's meant by "Nuclear threshold"? Readiness to manufacture nuclear weapons?

jacob_ewing

Dazzling-Key-8282

That map is incorrect. Slovakia actually gets most of its energy from nuclear, but on this map, it’s coloured gray.

Formal_Obligation

[deleted]

Funny how Slovenia is on this map but Slovakia isn't with or so 5 nuclear reactors. heh

majeeek

what does "nuclear threshold states" mean

IDKIMightCare

The Netherlands could so easely make nukes; Pakistan stole our knowlegde and build them years ago...

Jemelscheet

AI requires lots of energy so I guess more orange and pink in the future...

CitizenOfTheWorld42

Significant_Coach_28

It seems Israel’s nuclear ambiguity is no longer ambigous here 😀

Tiny-Spray-1820

They really fxcked up Ukraine in that Non-proliferation agreement. Ukraine gave up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for 'security assurances' from the U.S. and Russia.

Ready-Ad-8912

They really fxcked up Ukraine in that 1994 Non-proliferation agreement. Ukraine gave up the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal in exchange for 'security assurances' from the U.S. and Russia.

I hope every country has nuclear, this way no one messes with anyone and the world can just chill

justxsal

There is a operating nuclear reactor in Austria. For research and IAEA training purpose only, but anyways, there is.

Select-Purchase-3553

Poland has had operational nuclear reactors since 50s. Currently only one, the MARIA in Warsaw is used for scientific and industrial applications.

dawidlijewski

Here's my argument, and feel free to tear it down if you like.

In the real world, uranium enrichment has proven to be the preferred path for countries which have acquired nuclear weapons subsequent to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In part, this is because enriched uranium is easier to handle, and simpler to make into a usable, deliverable explosive.

The uranium enrichment technology which made this proliferation possible was developed in response to the large demand for enriched uranium created by the US non-proliferation policy of promoting the adoption of enriched-uranium reactors, and selling fuel in exchange for promises not to recycle the spent fuel. Here we see that non-proliferation policy can be actively counterproductive.

*Uranium enrichment is not necessary for nuclear energy.* It is completely feasible to based the nuclear energy economy on natural-uranium (graphite or heavy-water) power reactors, transferring the plutonium they produce to fast breeders co-located with reprocessing plants in secure centers, which could easily be placed under international control. Small thermal reactors requiring enriched fuel could then be supplied with either uranium-plutonium fuel, or (if desired) with uranium fuel enriched with ²³³U. The ²³³U could be produced either in the fast reactors by irradiation of thorium blanket assemblies, or in the large thermal reactors by interloading thorium elements with plutonium-enriched uranium elements.

This notion is far from original with me, but I have expanded on it in my publication [*blast* №1](http://www.atomicbla.st/pages/2023-12.html).

It should be observed that US chief weapons designer J Carson Mark testified before Congress that he could design a militarily-usable nuclear explosive using reactor-grade plutonium (containing substantial admixtures of both ²⁴⁰Pu and ²³⁸Pu). I have no doubt this was true — but the expertise required to do so was developed over the course of *hundreds* of test detonations. An aspiring proliferator would not be able to do that.

mister-dd-harriman

I thought weapons grade plutonium was 239. You say that's not reactor grade? I thought that's what is produced in reactors in standard fuel assemblies?

Pestus613343

Jimmy Carter was the second or third best US president of the 20th century.  But he fucked up bad with reprocessing.

In the end all the countries that broke nuclear containment did it by uranium enrichissement, not by plutonium.

CardOk755

My friend, you are dangerously wrong. I believe that reprocessing is important, too, but the rationale you are giving is ignorant and harmful to the cause. A few limited examples of this are below.

- A facility like the one in the picture is necessary for an established nuclear power like the United States, because the goal of that facility is *NOT* to hide the production of a limited number of weapons, but to maintain a vast stockpile of expiring warheads on a regular basis.

- "Weapons-grade plutonium" is a deprecated (if persisting) term, because shots with "reactor-grade plutonium" still were demonstrated to detonate in a 1962 test. While there is a limit, typical burnup in a once-through fuel cycle is well below this.

- A process that makes a pure plutonium stream is dangerous because of the small amount of material you need. The separations from fuel are relatively easy to hide at a small scale. This makes it evasive for surveillance.

- The waste from separation isn't a problem if you're hiding the production of it at entirely. Just bury it somewhere away from people and *if* it is found, it will be long after  your project has yielded results.

- Gloveboxes exist to keep pits inert. Plutonium metallurgy is difficult, but it's not impossible. The whole "We have to figure this out" challenge of the Manhattan project isn't there anymore. While it would take some technical complexity, it's not impossible.

- Dirty bombs are still a thing. A failed Pu detonation will still be a radiological dispersion device. Simply saying, "proliferation is completely invalid against nuclear reprocessing," drastically underplays the difficulty of keeping a closed fuel cycle safe.

- Dose for reprocessing facilities is huge, if not carefully monitored and engineered. You can see projections for dose from fission products that are tremendous. This is very expensive.

Look, I want to make a closed fuel cycle feasible as much as anybody. I got into the field to help dispose of waste safely, and the best way to do that sustainably is to make less waste in the first place. It's clear you're keen - that's good - but don't just dismiss the decades of work experts in the field have put in to assessing risk.

Source: [Am expert](https://beav.es/alchemist), can provide citations if desired.

atchemey

Chemical processing is an easier process to do than enriching uranium to weapons grade. The chemical processing also produces a volume of waste products that need to be dealt with (Hanford Washington)  the production of plutonium is governed by reactor type and refueling cycle.

Icy-Ad-7767

It isn't but that hasn't been a serious argument since right after Carter so I think you're swinging at a windmill. Most countries that have a serious nuclear infrastructure are already nuclear powers anyway.

The biggest real argument against nuclear reprocessing is cost and uranium availability. We'd need a lot more nuclear capacity installed before it became worth the cost and risk (which is mitigated through even more cost), and reactors simply aren't built that quickly in the West nowadays.

I'd argue that it should change, but until it does, reprocessing is a bit of a non-starter. Maybe China will give it a whirl or iron out the kinks in the thorium cycle?

ecmrush

Your arguments dont quite hold up, but you are right it isnt the biggest reason. The biggest reason is it is uneconomical, thats it really.


Also secondarily, its just a dangerous activity regardless of the wider strategic hazard.


The whole efficiency argument falls down because cost efficiency is the problem which isnt driven by material access, there's hundreds of years of cheap Uranium about, its so cheap we've had to buy up stockpiles to keep the mines open. 

warriorscot

Plutonium Is Unsung Concession in Iran Nuclear Deal - Sept 7, 2015

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/science/irans-unsung-plutonium-concession-in-nuclear-deal.html

Vailhem

You forget uranium itself is ideal bomb making material using primitive but still effective implosive type. 

In any scenario plutonium is diffuse in spent fuel thus has not case to utilize without reprocessing. the underlying advantage of metallic fuel cycle was the Plutonium was never Plutonium was never meant to be separated, such as the IFR, it was never meant to leave the plant. 

In the ceramic fuel cycle, spent fuel has to be liquidated, dissolved and re-rendered to separate fission byproducts and centrifuge separates heavy isotopes. In Metallic fuel cycle, metal is simly slagged and fission byproducts are removed from it. In metal fuel cycle the fuel elements don't have to be perfect, or meet a specific ratio of plutonium/uranium, just has to be enriched.

SpikedPsychoe

All this talk about fuels and isotopes skips right past a very simple reality.

The US has THOUSANDS of weapons.

If the US reprocesses spent fuel for power production, this has zero impact on weapons proliferation.

pbemea

Theres a lot wrong with this.

Weapons grade plutonium comes from reprocessing fuel that had had a short dwell. 

When you irradiate fuel in commercial reactors you look to maximise burn up. You leave it as long as you can before swapping. The ongoing irradiation causes Pu239 to start capturing neutrons as we’ll participate in fission. That leads to higher ratios of Pu240 and other Pu isotopes to Pu239. These plutonium isotopes are not as readily fissionable as Pu239. This is what reactor grade plutonium is.

To get weapons grade you just need to only reprocess fuel that has a low burn up. Ie you leave it the reactor for a short time only. Short dwelling fuel as its call gets you weapons grade its as simple as that.

You need a facility like Rock Flats if you are trying to safely make 10000+ warheads. Have a look at facilities that produced the first warheads in nuclear countries. Its still needs a significant infrastructure but nothing like Rocky

The real reason to be anti reprocessing is it’s an incredibly expensive way to make a massive mess.

nininoots

Nations need to be willing to take the international hit that comes with owning and testing them. That's what it takes.

They need to be willing to take the sanctions and diplomatic cold shoulder that will come with owning them.

kyletsenior

I personally don’t believe assurances given to non-nuclear armed states have ever been truly credible. Does anyone really believe that a country would risk a nuclear exchange with another nuclear armed state when its own homeland is not at risk?

  
After seeing whats happening in Ukraine it makes sense for countries with similar belligerent neighbors to want their own deterrent. Had Ukraine kept theirs would Russia have invaded?

As to how long it would take to design a weapon, I expect there are a number of countries that already have the technical knowledge to build a weapon but choose not to so in some cases not very long.

ParadoxTrick

As far as I understand it, modern anti proliferation efforts focus on preventing access to precorser materialsnad well as machine tools.

I don't really understand the technical framework, but I am familiar with the legal one. The way it was explained to us dumbass lawyers was with the analogy of building a house. The aim is that the in this case instead of buying them like anyone else making a house, you have to provide your own bricks, ie make them in your own brick klin, your own  cement from your own factory, your own pipes and wiring from your own foundry. And ideally at the klin, factory and foundry you have to make your own made oven, machinary and furnace.

It was said that this would put it out of technical reach for most potential  proliferatoree and economically unfeasible for the rest. 

I am guessing its more complicated than that, but it was a good example nonetheless.

aaronupright

Gas centrifuge technology has pretty much escaped "into the wild" these days. The devices are actually simple and cheap to build in quantity, but you need the proper equipment and designs to do it. An international gray market in gas centrifuge technology, including complete designs, data packages for all aspects of construction and operation, and parts are available now it you have the money ($100 million would probably surface some suppliers). This is without even contacting nations like the DPRK and Iran for assistance.

careysub

Fissile material is the only thing holding back proliferation. It’s why pretty much all nonproliferation efforts focus on halting enrichment, because once you’ve got the material, the bomb is a given. Explosive lensing is a well known technique now and if you’re willing to have a limited yield and inefficient bomb Little Boy was so stupidly simple they didn’t even bother to test it and you could build it in a good machine shop out of largely off the shelf stuff.

Putting the warhead on a plane or missile isn’t necessary for deterrence. If anything in this day and age doing so just puts it squarely in the kill zone of most people you’d be trying to deter. All you need to do is test fire one, and let the uncertainty fill in the gaps for you.

For instance Ukraine. If somehow Ukraine had retained enough fissile material to make a few bombs Russia would have never likely invaded them. While it is highly questionable what exactly air defense is doing with the Russians a much more nerve wracking concern would be if say, a box truck parked near Red Square turned into a small 15kt sun or if a small naval drone converted a section of the Don river into a nuclear hot tub in central Rostov-On-Don. Heck, they already did it with the bridge once. Swap out the ANFO for a gen 1 nuke and NCD would have been orgasmic.

I don’t put much faith in North Korea’s rocket program, but they do have an awful lot of midget subs and do we really want to roll the dice on a not insubstantial chunk of Busan or Osaka just no longer being there?

The overwhelming majority of major cities are on coasts and rivers, have large roads and railway networks connecting them and are ill prepared to deal with the “Close enough” aspect of someone who’s creative and willing to use nukes in a counter value role.

The second you start entrusting your nukes to known platforms your opponent can start preparing to defeat them, counter them, neutralize them.  Merely demonstrating you have the capability to produce them and then leaving it at that creates uncertainty and the one thing everyone hates with nukes is uncertainty. It’s why SSBN’s are the be all, end all solution to survivable second strike and why most people would never consider a first.

jdmgto

As a Canadian, I can tell you that people here would riot if they brought nukes back. We had them until the 70s.

misterglass89

I think that is an incedibly bad take on your part. Never going to happen. 

Never-never-never going to happen specifically for the reason you are implying..

66hans66

Yes, Finland and Poland will most likely develop their own nukes

Odd_Cockroach_1083

Short answer: Imo. probably no.

Long answer:

The NPT is essentially an artificial construct aimed at limiting the spread of what is, by modern standards, a relatively crude and simple (40s/50s technology), but still very effective (especially combined with modern delivery systems) weapon system. Looking at human history, this is nothing short of a herculean task.

The treaty essentially relies on de facto two key components: First, that nuclear-armed states will use their arsenals responsibly (i.e., not for waging wars or conducting acts of terrorism). Second, the application of immense diplomatic and even military pressure against countries that attempt to "break out" of the NPT.

However, these measures haven’t stopped Pakistan, India, or North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons. And let’s be honest—if Tehran is truly determined, it’s unlikely the current system will prevent the mullahs from acquiring the bomb either.

Most nations, though, have chosen not to pursue nuclear weapons, largely because the cost-benefit ratio—factoring in the sanctions and military threats—hasn’t been favorable. However, the ongoing reorganization of global power structures is rapidly changing these calculations.

The most significant of these changes was, without a doubt, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Ukraine had voluntarily given up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security guarantees, only to be invaded and subjected to daily threats of nuclear annihilation by the very country that promised to protect it. This has not gone unnoticed by governments worldwide. The situation is made even more serious by the fact that Putin initiated the first imperialistic war of annihilation in which a nuclear-armed state invaded a smaller, non-nuclear neighbor to seize territory. The war in Ukraine has also demonstrated just how useful nuclear weapons can be. If Russia didn’t possess nukes, its forces would likely have been wiped out by a NATO coalition in two weeks.

We are already seeing the fallout (npi.) from this shift. Even countries with strong anti-military and anti-nuclear traditions (like Germany) are now reconsidering their stance on nuclear weapons. Nations such as South Korea now have broad public support for developing their own nuclear arsenals and could potentially build a large stockpile and put them on their already existing delivery systems within a very short time if they decided to do so.

The increasing isolationism of the United States under Trump has further accelerated this trend. Trump’s rhetoric, threats of invasion, and indirect legitimization of imperialistic behavior have eroded confidence in the "Pax Americana," even more, which has historically been one of the strongest pillars upholding non-proliferation.

In my view, the NPT effectively received an expiration date on February 24, 2022. It probably already had one before, but that date brought it much closer.

It’s likely only a matter of time before a strategically embroiled nation, such as Iran, acquires a nuclear arsenal and triggers an exponential chain reaction of proliferation (npi. I swear!!!). For instance, if Iran goes nuclear, Saudi Arabia will almost certainly follow, and other countries like Egypt, Turkey, and possibly even Jordan or the UAE might pursue their own nuclear capabilities.

At that point, so many geopolitically and economically significant countries will have broken out of the NPT that sanctioning them will become impossible. At this point it will also be difficult for nations threatened by larger nuclear-armed neighbors—like Taiwan, Poland, Finland, or South Korea—to refrain from developing their own nuclear deterrents. If this happens, we will enter a new era of “nuclear sovereignty,” where having a nuclear arsenal becomes as normal as having a police force or conventionaly armed military. This shift could be especially likely if Trump or a similar US leader decides to abandon the U.S.-led global order.

And that’s how I believe non-proliferation will ultimately end. How long will it take? Hard to say. It could begin at any moment, and once it starts, I think we’ll see an exponential explosion of nuclear proliferation within a very short time.

Edit: Spelling, Words

Sebsibus

What "strategic concerns"?

Canada protecting their maple syrup?

Denmark concerned we're finally going to get a proper recipe for æbleskivers? (Yes please!)

Let's be real.  None of these countries have any reason to develop nuclear weapons and only one of them has the financial resources to even try to enrich or reprocess.

This group has enough talent to design weapons, but no fissile materials.

What you're really trying to say is that recent comments and events are some catalyst for TEOTWAWKI.  

The little people are going to get nukes and rise up against the USA?

No.

N.B.: Panama took a little over a month to vanquish.  In 1989.   Under a vicious drug lord dictator. Without stealth and without drones.

Today it would be over in days.  The ink on the first "we should make an A-bomb" memo wouldn't be dry yet.

Panama has a few dozen aircraft.  Are they going to strap Fat Man to a Cessna?  If so, take pictures.

lndshrk-ut

It's cute that you think the NPT is a thing

Doc_Hank

It definitely won't hold in the long run and I don't think it will hold in the medium run, but not necessarily for the reasons you are implying.  


Denmark isn't going to go nuclear over Greenland, Mexico isn't going to go nuclear over what would essentially be an expanded war on drugs, Panama isn't going to go nuclear over canal ownership rights, and Canada isn't going to go nuclear over some Twitter fantasies.  The Twitter fantasies about Trump annexing Canada are not real and will not happen; Panama will likely just negotiate a different deal with the US; and Mexico's government will probably emulate Pakistan by publicly opposing US military involvement but quietly collaborating with it.  Denmark's best path to a resolution is a bit murkier but I'm guessing it will end with Denmark allowing expanded US military activity in Greenland and maybe some Trump-aligned companies getting access rights to drill or mine natural resources.  


The most concerning scenarios continue to be Ukraine, Iran, the Saudis, South Korea, and Japan.  For reasons that to a great extent pre-date Trump, although he will make some of these situations worse (and already has).  


I have expressed this several times just in this subreddit, but in short: I am most concerned about an "Israel on the Dnieper" scenario, where Ukraine feels compelled to get a nuclear capability that is known by everybody but unacknowledged by anybody.  By and large the Arms Control and Disarmament Academic Universe™ is dismissive of the possibility, but I think they misunderstand the situation (in some cases, we can *prove* that they misunderstand it).  If you search my posting history for the words "dnieper" or "dnepr" you should find my previous comments about it.


Personally, on a moral level if Kyiv magically got nukes immediately I would have no problem with it.  The problem is that in reality there is a lead-up time to getting it, and how Russia might react during that time period. The lead-up time is likely shorter than people think, but it's still there, and Ukraine would be at extreme risk during it.  As would the rest of the west.

NuclearHeterodoxy

Reports indicate that nine countries possess approximately 12,241 nuclear warheads, with modernization programs suggesting a resurgence in nuclear arms races amid global tensions.

Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want