Why Every Nuclear Power Built the Bomb (And Everyone Else Hasn't)

#metalslug3 #warpath

Nuclear weapons are the pinnacle of military power. However, only ten countries have ever developed them, and only nine still have them today. Why did those ten countries go down that route? And what has stopped everyone else from obtaining a nuclear weapon? The answers range from straightforward power politics to bizarre domestic political concerns.

0:00 Who Has Nuclear Weapons?
2:40 The United States
4:23 The Soviet Union
5:28 The United Kingdom
6:34 France
8:05 China
9:03 "Recognized" Nuclear Powers
9:29 Israel
10:17 India
11:24 South Africa
12:56 Pakistan
13:34 North Korea
14:28 Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
20:22 Capacity to Build a Nuclear Weapon
22:40 Egypt
23:19 General Negotiations, Argentina, and Brazil
23:54 NATO Countries
24:30 Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan
24:59 Lines on Maps, Nuclear Proliferation Style
25:37 Cost of Nuclear Weapons
27:09 Economic Sanctions
27:49 Preventive War, Iraq, and Syria
28:43 Iran
30:01 An 11 Year Old Easter Egg

The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

By FDR Presidential Library & Museum:

By CTBTO Preparatory Commission

By IAEA:

By RIA Novosti:

By Bundesarchiv:

By Deutsche Fotothek:

By Zdravko Pečar:

[Locutus]

Minor correction: Although Sealand has some resemblance to an oil rig, it was not an oil rig, it was a WW2 sea fort, previously known as HM Fort Roughs.

[awesomehpt]

Did they learn to stop worrying and love the bomb?

[ilficherrimolori]

Came for the lines on maps, stayed for the nuke-making tutorial

[pmamidipudi]

Correction: You neglected to mention important background information about the 1974 Indian nuclear test. It is true that domestic events played a role in the detonation, but we also need to remember what happened in the years before. In 1971, there was a war in the subcontinent in which East Pakistan (Bangladesh) fought Pakistan for independence and India supported the Bengalis in their fight. During this, the US under President Richard Nixon openly supported Pakistan and brought its navy into the Bay of Bengal and even privately considered to use nuclear weapons against India. The US only backed down when India sent out a call for help and the USSR, a friendly state, sent a nuclear-powered submarine to the region. While the war ended in an Indian victory and Bangladeshi independence, this moment showed that India was vulnerable against foreign powers. There is evidence that preparation for the Pokhran-1 tests occurred in 1972, two years before the moment of the actual test. So while the test may have been conducted partially as a political statement, it was not merely to boost Indira Gandhi’s popularity but as a statement that India would pursue any method to deter foreign aggression.

It is also important to note the reason why India refused to sign the NPT. India was actually involved in the discussions on drafting the treaty. The Indian government at that time agreed with the goal of non-proliferation, but they viewed the treaty in its current form as a half step at best and hypocritical at its worst. In particular, they took issue with the section of the treaty which created a situation of haves and have-nots by allowing the then nuclear states to retain their arsenal and not disarm. They proposed that what they viewed as a fairer treaty in which all signatories would abandon their nuclear programs provided that the states with nuclear bombs disarm. But this wasn’t accepted by the nuclear states. So India refused to sign the treaty. Pakistan, a hostile state to India, also refused to sign if India refused to as well.

But I think a big misconception is that addressing security concerns that motivate proliferation can lead states give up nuclear programs. This may be possible in the case of states who do not yet have nuclear weapons as this video demonstrates with the example of Egypt. But this is a lot harder for states to give up nuclear weapons if they already have them. Say the US and Russia somehow peacefully resolve all their security issues and adopt good diplomatic relations with each other. America still remains a hegemonic power in the world, but it still won’t give up its nuclear weapons so as to maintain its hegemony over the world and it will have security issues with other states. Russia likely won’t either so as to remain a major power in the part of the world it considers as its domain. This is just how big powerful countries are; they do not want to give up their hegemony over the world. It gets even trickier for nuclear states such as India and Pakistan. In these countries, the bomb is not merely a defence but also a political symbol. Having the bomb for them is a symbol of emergence from colonialism and exploitation as modern, technologically advanced countries. The bomb is a symbol of sovereignty and independence from foreign powers. Even if underlying security concerns are addressed, it is still likely that these countries won’t so easily give up their nuclear weapons viewing the giving up of the bomb as caving into pressure from the powerful Western countries that, in their view, do not treat them as equals on the world stage. The only way this can be overcome is if all the nuclear states agree to simultaneously dismantle their arsenals, which will be both a practical and logistical nightmare to get states to agree to and also is not possible with the current state of the world (wars, trade wars, espionage, self-interest of states, and mutual distrust of other states).

[GoingtoHecq]

I think Iran enjoys the threat of building a bomb more than having a bomb. It seems convincingly deliberate at this point.

[drayle]

I know its not discussed here but isn't it generally believed that Israel and South Africa worked together in developing nuclear weapons and there were some unexplained 'incidents' believed to be connected to this in the Indian ocean south of South Africa. This would also in part explain why we haven't any records of testing of Israel nukes as they were tested along with the South African ones far from Israel.

[teenbull]

Thats a really myopic view of the Indian programme for nuke. Preparations for the peaceful nuclear explosions started before indira gandhi (approved during shastri's term who was earlier opposed to it. It had a long history when bhabha made sure india could procure plutonium from Canada's CIRIUS and then nehru finally gave way in 1960 for a plutonium reprocessing plant with the chinese threat looming. The 1962 defeat and unreliability of the soviet allies nudged india to head for nuclear deterrence.)While the test certainly would have yielded domestic political points for her, its wrong to attribute indian pursuit for nukes for domestic benefits.

[XanderCB]

The soviets also did their best to remove as much uranium ore as possible from their eastern european satelite states. For example, Romania alone "voluntarily" exported more than 17, 000 tones of uranium ore to Soviet Union. It left an ecological disaster behind, one that still affects people today.

[murdo_mck]

25:50 When the US lost an H bomb in 1966, Robert McNamara stated publicly that it was worth $2B. Perhaps someone divided the total program cost by the current number of nukes?
He may have regretted saying this because a Spanish fisherman saw it enter the water and helped the US find it without waiving his right to a salvage award based on a percentage of its value. Source: John Piña Craven "The Silent War".

[neilbadger]

Sea land is not an old abandoned oil rig. It is however an abandoned world war two gun emplacement I believe that was constructed for the Uk's defence during that conflict.

[john]

Well since gunpowder is made of charcoal and that charcoal had a small bit of radioactive carbon 14 in it.
I would like to announce im 10th nuclear power.

[mattbowden]

You are 100% wrong about the US providing the UK with technical assistance. The Manhattan project was supposed to share results with the US and UK but instead the US cut the UK off at the knees entirely denying them access to the research they had been jointly doing - going so far as to confiscate British scientist's personal notes. The UK was forced to conduct their post-war nuclear weapons program entirely independently, right up until the US relented after the UK detonated their first H-bomb. The US treated a lot of technology "sharing" agreements with the British with similar contempt, for example taking British high speed flight technology and giving them nothing in return, allowing the US to beat the UK to breaking the sound barrier.

[yurilytviak]

The Ukrainian nuclear weaponeers who oversaw them in the years prior to ‘ 94 didn’t think Ukraine getting full control of a sufficient number would be difficult. I imagine they were referring to the tactical ones which were built to be under authority of the highest ranking officer in relevant area . In Cuba, it was a soviet captain….

[SacredPlatypus]

IIRC, regarding the UK testing nukes in the UK, apparently that was indeed the original idea. Site was somewhere in the highlands of Scotland, possibly an island. However, William Penney (Chief Government Scientist) apparently said that he thought that was not a good idea.

[avengermkii]

Unfortunately, Reddit was harping at Ukraine with the nuclear weapon narrative. I'm glad this video is here because we really don't fully understand the nuances of geopoltiical issues of nuclear weapon ownership

[PhilfreezeCH]

Switzerland actually had a nuclear weapons program, mostly as a response to Germany asking its allies for nukes under their direct control, this made us a bit concerned because of all that WW2 stuff.
Anyway, we stopped the program with the final report saying we process all technical requirements to build a nuke. We even had Plutonium and enriched Uranium stored for some time, just in case (we gave it to France so we don‘t have it anymore, at least not officially).

[LeCharles]

I think if you have the ability to test a nuke but not in your home territory, you're officially a modern empire.

[kimanddanahaagenson]

Always impress how much I learn, and how easily it happens, when watching your vids. Thank you for what you do.

[UNuklear]

dude the subtle flex of a peer-reviewed paper on EXACTLY the topic of the video.

WS at their finest.

[tannerross]

An amazing video that clearly took a lot of effort and time to make. I appreciate that someone as educated and informed as you is also willing to share their expertise is such an understandable manner.