The Geopolitics Of Nuclear Weapons Explained (In 3 Simple Maps)

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by George Friedman, Xander Snyder, and Chyenne Ligon via MauldinEconomics.com,

Nuclear bombs have a strange quality: They are a type of weapon that countries spend enormous sums of money to develop but don’t actually intend to use. While chemical weapons have been frequently used in war, no country has detonated a nuclear bomb since the end of World War II.

Nuclear weapons are in their own category. Their efficacy comes from their ability to deter aggression, as the potential for massive devastation forces countries to rethink moves that threaten an adversary’s essential national security interests. States, therefore, are unlikely to use nuclear weapons against one another. However, the risk of a nuclear attack would increase if they were to fall into the hands of non-state actors that follow a different set of calculations that don’t necessarily take into account the defense of a predefined territory.

Nine countries currently have nuclear weapons with an assortment of delivery systems. The following graphics outline which countries possess or have possessed nuclear weapons, as well as some states capable of producing them. They also show how these weapons have reshaped the constraints that countries face in their geopolitical calculations.

Current Nuclear Powers

This map highlights three aspects of the global nuclear arsenal.

The first is a distinction between deployed and reserve weapons. Deployed nuclear weapons are already attached to a delivery system and ready to use. Warheads in reserve still require this final attachment step before they can be delivered.

 

The second aspect is the three delivery systems that comprise the nuclear “triad”: land-based missiles (usually ballistic missiles but sometimes also cruise missiles), submarine-launched missiles (SLBMs), and weapons carried by aircraft (usually bombers but sometimes air-to-surface cruise missiles loaded on fighters or fighter-bombers). Land-based ballistic missiles—especially intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)—provide long-range strike capability within a short period. SLBMs have retaliation capabilities in the event that a country’s land-based ballistic missile arsenal is destroyed in a first strike. Warheads on aircraft are more flexible, since bombers can be recalled after a strike has been ordered, but they are slower to reach their target than missiles (except in the case where bombers are already in flight and their target is nearby). Each nuclear country has a different mix of delivery capabilities, but only the United States and Russia are known to definitively possess a full triad, while China and India are suspected to have it.

 

The third aspect is the large portion of global nuclear arms held by the United States and Russia. Currently, the US has approximately 4,480 warheads, and Russia has 4,500. These figures include both strategic warheads (which are meant to strike sites located far from any hypothetical battlefield) and nonstrategic, or tactical, warheads  (which are intended to be used near a battlefield, and as a result, are usually less powerful). The size of these arsenals, however, pales in comparison to each country’s peak inventory during the Cold War: The US had 31,255 in 1967, and the Soviet Union had 40,159 in 1986.

Throughout the Cold War, the doctrine of mutually assured destruction required a sufficiently large force that would allow for a massive retaliation even if a first strike eliminated a large portion of a country’s nuclear arsenal. Additionally, during most of the Cold War, delivery systems were not particularly accurate, which required that nuclear weapons have very large yields to reliably strike a target that might be located miles away from the point of detonation (many hydrogen bombs were in the several megaton range). As the accuracy of delivery systems improved, fewer nuclear warheads were required to maintain a credible deterrence threat, leading to a decline in both countries’ arsenals.

Nuclear weapons fundamentally alter the relations between countries because each country is forced to think more pointedly about its adversaries’ security imperatives. Developing a strong understanding of those imperatives is critical to avoiding a nuclear retaliation. While several “hot” wars and other tense moments occurred during the Cold War, none escalated to a direct confrontation between the Soviet Union and the US.

For a more recent example, consider the case of North Korea, which has received a lot of attention in the last week due to a recent missile test and the expectation of another nuclear test. It is a poor country whose nuclear program has allowed it to punch above its weight internationally and force superpowers to approach it with great caution. North Korea’s deterrent capability would be eliminated the moment it uses a nuclear weapon, which would be akin to committing certain suicide. While many fear the irrationality of North Korea’s leadership, Geopolitical Futures’ current understanding of the regime is that it has persisted for decades throughout the Cold War and after the fall of the Soviet Union because it is able to make cautious calculations and has continued to choose not to inflict destruction on itself.

Former Nuclear States

Note: While Iran appears to have discontinued its nuclear program in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, we chose to include it in the third map to discuss the geopolitical ramifications of an Iranian nuclear breakout.

Several countries had nuclear weapons or weapons programs that were subsequently abandoned. Three factors contributed to these forfeitures: changes in geopolitical circumstances that decreased the need for nuclear deterrence, pressure from a major power that provided a guarantee under its own nuclear umbrella, and outside intervention that resulted in destruction of the weapons programs.

Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine all inherited nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Belarus was left in possession of 81 warheads and an assortment of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan had 1,410 nuclear-tipped missiles. Ukraine was left with 1,900 strategic warheads and between 2,650 and 4,200 nonstrategic nuclear weapons, making it the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. All three countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and returned the weapons to Russia by the mid-1990s to be dismantled.

South Africa is the only country that independently developed its nuclear weapons and subsequently forfeited them. The pro-apartheid government pursued nuclear energy and weapons development from the 1960s to the ’80s, eventually producing six nuclear weapons. In 1989, the program was stopped as apartheid came to an end and the government of F.W. de Klerk handed power over to the African National Congress. The weapons and associated facilities were dismantled, and South Africa signed the NPT in 1991.

Two developments influenced South Africa’s decision. A 1988 agreement between Cuba, Angola, and the US resulted in the withdrawal of 50,000 Cuban troops that had been stationed in Angola during the Cold War and supported by the Soviet Union. The risk of Soviet intervention posed by these troops in the ’70s was one of the main reasons South Africa developed nuclear capability in the first place. Second, South Africa weighed the costs and benefits of joining the NPT and realized that improved relations with the world more than offset the decreasing deterrent utility from the bomb since the Cuban forces had been withdrawn and the Soviet Union no longer posed a threat.

Argentina and Brazil are two of the seven other countries that abandoned their nuclear programs before acquiring nuclear weapons. They both secretly pursued nuclear weapons capability beginning in the late ’60s to early ’70s. By the early ’90s, both countries had given up their weapons programs and signed the NPT.

South Korea and Taiwan had secret nuclear programs in the ’70s that were discovered by international intelligence. Both programs were subsequently disbanded—South Korea’s in 1975 when it signed the NPT, and Taiwan’s in 1988 as a result of diplomatic pressure from the US.

In the Middle East and North Africa, Iraq, Syria, and Libya all had active nuclear weapons programs. Iraq’s nuclear program was forcibly dismantled after the Gulf War, and Libya voluntarily gave up its secret nuclear program in 2003 under the direction of Moammar Gadhafi. Syria’s nuclear ambitions never progressed as far as those of its neighbors, but it is believed to have possessed enriched uranium and built a research reactor with the aid of North Korea. In 2007, Israeli airstrikes took out Syria’s reactor, suspending the nuclear program indefinitely.

Nuclear Latency

When a country does not currently have nuclear weapons but has a peaceful nuclear program that could be used to produce nuclear weapons, it is said to be in a state of “nuclear latency.” To build a nuclear weapon, a country must have technical knowledge and capabilities, access to materials, and a well-developed industrial sector. Of the 31 countries that possess nuclear power plants, we have identified five important countries for which the acquisition of nuclear weapons would radically impact relations with both their regional neighbors and global powers. These countries have both the technological and economic resources to develop nuclear weapons and are likely to play pivotal roles in major geopolitical events within the next decade. 

Iran’s nuclear ambitions led to intense negotiations with the West. In 2015, the negotiations resulted in the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which saw Iran shelve its nuclear program for a set period of time in exchange for benefits including sanctions relief. However, if Iran were to continue enriching uranium in secret and develop a nuclear weapon despite the JCPOA, it would alter the balance of power in the region. Iran would have a new, asymmetric power relative to its Sunni rivals and force Israel to reconsider strategies that incorporate pre-emptive strikes.

Japan has large stockpiles of plutonium from civilian uses and already possesses uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technologies. Estimates of Japan’s breakout time range from six months to several years. Japan’s alliance with the United States has thus far deterred it from developing nuclear weapons because it knows it can rely on the US for defense. However, North Korea’s progress in its nuclear program could drive Japan to reconsider. A nuclear Japan would threaten China’s desired hegemony in the region and force it to proceed with greater caution in its actions in the South China and East China seas.

South Korea and Taiwan have advanced civilian nuclear programs and technical knowledge that could be redirected into a weapons program. They also have the need to defend against regional threats. As North Korea appears to move closer to possessing a deliverable nuclear warhead, the South Korean government has debated acquiring a nuclear weapon. Taiwan is in a similar position. Its sovereignty is threatened by mainland China, which possesses nuclear weapons. Taiwan could consider developing a nuclear weapon to discourage Chinese aspirations to fully reclaim the island. South Korea and Taiwan are concerned about escalation, however, so instead choose to rely on the nuclear guarantee provided by their alliance with the US.

On the other side of the world is Germany. Germany is a highly industrialized state with civilian nuclear capabilities. It is currently protected under the NATO nuclear umbrella by the US and the European nuclear powers (France and the United Kingdom). It also is bound by international treaty not to pursue weapons development. However, it is not inconceivable that Germany would consider developing nuclear weapons to deter Russian aggression if it questioned America’s commitment.

Conclusion

Every country has a red line, past which its security imperatives will be threatened and it will be compelled to respond with force. Without a sufficient deterrent, potential adversaries incur less risk when they test where exactly that line is. Introducing nuclear weapons into these calculations, however, forces the aggressor to proceed with caution because the risk of massive retaliation is great. This is a difficult balance to strike when the addition of nuclear weapons by one party is itself the act that breaches the security imperatives of the other.

The world’s eyes are now set on North Korea for this reason: The United States is in the process of deciding whether recent developments in North Korea’s nuclear program have crossed this boundary and, if they have, what force constitutes an appropriate response. Though the US is not directly threatened by North Korea’s nuclear weapons (based on the current understanding of its ballistic missile technology), the safety of its allies would be jeopardized by a North Korean bomb. British and French fears that the US would not make good on its nuclear guarantee led to proliferation in Europe. Similarly, if the US’s Asian allies question the credibility of its guarantee, the risk of nuclear proliferation in the region will grow.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Yuri Bezmenov's picture

Israël and the Samson Option, something to watch for.

D Nyle's picture

A couple years ago it was reported Israel had 250 nukes? who am I to trust any reporting anymore

Yuri Bezmenov's picture

WE POSSESS SEVERAL HUNDRED ATOMIC WARHEADS AND ROCKETS AND CAN LAUNCH THEM AT TARGETS IN ALL DIRECTIONS, PERHAPS EVEN AT ROME. MOST EUROPEAN CAPITALS ARE TARGETS FOR OUR AIR FORCE.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.b...

 

Nexus789's picture

A rougue nation indeed. Why target in that way? Perhaps they are worried that the peoples of the world will figure out that they are behind much of the bad stuff that goes on.

Jimmy Jimmereeno's picture

Authored by George Friedman....

Why does that name ring a bell?  Why does the Mauldin guy constantly associate with George Friedman?  We all know who Friedman is and the philosophical outlook that he associates with, right?

You know what I always enjoy?  It's when people like Mauldin, a total establishmentarian, use pie charts as above that show nuclear weapons potential but fail to discuss the fact that the only nuclear power that has ever detonated a nuclear device in real world circumstances - ex a testing environment - is the USA (and, of course, do they not mention that the detonated devices solely targeted civilian populations).

Remember the Eldridge Cleaver 1960s quote:  You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem.  Mauldin is not part of the solution and he needs to go.

ZH needs to stop giving the guy exposure; he gets plenty on other co-opted sites.

 

 

lucitanian's picture

I think everyone must see this film in order to understand what is really at stake today:

 

The Coming War on China - Chinese Subtitles

InsaneBane's picture

General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."

Nexus789's picture

I've read in a few places they have 300 or so. Hypocrisy as no one inspects Israeli facilities to actually find out what they have got. Perhaps we should sanction them.

Yuri Bezmenov's picture

..And the most paradoxical of it all the American taxpayer, aka goyim, did finance it.

With so called love,

Rabbi Dov S. Zakheim

 

InsaneBane's picture

BTW JFK did try it...does Permindex ring a bell? Someone..

bluskyes's picture

Is anyone selling apartments under the ice in antarctica yet? The surface is fucked!

Jimmy Jimmereeno's picture

Al G'hore was there last summer.  He bought the lot of vacancies.

Yuri Bezmenov's picture

”War is the greatest fun you can have with your pants on." -zionist jew Martin van Creveld

https://youtu.be/X646HYoQTbU?t=8m42s

 

 

skinwalker's picture

It's a little ironic that Germany and Japan could build a nuclear arsenal in their sleep, and 70 years ago that was the west's greatest fear.

land_of_the_few's picture

There, for a start are two errors in the thinking of this article

1) Germany is actually *shutting down* its reactors. Not something you do when you are really keen to keep a warhead making possibility.

2) Germany clearly doesn't worry about Russian "aggression" at all. That's just PR to keep the naive newbies in tow. France and Italy don't give a hoot either.

Ahh make it three, why not.

3) France *did* have a triad, so not just USA and USSR. They closed their land-based silos after the end of the Soviet Union.

Plus ... Russia has a nice selection of roadgoing missiles. Triad plus 1 extra leg?

 

 

Gen. Ripper's picture

Great - the frogs have all their nukes constructed and ready for their Mohammedans to deploy.

koan's picture

But did the bombs actually get built? Or was the money for them funneled else where.
Real question, there's not way for the general public to know the truth of it.

East Indian's picture

The first bomb was of such a simple design, even for 1945, that the Project Manhatten team decided not to test it at all. 

Such a technology is well within the reach of at least 50 countries today, the only barrier is the availability of fissile material, which is jealously controlled by the nuclear powers.

If a nuclear power gets defeated somehow - economically, even- its fissile material will be available somewhat easily; this is what happened in Soviet Union after 1991. Or it may decide to get even with the victors by selling it away. Imagine what would have happened to Libya's fissile material had it been available in 2011 (Hillary Clinton would not have dared to touch Gaddhafi if his nuclear program was alive in 2011, I accept). 

If NK is taken out, China will move in quick to grab the fissile material, and probably the technicians too. 

But what if China is defeated, or Russia... Even if the NATO is successful in decapitation, and also dodges the Dead Man's Hand, they have so much nuclear weapons, it will be impossible to "move in and grab" all of it quickly; and the survivors may be so enraged, they will be selling nuclear weapons to everyone...

But then in a nuclear winter, when you are hiding in bunkers, and whiling away your five years, it does not matter at all, I guess. 

following yet another parked car's picture

ah ah. Iraq..... good one tyler

third string plug's picture

Love the graph featuring Korea, Japan, Persia and Germany as potential next agressors.

My question: where are the Ottomans?  Didn't they invent barbarism?  

Israel listed and the turks skipped.  Incredible what has become of media.

(Take a moment to imagine Mohammet but with a tactical nuke.  Good times all the way up to at least Belarus.)

ebworthen's picture

Tanks, Carrier Battle Groups, and Boots on the Ground all the horse drawn cavlary of WWI.

We really don't want to see WWIII - but don't think us monkeys can avoid it.

Know shit's picture

That is funny:
"Nuclear bombs have a strange quality: They are a type of weapon that countries spend enormous sums of money to develop but don’t actually intend to use"

I had to think about my gold:
I have spend some good money on it, as being an insurance. But I hope i hope i'm just a bit creazy and it will not be needed.....

But something tells me the nuclear stuff will be used some day and also my gold will be needed one day as well....

Take care

mlambo's picture

The last white government of South Africa volunteered to give up its nuclear weapons because the prospect of the incoming black government having control of them was too terrible to contemplate. Who in their right mind would trust a black African country with anything as dangerous as a nuclear bomb? They make the North Koreans look sane, intelligent and well balanced in comparason.

amanfromMars's picture

Nuclear bombs have a strange quality: They are a type of weapon that countries spend enormous sums of money to develop but don’t actually intend to use.

Have you not yet realised that nuclear bombs are a stealthy quantitative easing weapon for mass fiat currency printing? Mountains of money for spending on nothing creative?

And a very effective confidence trick they be too for fooling the psychotically deluded.

Take a bow, Michael Fallon type bods ....... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-first-strike-war-green-party-fanatics-jeremy-corbyn-jonathan-bartley-a7700071.html

 

 

Nassim's picture

"Russian aggression", "Iran's nuclear ambitions"

Give us a break!

land_of_the_few's picture

The author is telling us that Germany needs to get heavily armed quickly to "reassure" Poland and Lithuania. Of course, thise countries (and Germany) are too polite to request this themselves.... so they need "friends" to speak on their behalf.

JailBanksters's picture

With so many in the hands of so many, they will never be used.

Well, not by a Government, and not Intentionally.

They would only be used as a last ditch effort and scorced earth policy.

I can however see somebody like the Rothschilds Personal CIA@Langley pretending to be Terrorists with a Bomb thing.

This has to be a greater chance of reality, than say Numb-Nuts in Korea going "Balistic"