<Snipped quote by The Nexerus>

I thought we had decided that Britain administers the current IRL British Overseas Territories on the island, while Greece rules the remainder of Cyprus, including the largely unrecognised TRC.

<Snipped quote by MetalLover>

Oooh, I like the idea of pillaging Turks. Lots of pillaging. Yes.

Btw, Greece has not got a nuclear weapons program and has no atomic bombs, ICMBs or any other similar type of nuclear weapon. It has a couple of nuclear-power submarines, though.

I might consider hosting nuclear weapons of my allies if they ask, however.

Nice

In regards to nuclear weapons, first of all in response to Willy's comments that a nuclear war need not be all that entirely annihilating, I would remind you that at least in Russia's case most of their nuclear missiles are multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with total yields amounting to 20 or 30 megatons.

Secondly, I think we should establish countries that do and do not have nuclear weapons. The obvious ones:

The Soviet Empire of Greater Russia: ~3000
United Territories of America, Midwestern Commonwealth, SPQA: ~750 each
United Free Peoples of Free Asia: ~300 (probably more, since China is actively adding to their arsenal today and Free Asia is much larger and probably also added whatever weapons North Korea possessed)
French Republic: ~300
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: ~200
United South Asian Empire: ~200

Other countries likely to possess them at this point:

The Caliphate of Istanbul (let's ignore that Israel would have nuked them in order to remain in existence)
Greater European Confederation (unless they have a stance against them)

Countries that maybe could possess them, but unlikely:

Third Mexican Empire
Kingdom of Neo-Hungaria
Spain

Dominus could probably 'acquire' one, or the plans for one, if it was wished upon them.

Hopefully we do not need them for a while.

I think by 2050 practically every nation will have acquired the technical capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon. If countries like north-korea and Iran can develop the technological know how, other countries should be able to do that too. It is more a political question than a technological one. Do we uphold the non-prolifiration treaty or will it be ignored in the new world?

I think by 2050 practically every nation will have acquired the technical capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon. If countries like north-korea and Iran can develop the technological know how, other countries should be able to do that too. It is more a political question than a technological one. Do we uphold the non-prolifiration treaty or will it be ignored in the new world?

Exactly, the Ethiopian Empire has a Minor Arsenal of Nuclear Weapons (About 150), and they recently became industrialised before Ww3, all nations do have the ability to make nukes, the question is have they already made them?

But at least until World War 3, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and the general trend of less nuclear weapons and developing countries not having the technology would have held in place. Other countries don't have nuclear weapons because of technology, they don't have them because they didn't want to build them and furthermore weren't allowed to. South Africa had nuclear weapons, but they disarmed them and ended their nuclear program due to international pressure. So until World War 3 actually started and the structure of international law fragmented, no nation could have a nuclear program without the treatment that Iran and North Korea are currently subject to, namely massive, economy-crushing sanctions. Regardless of whether or not you have the technology (which would still be a highly guarded secret and would take a few years to work out, as Iran and North Korea have been doing for a decade), it takes a while to refine the uranium required and actually put it into practice as a warhead. There is no way a country like Ethiopia could have nuclear weapons this soon after the war, even if they went straight into developing them the second the war started. In a few years, sure.

In regards to nuclear weapons, first of all in response to Willy's comments that a nuclear war need not be all that entirely annihilating, I would remind you that at least in Russia's case most of their nuclear missiles are multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with total yields amounting to 20 or 30 megatons.

Secondly, I think we should establish countries that do and do not have nuclear weapons. The obvious ones:

The Soviet Empire of Greater Russia: ~3000
United Territories of America, Midwestern Commonwealth, SPQA: ~750 each
United Free Peoples of Free Asia: ~300 (probably more, since China is actively adding to their arsenal today and Free Asia is much larger and probably also added whatever weapons North Korea possessed)
French Republic: ~300
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland: ~200
United South Asian Empire: ~200

I don't think those numbers are accurate for 2050. International oversight and public opinion have both changed, meaning that the only factor determining the extent of nuclear stockpiles is capability and will. I highly doubt that countries like France and the UK would go through WWIII and then not want to expand upon their arsenal.

<Snipped quote by Mihndar>

I don't think those numbers are accurate for 2050. International oversight and public opinion have both changed. I highly doubt that countries like France and the UK would go through WWIII and then decide not to expand upon their arsenal.

Yeah, I just included them as a measure of how much they initially had the moment our timeline diverges. For countries like the former US and myself that have a lot of them, they would not likely have changed. Nuclear weapons are hella expensive to maintain.

Also, Mexico does in fact have nuclear weapons supplied by the United South Asian Empire. For story reasons I'm going to say the designs were backwards engineered by the Fascist Government but due to the Civil War and the Monarchists' aversion to war, that none are in production. So, Mexico has the full capability to produce nuclear weapons, but for the current time they are not willing to create or use them.

So I have some PMs floating out there but I'd just like to say that Dominus depends on other nations to play a part in the story. So feel free to PM me if you have a use in mind for a freelance secret agency. I can be discreet, promise. Our combined imagination is the limit.

But at least until World War 3, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty and the general trend of less nuclear weapons and developing countries not having the technology would have held in place. Other countries don't have nuclear weapons because of technology, they don't have them because they didn't want to build them and furthermore weren't allowed to. South Africa had nuclear weapons, but they disarmed them and ended their nuclear program due to international pressure. So until World War 3 actually started and the structure of international law fragmented, no nation could have a nuclear program without the treatment that Iran and North Korea are currently subject to, namely massive, economy-crushing sanctions. Regardless of whether or not you have the technology (which would still be a highly guarded secret and would take a few years to work out, as Iran and North Korea have been doing for a decade), it takes a while to refine the uranium required and actually put it into practice as a warhead. There is no way a country like Ethiopia could have nuclear weapons yet. In a few years, sure.

Yeah, but this is thirty-five years in the future. It's probable that the rate of nuclear proliferation was flung into high gear during the onset of WWIII. As the war gradually intensified, and as nuclear weapons were utilized, this proliferation rate might've been dramatically energized.

And if you're a superpower and you're still using uranium to produce nukes, then you've failed to keep pace with your aspiring adversaries. You should be producing pure fusion, antimatter-catalyzed fusion, or pure antimatter warheads at this point.

Ethiopia should at least be able to drum up a few gun-type fission bombs. They don't require plutonium, are comparatively cheap to produce, and don't require a robust technological base to engineer and manufacture--but they're woefully inefficient when compared to more sophisticated nuclear weapon designs. Implosion-type nuclear bombs are an option as well, but they're a fair bit more advanced than their gun-type cousins.

<Snipped quote by Mihndar>

Yeah, but this is thirty-five years in the future. It's probable that the rate of nuclear proliferation was flung into high gear during the onset of WWIII. As the war gradually intensified, and as nuclear weapons were utilized, this proliferation rate might've been dramatically energized.

And if you're a superpower and you're still using uranium to produce nukes, then you've failed to keep pace with your aspiring adversaries. You should be producing pure fusion, antimatter-catalyzed fusion, or pure antimatter warheads at this point.

Ethiopia should at least be able to drum up a few gun-type fission bombs. They don't require plutonium, are comparatively cheap to produce, and don't require a robust technological base to engineer and manufacture--but they're woefully inefficient when compared to more sophisticated nuclear weapon designs. Implosion-type nuclear bombs are an option as well, but they're a fair bit more advanced than their gun-type cousins.

I suppose that's fair. But equally, those countries without well-developed industrial bases wouldn't have the capability to maintain a full-fledged nuclear arsenal. Sure, they could have a sizable collection of bombs (the bomb dropped on Hiroshima of the same type only killed half the city), but hardly silos full of ICBMs and nuclear missile subs patrolling the oceans.

Just as an example. Creating a plutonium (implosion-type) bomb requires a the construction and operation of a breeder reactor, so it's probably equally hard to make as the refined uranium. The only problem with pure fusion is having enough heat to start a fusion reaction without the other nuclear weapon present. You could use a laser or some type of electromagnetic radiation, but then you need enough power to heat all of the hydrogen up at once, and as a result you'd have a bomb surrounded by batteries to the point where it would be obscenely heavy even to drop from a bomber, let alone carry with a missile. Antimatter... you'd either need the aforementioned heaps of batteries or have an attached nuclear reactor just to power the magnetic containment field. And even then, I doubt you'd be able to accumulate the amount necessary for a sizable bomb without it hitting normal matter.

Does anyone think it is reasonable to say that the Republic of Nigeria used its country as a strategic position for U.S. nuclear weapons during WWIII only for them to have seized it shortly after the war ended and have managed to maintain the small nuclear arsenal with what resources they have even expanding on it? I'm not to familiar with how realistic the scenario is with my very limited knowledge of nuclear weapons.

My feeling on the topic is that for the reason that we don't want nuclear exchanges every few pages and for realism only a few countries should have nuclear weapons. The three US's, the UK, France, China, me, South Asia and the Caliphate are quite enough.

The only reason that the US would need nuclear weapons there is if they were intermediate-range missiles (not ICBMs) and they needed to hit nearby countries. And considering you're in the middle of impoverished Africa with a distinct lack of advanced military might that doesn't seem likely. If I suspend my disbelief on that, however, they would be only capable of hitting other countries in Africa, but that might be enough for your needs.

My feeling on the topic is that for the reason that we don't want nuclear exchanges every few pages and for realism only a few countries should have nuclear weapons. The three US's, the UK, France, China, me, South Asia and the Caliphate are quite enough.

The only reason that the US would need nuclear weapons there is if they were intermediate-range missiles (not ICBMs) and they needed to hit nearby countries. And considering you're in the middle of impoverished Africa with a distinct lack of advanced military might that doesn't seem likely. If I suspend my disbelief on that, however, they would be only capable of hitting other countries in Africa, but that might be enough for your needs.

Unless the US reacquired their nukes during WWIII, there would have been ~150 nukes in GEC territory, possibly more. And more would likely have been produced afterwards as a safeguard. But then, nobody wants nuclear war. So a safeguard the large nuclear weapons are.

Sorry for my absence, I went on a trip and forgot my charger. I'll catch up and post ASAP

Who needs nukes anyway? I'm sure I'll be able to protect myself with spider silk.

<Snipped quote by Mihndar>

I don't think those numbers are accurate for 2050. International oversight and public opinion have both changed, meaning that the only factor determining the extent of nuclear stockpiles is capability and will. I highly doubt that countries like France and the UK would go through WWIII and then not want to expand upon their arsenal.

The biggest problem to me is that the numbers in America and more or less just the actual number divided by three. In reality, there are certain states where most of the arsenal is station, as well as places where weapons are held for disarming and decommissioning. Given this, I think that the UTA and SPQA would have significantly larger arsenals (The UTA because of Wyoming and Cali, and the SPQA because the only plant capable of taking apart nuclear missiles in America is in Texas).

Since none has responded to my letters (yet), I am going to get a post started.