Developments in Nuclear Weapons Around the World

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,460
Reactions
107 19,162
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Turkiye "could". Any country "could" do things in the end. It just would not be a wise move IMO.

Turkiye would also have to remove itself from the NPT before doing this....there are specific clauses here Turkiye would be in violation of.

That is why Biological weapon of mass destruction is a great solution. (Not just for Türkiye, but also for other similar countries that want avoid all political and economic repercussions of making nukes yet need to posses deterrence) You can develop it in a lab with a handful of mid tier scientists. Something that is practically concealable from today's intelligence, unlike a nuclear WMD program. Which requires billions of dollars and over thousand people to develop the whole thing. (Multiple enrichment plants, development of delivery systems, production of sufficient numbers of warheads, force design, command and control, second strike capability) All of this is not practically concealable in 21th century. Or even wasn’t in 20th century.

On the other hand, the cost of a biological weapon is estimated to be about 0.05 percent the cost of a conventional weapon in order to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per kilometer square. Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare agents, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics.

Biological warfare - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare



While, biological WMD doesn't have tactical battlefield usefulness, it can definitely serve as strategic deterrence. Even though USA can shoot down limited numbers of ICBMs carrying thermonuclear payload, it simply cannot shoot down virus. In today's highly globalised And interconnected world (Unprecedented in human history) any decent intelligence agency has the ability to introduce multiple deadly viruses into enemy's territory that could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure, before the enemy catches up to one of the viruses with development, sufficient production and distribution of vaccine in time, let alone all of them.



And you don’t even have to declare to world that you posses biological WMD and have sufficient delivery system in place (which is far more easier than building ICBM and SSBN) for deterrence effect.
All you have to do during any crisis is to let your nuclear armed adversary know that you have biological WMD and the sufficient means to deliver it. Again, they don’t have to fully believe your threat. The very ambiguity will provide a level of deterrence that you wouldn’t otherwise have. More like how Israel's nuclear ambiguity work. To any sane adversary, taking such huge risk would be deemed unacceptable.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,460
Reactions
107 19,162
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
That is why Biological weapon of mass destruction is a great solution. (Not just for Türkiye, but also for other similar countries that want avoid all political and economic repercussions of making nukes yet need to posses deterrence) You can develop it in a lab with a handful of mid tier scientists. Something that is practically concealable from today's intelligence, unlike a nuclear WMD program. Which requires billions of dollars and over thousand people to develop the whole thing. (Multiple enrichment plants, development of delivery systems, production of sufficient numbers of warheads, force design, command and control, second strike capability) All of this is not practically concealable in 21th century. Or even wasn’t in 20th century.

On the other hand, the cost of a biological weapon is estimated to be about 0.05 percent the cost of a conventional weapon in order to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per kilometer square. Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare agents, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics.

Biological warfare - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare



While, biological WMD doesn't have tactical battlefield usefulness, it can definitely serve as strategic deterrence. Even though USA can shoot down limited numbers of ICBMs carrying thermonuclear payload, it simply cannot shoot down virus. In today's highly globalised And interconnected world (Unprecedented in human history) any decent intelligence agency has the ability to introduce multiple deadly viruses into enemy's territory that could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure, before the enemy catches up to one of the viruses with development, sufficient production and distribution of vaccine in time, let alone all of them.



And you don’t even have to declare to world that you posses biological WMD and have sufficient delivery system in place (which is far more easier than building ICBM and SSBN) for deterrence effect.
All you have to do during any crisis is to let your nuclear armed adversary know that you have biological WMD and the sufficient means to deliver it. Again, they don’t have to fully believe your threat. The very ambiguity will provide a level of deterrence that you wouldn’t otherwise have. More like how Israel's nuclear ambiguity work. To any sane adversary, taking such huge risk would be deemed unacceptable.

The relevant countries would have to remove themselves from the UN convention on biological weapons (and then bring attention to themselves as to why). The deterrent only works if you develop it and arm it openly, and be ready to face the longer consequences in peacectime of doing so (and balance that with potentials of war requiring deterrence). Developing things secretly just means no deterrence is achieved anyway and further problems if detected by other powers.

There is a real stigma associated with biological weapons as well compared to nuclear weapons (which can be used, especially in number of tiered scenarios, in strictly anti-military and infra-denial way rather than solely anti-civilian way).

In the end, nuclear deterrence is really the only cost/benefit that works w.r.t this all (managing the peacetime grind with the WMD deterrence potential).

Any country going for Nuclear WMD (while remaining in NPT or staying under breakout due to other factors) likely should study the Japanese, South Koreans and Taiwanese on how to pursue that without achieving the final weapons themselves. i.e getting all ducks in a line as much as possible to have a breakout as close to possible should it be needed.

The Iranians can also be studied in an anti-western context....as to their efforts openly shown and potential of having some untested devices right now (again while remaining within NPT, but facing huge sanctions from West and allies).

The Saudis also potentially have some nuclear sharing umbrella with Pakistan given Saudis bankrolled a large part of the Pakistani program it is claimed.

But these are all unclear situations in the end if actual war requiring deterrence comes....and dependent on the time nature and context of that war affording time of relevance ( to get a breakout + credible arsenal done in response).

Turkiye could explore the grey realms of these given a grey realm (i.e spaces between clear not have and openly have) has some deterrence of its own.

There hasn't been a lot of intel/rumint on Turkish approach to a grey realm here compared to number of others I list, so maybe its likely that nothing has happened on this front at all.

But if its interested in open clear WMD deterrence, it would have done things differently in a structured way for the last few decades at least with the requisite evidence to show for it like plutonium producing nuclear power plants etc....to at least start to get a plutonium stockpile (like Japan) or the capability to produce weapons grade Pu at short notice (like South Korea).

It leads me to believe Turkiye more or less is satisfied with or constrained under the NWS program with NATO (i.e the US) at incirlik etc. Doing these things while remaining in NATO is fraught with problems....somewhat mirroring the challenges Japan (past its own anti-nuclear weapons stance officially) and South Korea have with their close military relationship and existing umbrella with the US.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
The relevant countries would have to remove themselves from the UN convention on biological weapons (and then bring attention to themselves as to why). The deterrent only works if you develop it and arm it openly, and be ready to face the longer consequences in peacectime of doing so (and balance that with potentials of war requiring deterrence). Developing things secretly just means no deterrence is achieved anyway and further problems if detected by other powers.


That is why I said-

"And you don’t have to declare to world that you posses biological WMD and have sufficient delivery system in place (which is far more easier than building ICBM and SSBN) for (a relative) deterrence effect.
All you have to do during an existential crisis, is to let your nuclear armed adversary know that you have biological WMD and the sufficient means to deliver it. Again, they don’t have to fully believe your threat. The very ambiguity will provide a level of deterrence that you wouldn’t otherwise have. ( and I am not saying, it would be the same as with declared nulcear WMD capability) Still, to any sane adversary, taking such huge risk would be deemed unacceptable."

Bottom line is, for deterrence to work, you have to declare it and do it openly. This is the conventional wisdom with nuclear WMD. But I am arguing, this is not the case with deterrence effect of biological WMD to take place. (At least partially)

That is because, during a crisis if you just say out of blue, I have nukes, it won't be credible. as for deterrence to work adversary has believe/at least half believe your threat. Which is not gonna happen in this case, becuase it practically impossible develop nukes amd delivery systems today in complete secrecy. Hence, adversary will simply call off your bluff.

On the other hand, biological WMD program (both the development of the agents themselves and the delivery system) can be practically kept concealed. Hence, adversary simply cannot be sure if this is an empty bluff or an actual threat.


And yes, I am aware of the limitations of Biological WMD as it cannot be used against military targets strictly like tactical nukes and escalation control is not possible. However, at strategic level it still works if your country facing threats of mass annihilation.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Yep, Avangard is critical for the future of Russian nulcear deterrence.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,838
Reactions
11,899
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
That is why Biological weapon of mass destruction is a great solution. (Not just for Türkiye, but also for other similar countries that want avoid all political and economic repercussions of making nukes yet need to posses deterrence) You can develop it in a lab with a handful of mid tier scientists. Something that is practically concealable from today's intelligence, unlike a nuclear WMD program. Which requires billions of dollars and over thousand people to develop the whole thing. (Multiple enrichment plants, development of delivery systems, production of sufficient numbers of warheads, force design, command and control, second strike capability) All of this is not practically concealable in 21th century. Or even wasn’t in 20th century.

On the other hand, the cost of a biological weapon is estimated to be about 0.05 percent the cost of a conventional weapon in order to produce similar numbers of mass casualties per kilometer square. Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare agents, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics.

Biological warfare - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare



While, biological WMD doesn't have tactical battlefield usefulness, it can definitely serve as strategic deterrence. Even though USA can shoot down limited numbers of ICBMs carrying thermonuclear payload, it simply cannot shoot down virus. In today's highly globalised And interconnected world (Unprecedented in human history) any decent intelligence agency has the ability to introduce multiple deadly viruses into enemy's territory that could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure, before the enemy catches up to one of the viruses with development, sufficient production and distribution of vaccine in time, let alone all of them.



And you don’t even have to declare to world that you posses biological WMD and have sufficient delivery system in place (which is far more easier than building ICBM and SSBN) for deterrence effect.
All you have to do during any crisis is to let your nuclear armed adversary know that you have biological WMD and the sufficient means to deliver it. Again, they don’t have to fully believe your threat. The very ambiguity will provide a level of deterrence that you wouldn’t otherwise have. More like how Israel's nuclear ambiguity work. To any sane adversary, taking such huge risk would be deemed unacceptable.
No,biological weapons is a NO-GO,we just need to have the nuclear infrastructure ready,no more no less.
Nuclear Infrastructure: incase we need nuclear weapons everything is ready to make them.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
No,biological weapons is a NO-GO,we just need to have the nuclear infrastructure ready,no more no less.
Nuclear Infrastructure: incase we need nuclear weapons everything is ready to make them.

Well, it is for Bangladesh then.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
What do you mean ''it is for Bangladesh'',you want biological weapons?

Why not? It would spare us the huge political, financial and military burden of developing nuclear weapons, delivery systems, infrastructures and facilities. Yet provide us with strategic deterrence.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,838
Reactions
11,899
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
Why not? It would spare us the huge political, financial and military burden of developing nuclear weapons, delivery systems, infrastructures and facilities. Yet provide us with strategic deterrence.
No it wouldnt,it would make you a pariah state,no allies no nothing.
No investments,trade,economy etc.
Your people would die of hunger.
You want that?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
No it wouldnt,it would make you a pariah state,no allies no nothing.
No investments,trade,economy etc.
Your people would die of hunger.
You want that?

I addressed these problem here.

You can develop it in a lab with a handful of mid tier scientists. Something that is practically concealable from today's intelligence agencies, unlike a nuclear WMD program. Which requires billions of dollars and over thousand people to develop the whole thing. (Multiple enrichment plants, development of delivery systems, production of sufficient numbers of warheads, force design, command and control, second strike capability) All of this is not practically concealable in 21th century. Or even wasn’t in 20th century.

And you don’t even have to declare to world that you posses biological WMD and have sufficient delivery system in place (which is far more easier than building ICBM and SSBN) for deterrence effect.
All you have to do during any crisis is to let your nuclear armed adversary know that you have biological WMD and the sufficient means to deliver it.
Again, they don’t have to fully believe your threat. The very ambiguity will provide a level of deterrence that you wouldn’t otherwise have. More like how Israel's nuclear ambiguity work. To any sane adversary, taking such huge risk would be deemed unacceptable.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,838
Reactions
11,899
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
I addressed these problem here.
Not that easy,it will come out.
You're not China or russia,you dont have a security system.
Take a look at Syria(Nuclear facility),Iraq(Nuclear and biological),Iran(Nuclear),all couldnt hide it.
So,why should you be able to hide anything,why are you different?
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,282
Reactions
68 7,960
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Not that easy,it will come out.
You're not China or russia,you dont have a security system.
Take a look at Syria(Nuclear facility),Iraq(Nuclear and biological),Iran(Nuclear),all couldnt hide it.
So,why should you be able to hide anything,why are you different?

Yes, It is that (relatively) easy. I already explained why nuclear programs compared to biological WMD development is vastly different.

"You can develop it (biological agents) in a small lab with a handful of mid tier scientists. Something that is practically concealable from today's intelligence agencies, unlike a nuclear WMD program. Which requires billions of dollars and over thousand people to develop the whole thing. (Multiple enrichment plants, development of delivery systems, production of sufficient numbers of warheads, force design, command and control, second strike capability) All of this is not practically concealable in 21th century. Or even wasn’t in 20th century.

Moreover, their production is very easy as common technology can be used to produce biological warfare agents, like that used in production of vaccines, foods, spray devices, beverages and antibiotics."

And we don’t have to be Russia or China. A country of Bangladesh's size has more than necessary means to develop biological WMD with complete secrecy.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,838
Reactions
11,899
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
And we don’t have to be Russia or China. A country of Bangladesh's size has more than necessary means to develop biological WMD with complete secrecy.
Its not about developing,its about keeping it a secret.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom