Abstract

This article models the time between “first test” of a nuclear weapon by one nation and the next and uses this to predict the time to the next first test of a prospective 10th nuclear-weapon state. A Gumbel distribution model is fit to these data. This is used to estimate the probability of a new nuclear state in the next 40 and 80 years. Reducing these risks will likely require major improvements in international law that give nations effective judicial remedies to perceived external threats to their national security.

Introduction

As of 2019-04-23 the commonly accepted lists of nuclear-weapon states include 9 nations, 4 of which became so after the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force in 1970. Toon et al. (2007) estimated that 32 other nations had sufficient fissile material in 2007 to make nuclear weapons if they so choose. The knowledge and other materials required to make such weapons is sufficiently available that any nation posessing sufficient fissile material could do so in a relatively short order.

Any reasonable person should be able to understand why the four newest nuclear-weapon states might perceive a need for such weapons. Examples:

• India had military conflicts with China in 1962 and 1967, before their first nuclear weapon’s test 1974-05-18. India and China have continued to have conflicts, including, e.g., the Doklam standoff in 2017.
  
• Israel faced many threats from its Arab neighbors before it became an independent nation in 1949, including Gaza border protests that have continued at least to early 2019. One might therefore reasonably understand why Israel might feel a need for nuclear weapons and why others might believe that 1979-09-22 Vela incident was an Israeli nuclear test.
• India–Pakistan relations have been marked by frequent conflict since the two nations were born with the dissolution of the British Raj. It therefore be easy to understand the need that Pakistani leaders may have felt for nuclear parity with India.
  
• In 2002, US President George W. Bush said that North Korea, Iran and Iraq formed an “axis of evil”. Since then the US has occupied Iraq, and repeatedly threatened Iran and North Korea. It should therefore suprise no one if North Korean leaders feel a need for nuclear weapons to protect themselves from an aggressive US foreign and military policy.

From the First Barbary War of 1801 to the invasion of Canada in 1812¹ through numerous other foreign interventions including invading Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, continued threats against Iran, North Korea, and now Venezuela, leaders in many countries may be concerned about their own security if they fail to do what the US demands of them. The extra-judicial execution of Osama bin Laden and four others in his household by SEAL Team 6 on 2011-05-02 has reportedly increased the risks that a Pakistani nuclear weapon might be stolen by Islamic terrorists intent on retaliating against the US for its interventions in Pakistan and neighboring countries.²

      The September 11th attacks might have been a mushroom cloud.

In this context, declassified US government documents establish that at the same time that the US was clandestinely supporting the Contra war against Nicaragua in violation of US law, they were secretly helping the Pakistani nuclear program in violation of US law to secure Pakistani cooperation with US support for anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan.³ Without this, “the nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and North Korea - which British and American intelligence now acknowledge were all secretly enabled by Pakistan - would never have got off the ground,” according to Robert Gallucci, special adviser on WMD to both Clinton and George W Bush and {{w|Richard Barlow (Intelligence analyst)|Rich Barlow}}, a CIA analyst who reported these questionable activities to a committee of the US House.⁴

And now the US is helping Saudi Arabia obtain nuclear power, in spite of the evidence that the Saudi government including members of the Saudi royal family were involved in preparations for 9-11 at least as early as 1999 and their on-going support for Al Qaeda in Yemen, reported as recently as 2017.

Unless there is some fundamental change in the structure of international relations, it seems unwise to assume that there will not be more nuclear nations in the future, with the time to the next “first test” of a nuclear weapon following some distribution that can be used to estimate the probability of a new nuclear-weapon state appearing in any given number of years.