WI : Ceaușescu's Romania develops its own nuclear weapons.

[LSCatilina]

IOTL, the Danube Program was dedicated to the development of nuclear weapons, before being scrapped with the revolution on 1989, in part thanks to Romania's large strategic and political autonomy from the Eastern Block since the 60's, dealing to develop its nuclear civilian program as well as weapon trading with various western and eastern actors.

Let's assume that for various reasons (that might be relevant, however, for how things would unfold), this project is able to both gather enough fissile material for at least half-dozen bombs but as well missiles able to carry them.

What could have changed in the 80's?

Would it be rather comparable to South African nuclear program in being essentially a strategical bluff, without much radical political consequences for the country? But then South African policy was mostly dictated by trying to strong-arm western countries in assisting against non-state actors such as Angolan, Mozambique or South African anti-apartheid/Soviet-backed groups.

Or, conversely, would it be more comparable to North Korean program, together with a heavily ideologized and "monarchical" regime, maybe allowing its survival into the XXIth century? A main difference, however, would be that North Korea decisively relied on China's overall protection in order to prevent an US-friendly state (or, a fortiori, an US army) at their borders whereas a collapsing USSR would have little to no interest backing so Romania.

Thoughts?

 

[Yokai Man]

IOTL, the Danube Program was dedicated to the development of nuclear weapons, before being scrapped with the revolution on 1989, in part thanks to Romania's large strategic and political autonomy from the Eastern Block since the 60's, dealing to develop its nuclear civilian program as well as weapon trading with various western and eastern actors.

Let's assume that for various reasons (that might be relevant, however, for how things would unfold), this project is able to both gather enough fissile material for at least half-dozen bombs but as well missiles able to carry them.

What could have changed in the 80's?

Would it be rather comparable to South African nuclear program in being essentially a strategical bluff, without much radical political consequences for the country? But then South African policy was mostly dictated by trying to strong-arm western countries in assisting against non-state actors such as Angolan, Mozambique or South African anti-apartheid/Soviet-backed groups.

Or, conversely, would it be more comparable to North Korean program, together with a heavily ideologized and "monarchical" regime, maybe allowing its survival into the XXIth century? A main difference, however, would be that North Korea decisively relied on China's overall protection in order to prevent an US-friendly state (or, a fortiori, an US army) at their borders whereas a collapsing USSR would have little to no interest backing so Romania.

Thoughts?

Wellll,that would be too generous to put nicely. Unlike other nuclear dodgers, such as Iran, Romania has failed to build industrial-scale nuclear facilities for uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing-mainly because Romania had by then become bloody bankrupt. Workers repaired cracks in nuclear plants by putting wood boards over the cracks and the scientists and researchers were taken out to the agricultural practice in the fall to harvest corn or potatoes because of that.

And again,as I said before by 1989 Ceausescu had at best 2 years left to live. The regime one way of the other would have collapsed by 1992.

And given how the first of the four units of Cernavodă Nuclear Plant only became operational in 1996 and Romania still can’t finish the third and fourth units,it’s impossible for Ceauşescu to get his nukes.

 

[Coiler]

And given how the first of the four units of Cernavodă Nuclear Plant only became operational in 1996 and Romania still can’t finish the third and fourth units,it’s impossible for Ceauşescu to get his nukes.

There's a claim that Romania produced about 26 KG of Plutonium from the research reactor at Magurele and another claim that HEU (ie, weapons usable) was removed from it when it was decommissioned.

However, since such claims need to be taken with a bulk freighter of salt, I looked at the scientific literature which shows no issue with the spent fuel. Magurele technically could produce weapons-grade plutonium if goosed enough, but we're talking something impossible to hide and less than a kilogram of it per year. Likewise the HEU is only usable in the most technical and least practical sense.

None of this changes that a clear nuclear program and the outside backlash will crash its economy even more or that the first thing Iliescu or anyone else like him will do is dismantle whatever little progress has been made.

 

[raharris1973]

Or, conversely, would it be more comparable to North Korean program, together with a heavily ideologized and "monarchical" regime, maybe allowing its survival into the XXIth century?

Both the necessity, and the utility, of nuclear weapons regimes for survival of dictatorial regimes I feel has been overrated, particularly for the North Korean case, and when applied by analogy to the Romanian case.

Favorite examples to site are that Libya, which gave up its nuclear weapons, was overthrown by an uprising assisted by western intervention, and Iraq, which never completed a nuclear weapons program, was overthrown by a western invasion, while North Korea, which proved a nuclear capability (via testing) in the 2000s, still survives.

But possessing nuclear weapons is not a "power ring" that completely and sufficiently protects one's regime from internal fragmentation and collapse and demand for change, or even from a degree of external harassment or pressure that might make internal problems worse.

I can provide a significant example. The USSR had the largest arsenal or nuclear weapons, or at least the larger # number of nuclear launchers, with enough warheads to match, (and a few more, considering MIRvs) in the world in 1991, and nevertheless collapsed internally. So nukes =/= sufficient guarantee of regime survival.

Also, Iran has not completed a nuclear weapon, and it has survived, with it being the focus of substantial hostile US attention for over 33 years since the end of the US-Soviet Cold War. It's being a hard target through other, non-nuclear means has been a sufficient deterrent/restraint on US regime changing military action attempts. North Korea, prior to its nuclear weapons success in the mid/late 2000s, was also the focus of hostile US attention for the 15 years after the end of the US-Soviet Cold War, but did not get Desert Stormed, with its being a hard target and conventional artillery capabilities being a sufficient deterrent. So, nukes =/= minimum requirement for regime survival.

Unpopular with the USA Cuba has been in a deterrent "sweet spot" of being stuck being sanctioned and naughty-listed by the USA but being formidable enough to make an invasion messy, and quiet enough in actively causing antagonism with the USA, to "not be worth it" for the US to invade. Things are somewhat similar with unpopular, but militarily less professional and less formidable Nicaragua and Venezuela, although in his lifetime, Hugo Chavez was louder-mouthed. Nobody except Lindsay Graham advocated a Venezuela invasion. So another example of nukes =/= minimum requirement for regime survival.

 

[Coiler]

Both the necessity, and the utility, of nuclear weapons regimes for survival of dictatorial regimes I feel has been overrated, particularly for the North Korean case, and when applied by analogy to the Romanian case.

Favorite examples to site are that Libya, which gave up its nuclear weapons, was overthrown by an uprising assisted by western intervention, and Iraq, which never completed a nuclear weapons program, was overthrown by a western invasion, while North Korea, which proved a nuclear capability (via testing) in the 2000s, still survives.

OK, here's the thing about Libya's nuclear program: It was nowhere near anywhere even close to a functioning bomb. The only thing it did was make AQ Khan and his suppliers a lot of money. The program was as mismanaged and inept as the rest of the Gaddafi government, and I've heard that he managed to (however temporarily) sucker the west by giving up what was accomplishing nothing anyway and getting a lot in return. It's not like Libya had a functioning deterrent that it lost.

(Again, none of this goes against the argument that the Libyan war was terrible for disarmament by giving the not unjustified belief that disarmament would lead to backstabbing-it's just that in practice, North Korea was never going to give up its nukes anyway).

 

[Charles EP M.]

The key bit seems to me:

And again,as I said before by 1989 Ceausescu had at best 2 years left to live. The regime one way of the other would have collapsed by 1992.

so if we assume Romania gets a few nukes and it keeps the regime going (likely as a pariah state), once Ceauescu dies then the rest of the world will be going "now give the nukes up" to the new guy. (And if it's unclear who that is, whoever might give up nukes will find the big countries going "I think he's the new guy")

 

[Yokai Man]

The key bit seems to me:



so if we assume Romania gets a few nukes and it keeps the regime going (likely as a pariah state), once Ceauescu dies then the rest of the world will be going "now give the nukes up" to the new guy. (And if it's unclear who that is, whoever might give up nukes will find the big countries going "I think he's the new guy")

AGAIN,he CAN’T get nukes,the nation is already broke,the state CANNOT afford them.

 

[Charles EP M.]

AGAIN,he CAN’T get nukes,the nation is already broke,the state CANNOT afford them.

Right, but the premise of the thread is "what if they found a way to get it to work". (And there's another answer, "Romania is bankrupted")

 

[Coiler]

One thing I can see is the threat of a nuclear program as a sort of blackmail/leverage tool to get more money. Build something that's nuclear program-adjacent but doesn't actually require much in the way of money or technology (even if it's just a building of some kind), and go to everyone and say "hint hint, shame if I do something bad with it." And then for 'concessions' you can destroy it without losing anything of actual importance....

Granted it'd be a hollow threat that could easily backfire massively, but it's the only viable way to have Romania's WMD dreams move beyond OTL.

 

[Yokai Man]

One thing I can see is the threat of a nuclear program as a sort of blackmail/leverage tool to get more money. Build something that's nuclear program-adjacent but doesn't actually require much in the way of money or technology (even if it's just a building of some kind), and go to everyone and say "hint hint, shame if I do something bad with it." And then for 'concessions' you can destroy it without losing anything of actual importance....

Granted it'd be a hollow threat that could easily backfire massively, but it's the only viable way to have Romania's WMD dreams move beyond OTL.

An interesting thing to consider is how Gorby reacts to this,as he can’t really invade Romania without breaking his personal promise that there won’t be another Czechoslovakia.

 

[Coiler]

An interesting thing to consider is how Gorby reacts to this,as he can’t really invade Romania without breaking his personal promise that there won’t be another Czechoslovakia.

A low-risk high-reward strategy for anyone is to probably just call the bluff and let them waste money on the (for all intents) fake nuclear program.

 

[Yokai Man]

A low-risk high-reward strategy for anyone is to probably just call the bluff and let them waste money on the (for all intents) fake nuclear program.

But then you get another problem-what do you do when the whole state goes bankrupt and everything falls apart?