How would world politics be like if the top 100 countries (in terms of military strength) all had their own nuclear arsenals?

De Facto countries count as a country for the purposes of this question, including unrecognized ones.

24 comments

Top 100 means about half of all countries.
So many people having their fingers at the triggers. There would be many unreasonable and evil ones among them.
We would have nuclear war every year.
- We would have nuclear war every year.
  I suspect we'd only have it once.
  
  I suggest to read about Hiroshima, and what really happened there, and afterwards.
  Here's a good book: Hibakusha: Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki https://a.co/d/8KS4RXC
  One bomb kills people in a circle of 10 or 50 km (I forgot), and injures people maybe 100km around. Then it does damage to nature maybe even 1000 km around. I live 2000km from Chernobyl, and we had some warnings regarding vegetables for a year or so.
  But the planet has a circumference of 40.000 km. Now let your thoughts run around the planet.
  
  It depends on the systems of alliances and international commitments against a first strike. For instance, the Iran-Iraq War went on for several years and included the deployment of chemical weapons. I'm pretty sure that a nuclear exchange would be tolerated.
- Yeah, I think people need to recognize that this arms Kuwait, Tunisia, Lithuania, Oman, Netherlands, Chad, Yemen, Bulgaria, Tajikistan, Rwanda and Cameroon all with nuclear weapons. (Ranks 91-100 if we just go by number of military personnel, active and reserve, an imperfect but very convenient way to measure.)
  If I'm not mistaken, two of those countries are currently involved in conflict. (Yemeni Civil War and Rwanda involved in Congo)
  
  Dutch with nukes. May the lords and ladies have mercy.
We would have nuclear war within a decade, as the odds of a country with nuclear weapons having a coup and some fanatics launching them for a wide variety of reasons is far higher when there are so many. Not to mention the increased odds of a country firing them off when invaded or to protect a friendly country that is invaded.
One day humanity would end because the president of Turkmenistan got into an argument with the president of Uzbekistan over where the imaginary line that separates the countries is drawn on maps.
Historically nukes have served as an effective deterrent to war, ironically. Given that very strong historical pattern, I'd assume the world would, overall, become a more peaceful and cooperative place thanks to mutually-assured destruction.
- an effective deterrent to war
  Do not fool yourself. Nukes have NOT achieved that on their own.
  It has always been humans who were somewhat responsible and willing to communicate (diplomacy) instead of shooting blindly.
  
  Vasily Arkhipov in 1962 and Stanislav Petrov in 1983 are usually credited as single-handedly preventing nuclear launches. If it wasn't for them, perhaps people wouldn't think that nuclear weapons are such a strong deterrent.
- Until one of them fires the nukes, that is. But sure, it might not happen
  It's like paying your rent by playing Russian roulette
  
  It's only happened twice in world history for a reason.
  There are thousands of nukes in the world, but no one ever fires them. They make the world more peaceful, not more dangerous.
One thing that would quickly start to happen is a lot of the smaller countries would either be forcefully taken over or be quieted down. Most countries have neighbours they do not share good relations with - and with nuclear armament - bigger of 2 could easily pose nuclear threat and have a much bigger say in their arguments. This could mean taking over contested/disputed lands or some kind of minearl deals being forcefully signed. Soon the total world country count would start to decrease purely because of this (annd would actually accelerate until a point where most countries would form coallitions with some nuclear power and sum total of power on both (or all sides in general) be roughly comparable such that no one poses a greater threat to another and not have an equal threat back at them.
a few dozen nukes make other military strength less important. an army of a few hundred soldiers could destroy a whole other country. so nations could focus on more important things.

24 comments