James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 1, 2019 16:24:10 GMT
Under Tito's leadership, Cold War Yugoslavia flirted with the idea of arming itself with nuclear weapons. There was a chemical and biological weapons programme that the nation carried through with yet when it came to nukes, Tito blew hot and cold on this.
The aim was never to build a traditional triad - ICBMs, SLBMs and continent capable air-launched weapons - as the superpowers did, but a smaller programme limited to what were believed to be a realistic need for the nation's defences as a deterrent.
Years after his death, Yugoslavia only officially abandoned all nuclear efforts come 1987.
What if the nukes were built?
Should the country still have fallen apart starting 1990, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why not even with nukes, does this in any way effect the split into the various ethnic conflicts that it did?
Would NATO have ever dared attack Yugoslavia in 1999 if there was any chance that Yugoslavia had even a few in its possession?
|
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Dec 1, 2019 20:12:06 GMT
I figured that the Yugoslavs themselves would've gotten rid of any nuclear weapons when the country was on the verge of falling apart. Too much danger of them falling into the wrong hands and being used internally.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 1, 2019 20:19:35 GMT
Under Tito's leadership, Cold War Yugoslavia flirted with the idea of arming itself with nuclear weapons. There was a chemical and biological weapons programme that the nation carried through with yet when it came to nukes, Tito blew hot and cold on this. The aim was never to build a traditional triad - ICBMs, SLBMs and continent capable air-launched weapons - as the superpowers did, but a smaller programme limited to what were believed to be a realistic need for the nation's defences as a deterrent. Years after his death, Yugoslavia only officially abandoned all nuclear efforts come 1987. What if the nukes were built? Should the country still have fallen apart starting 1990, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why not even with nukes, does this in any way effect the split into the various ethnic conflicts that it did? Would NATO have ever dared attack Yugoslavia in 1999 if there was any chance that Yugoslavia had even a few in its possession? |
|
forcon
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 988
Likes: 1,739
|
Post by forcon on Dec 1, 2019 20:22:11 GMT
Oh Jesus - that would not have ended well at all. I think it's likely they would have been used by Serbia at some point in the 1990s. What kind of deterrent are we talking here? Presumably IRBMs capable of hitting European cities and US bases in Europe, like the North Korean deterrent with regards to Asia?
I would think NATO and Russia would have cooperated in any military effort to seize the nukes in the 90s, more likely in the early 90s than by the time of Operation Allied Force. Moscow wouldn't want to be part of taking down Milosevic, but it would be willing to send it's IFOR units to capture any loose nukes and would likely do so alongside NATO forces. IIRC, the Russian brigade stationed in Bosnia was a part of the American-led Multinational Division North - how times have changed!
It would make a pretty good technothriller, actually: the 82nd Airborne and the 76th Guards Division dropping into Yugoslavia to seize the nukes while Captain James Blunt leads the Household Cavalry Regiment into Kosovo. The Russians then reach an eleventh hour deal with Milsevic for him to surrender the nukes in return for Russian military protection of Serbia. Wesley Clark then orders the Gurkhas and 5 Infantry Brigade to prevent the Russians from reinforcing their airhead, and Sir Mike Jackson has only hours to prevent World War III! (Somebody really needs to write this, even if it's a parody!)
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 2, 2019 10:44:48 GMT
I figured that the Yugoslavs themselves would've gotten rid of any nuclear weapons when the country was on the verge of falling apart. Too much danger of them falling into the wrong hands and being used internally. That seems unlikely to me. Too neat and tidy for such a messy situation. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 2, 2019 12:50:18 GMT
I figured that the Yugoslavs themselves would've gotten rid of any nuclear weapons when the country was on the verge of falling apart. Too much danger of them falling into the wrong hands and being used internally. That seems unlikely to me. Too neat and tidy for such a messy situation. And most of them would be in the hands of the Serbs I guess. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 2, 2019 17:05:42 GMT
That seems unlikely to me. Too neat and tidy for such a messy situation. And most of them would be in the hands of the Serbs I guess. I'd assume so too. However, the Croats might get their hands on a few, and maybe, just maybe a couple are lost in wartime and end up in Bosniak hands. Bosnia was full of Islamic volunteers in the 90s: maybe they could swap one for help or even steal one. Just an interesting idea to see a 'loose nuke'. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 2, 2019 17:11:38 GMT
And most of them would be in the hands of the Serbs I guess. I'd assume so too. However, the Croats might get their hands on a few, and maybe, just maybe a couple are lost in wartime and end up in Bosniak hands. Bosnia was full of Islamic volunteers in the 90s: maybe they could swap one for help or even steal one. Just an interesting idea to see a 'loose nuke'. A loose nuke from Yugoslavia arsenal used by one of more parties during the Yugoslav Wars, yep that is a scary thing to see happening. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Dec 2, 2019 19:38:44 GMT
Under Tito's leadership, Cold War Yugoslavia flirted with the idea of arming itself with nuclear weapons. There was a chemical and biological weapons programme that the nation carried through with yet when it came to nukes, Tito blew hot and cold on this. The aim was never to build a traditional triad - ICBMs, SLBMs and continent capable air-launched weapons - as the superpowers did, but a smaller programme limited to what were believed to be a realistic need for the nation's defences as a deterrent. Years after his death, Yugoslavia only officially abandoned all nuclear efforts come 1987. What if the nukes were built? Should the country still have fallen apart starting 1990, and there doesn't seem to be a reason why not even with nukes, does this in any way effect the split into the various ethnic conflicts that it did? Would NATO have ever dared attack Yugoslavia in 1999 if there was any chance that Yugoslavia had even a few in its possession?
Sounds interesting but a bit limited on how the US did [or didn't] help such a nuclear programme, other than a brief mention that it assisted in some way in locating sources of uranium. Also as with others very doubtful that the final conclusion that a Yugoslav nuclear bomb would prevent its collapse. As forcon says that's a recipe for a disaster, especially given how brutal the war war.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 8, 2019 19:37:09 GMT
From a Los Angles Times article of 1999 called Well-Armed and Very Dangerous a interesting mention comes that NATO was afraid that if the NATO air campaign last longer against Yugoslavia, the greater the temptation for Belgrade to consider a nonconventional weapons response would be. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Dec 9, 2019 16:27:10 GMT
From a Los Angles Times article of 1999 called Well-Armed and Very Dangerous a interesting mention comes that NATO was afraid that if the NATO air campaign last longer against Yugoslavia, the greater the temptation for Belgrade to consider a nonconventional weapons response would be.
Interesting. I suspect that use of chemical weapons by the Serb military would have gone very badly for them but would also have been bad for those targeted by the initial attack. I doubt they would have been able to produce nuclear weapons in that time scale but the possibility of them seeking to sell important material/knowledge to other rogue nations could be a problem.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 12, 2019 21:35:58 GMT
From a Los Angles Times article of 1999 called Well-Armed and Very Dangerous a interesting mention comes that NATO was afraid that if the NATO air campaign last longer against Yugoslavia, the greater the temptation for Belgrade to consider a nonconventional weapons response would be.
Interesting. I suspect that use of chemical weapons by the Serb military would have gone very badly for them but would also have been bad for those targeted by the initial attack. I doubt they would have been able to produce nuclear weapons in that time scale but the possibility of them seeking to sell important material/knowledge to other rogue nations could be a problem.
I'm not so sure how much of a negative effect upon any NATO/Western ground forces attacking Yugoslavia would have suffered in a chemical attack. NBC gear has been deployed in operations against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. It was good equipment too on a personal protection level and the detection equipment was also reportedly excellent. Now, if this threat came from nowhere, then maybe NATO forces get hit hard, but any hint of a capability would mean a full NBC posture employed. Of course, any civilians in neighbouring countries, even in Yugoslavia, wouldn't be protected in any way. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Dec 13, 2019 11:52:12 GMT
Interesting. I suspect that use of chemical weapons by the Serb military would have gone very badly for them but would also have been bad for those targeted by the initial attack. I doubt they would have been able to produce nuclear weapons in that time scale but the possibility of them seeking to sell important material/knowledge to other rogue nations could be a problem.
I'm not so sure how much of a negative effect upon any NATO/Western ground forces attacking Yugoslavia would have suffered in a chemical attack. NBC gear has been deployed in operations against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. It was good equipment too on a personal protection level and the detection equipment was also reportedly excellent. Now, if this threat came from nowhere, then maybe NATO forces get hit hard, but any hint of a capability would mean a full NBC posture employed. Of course, any civilians in neighbouring countries, even in Yugoslavia, wouldn't be protected in any way.
James
I may have been unclear but by them I meant the Serb military as I suspect that would mean very firm retaliation, as well as a considerable relaxation in the rules of engagement.
Steve
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 13, 2019 12:10:18 GMT
I'm not so sure how much of a negative effect upon any NATO/Western ground forces attacking Yugoslavia would have suffered in a chemical attack. NBC gear has been deployed in operations against Iraq in 1991 and 2003. It was good equipment too on a personal protection level and the detection equipment was also reportedly excellent. Now, if this threat came from nowhere, then maybe NATO forces get hit hard, but any hint of a capability would mean a full NBC posture employed. Of course, any civilians in neighbouring countries, even in Yugoslavia, wouldn't be protected in any way.
James
I may have been unclear but by them I meant the Serb military as I suspect that would mean very firm retaliation, as well as a considerable relaxation in the rules of engagement.
Steve
Oh, I see it now. I read it wrong: my mistake. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Dec 13, 2019 13:28:12 GMT
James
I may have been unclear but by them I meant the Serb military as I suspect that would mean very firm retaliation, as well as a considerable relaxation in the rules of engagement.
Steve
Oh, I see it now. I read it wrong: my mistake.
No problem.  |
|
