Talk:Atoms for Peace

Unintended Contribution to Proliferation

This program accelerated India's nuclear weapons program and should be cited.Prospero74 15:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are allegations that the program's contribution to nuclear weapons development in many countries were not entirely "unintended". The consequences were easily foreseen, but they were unimportant within the cold war calculations.[1] Goatchurch 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

broken links

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/atom1.htm seems broken to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.156.203 (talk) 13:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

the posters

the posters are magnificent - but the General Dynamics advertising campaign, although connected to the Eisenhower philosophy, was completely separate I believe. Why are the images here? Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed them. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Missing the point

I know that people love to hate Atoms for Peace, but nevertheless, the focus should be on the largest and most important consequence of the speech and the subsequent policy change: civilian nuclear power for electricity generation. Yes, proliferation of nuclear weapons happened, and we can argue about whether it was, in truth, an unintended consequence, but civilian nuclear power was undoubtedly an intended consequence that was a direct result. The article makes no mention of the fact that, in addition to foreign pressures, President Eisenhower was also feeling pressure from fellow republicans to release to the free market an entire industry that, to date, had been completely within the control of the federal government. The Atomic Energy Commission was even decried as an "island of socialism".... I'm open to any discussion about adding this material, and willing to make the edits myself if there's consensus. Ahnrenene (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atoms for Peace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110330222020/http://www.world-nuclear-university.org/about.aspx?id=8674&terms=atoms%20for%20peace to http://www.world-nuclear-university.org/about.aspx?id=8674&terms=atoms%20for%20peace

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Fuhrmann

I stumbled upon it while searching for something else. This paragraph stands out, but negatively, in the following ways. (1) How does it relate to Atoms for Peace in particular? (2) It is research that adds to non-proliferation, but not to Atoms for Peace. (3) If a researcher makes a claim, it is not solid material for Wikipedia. I can easily disprove it by saying that numerous countries, for example in Europe, have a commercial nuclear power program, and this simply has not "led to the spread of nuclear weapons". In fact, the opposite is probably true, since these countries invest numerous resources in non-proliferation. Suggestion: Deletion. Experts in the field discuss such scenarios up and down, but is it encyclopedic, I doubt it. Kr 17387349L8764 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)