Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Japan

It says in this article that Japan is banned by its Constitution from having nukes. Isn't there a 50-year limit on that, which has expired?

Reading the Japanese newspapers (in Japanese language only), they seem to regard it as a matter of course that Japan has nukes. They certainly have the delivery method. An IAEA report said that it would take Japan 2 weeks to build a functioning nuclear device if they started from scratch. - Richardcavell 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Chapter II. Renunciation of War

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

There is no time limit or any particular mention of nukes. Rmhermen 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Basis of numbers in table

While updating the table to values given in http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm, I wondered if non-deployed weapons should be counted in these totals? It seems obvious to me that only deployed weapons ought to be counted. It is mainly the US and Russian totals that are affected, as it would appear that around half of the Russian ones are undeployed/unserviceable/awaiting dismantling etc. Thoughts? Guinnog 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice 69.218.202.201 keeps reverting to the undeployed figure. If there is an argument for using this number, I'd like to see it here, please. Guinnog 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The original reason I changed the 18 000 figure for Russia was to make it correspond with 'From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed.' It seems to me that only actively deployed weapons are relevant in quoting figures. Any thoughts? Guinnog 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The total stockpiles would include non-deployed (since they could be re-deployed). But if the table title was changed to "deployed" then it would be fine. I don't care either way what the table is, but it should be one or the other. --Fastfission 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

69.218.202.201 continues to drive a coach and horses through Wiki policy. I've tried to discuss here, and tried to compromise. I am disinclined to get into further reverts. Anyone else care to help? Guinnog 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

States formerly possessing nuclear programs

Gramatically, would this section be better named =States formerly conducting nuclear programs=? Does one possess a program? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Additional comments

Some comments about the map:

• In the map, Ukraine is a suspected nuclear state, while in the article it's a formerly possessing nuclear weapons state.
• Australia, as a state formerly possessing nuclear program, is not mentioned in the map.
• Plus, it would be great if we added the other nuclear-capable states: Canada, Japan, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela in the map.

Another thing: I recently bought the French magazine "Science et Vie" where they put a similar map but with Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chili, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Slovakia and Turkey as States which could acquire the atomic bomb if they wanted. CG 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood certain aspects about the article and certain aspects about the map. Mainly:

1. The map does not include "nuclear capable" states. It includes 1. NPT "nuclear weapons" states. 2. Other undoubtedly nuclear powers. 3. States suspected of posessing nuclear weapons or with active development programs. 4. States which formerly had active development programs. Adding nuclear capable states would be quite a large list I think, but could be done.
2. The status of Ukraine and Australia are discussed in the article and the map coloring reflects what the article says about them. We discussed Australia at length above and nobody could provide any real evidence that it had a nuclear weapons program of any substance. Ukraine may still have some old Soviet nukes around, as far as I know this has not been resolved in any major way.

Hope that clears things up a bit. --Fastfission 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the article:

• By 1996, the Ukraine had voluntarily disposed of all nuclear weapons within its territory, transferring them to Russia. Doesn't that make Ukraine within the "States which at one point had nuclear weapons and/or nuclear weapons research programs" coloured in Purple in the map?.
• The article states that Australia was heavily involved in his nuclear program with strong ties with the UK, doesn't that make it a state formerly possessing nuclear program?
• And please could someone read articles about Algeria, Nigeria, Chechnya, Congo and Serbi. Do you think they're worth of being cited in the article? CG 18:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• • It seems someone has recently changed the article around quite a bit. It used to have a section on Ukraine's potential clerical error but someone seems to have expunged all references to that. Similar the Australia section used to actually reference real articles rather than things in the "Green Left Weekly" which are not at all clear about whether they had a real program or not. I'll try and clean this up a bit, it seems that someone has really gone through with a hatchet fairly recently and really mucked it up. --Fastfission 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Also, on your other question: 1. Congo — doesn't seem to be worth mentioning (has ore, has some very minor research equipment, does not seem to have infrastructure at all for weapons program); 2. Algeria — I don't know, they're alleged "program" seems to have never gotten off the ground at all, seems to have just been a vague ambition. Borderline. 3. Nigeria — as the link notes, there is no evidence to substantiate the claim that they ever had nuclear ambitions, 4. Chechnya — seems really, really sketchy, seems to be concerned with whether or not they had some extra Russian nukes, not a real program. I wouldn't included it. 5. Serbia -- maybe a list under nuclear capable, but no evidence they have a program of any sort. --Fastfission 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Iran

Is it really appropriate to have Iran listed in the same category of States as Israel and North Korea?

Iran is not even in the same league as those two powers with respect to possessing, much less deploying Nuclear Weapons. Also, the claims as to Iran's intents vis-a-vis their Nuclear Programme are nothing more than "he said, she said" and are not backed by any real facts.

As it stands now, Iran is guilty of "not proving their innocence".

I would question the intents of whoever decided to put Iran in this category.

• Iran and North Korea are not entirely in different leagues, though Israel of course is. There are some real "facts" behind the Iranian nuclear ambitions, in part because they seem in every place to make choices which allow for the creation of nuclear weapons rather than ones which would allow equally for nuclear power creation but not weapons creations. Regardless, the category as it originally stood was for nations which western intelligence agencies suspect of being engaged in active nuclear weapons programs not confirmed or admitted to, and in that sense Iran clearly fit. --Fastfission 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the anon user. Iran is suspected of having a civil nuclear program that could lead to a miltary one, but not of having nuclear weapons. So I think it fits best in the other nuclear-capable states. CG 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

They weren't listed as having nuclear weapons, but having a nuclear program. Considering the US, the UN, and most of Europe thinks they have a program, and I think we should categorize them accordingly. --Fastfission 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The section about Iran needs serious updating, since it doesn't talk about the actual events. CG 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the yellow areas of the map. The caption reads Israel and Iran for yellow, yet the map shows several other areas in the same region highlighted in yellow. Can someone explain the discrepancy, or otherwise shed light on what the accurate (or a more accurate) list of yellow colored nations should be? Thanks. Thoreaulylazy 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Yellow: States suspected of having possession of, or suspected of being in the process of developing, nuclear weapons and/or nuclear programs. (Israel, North Korea and Iran)." from the image description page. Rmhermen 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation in Iran has recently changed, note this news item: http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=372791&lng=1

Venezuela

Why was my edit of Venezuela removed? I provided tons of sources, including news regarding Venezuela's nuclear program, and yet it was removed, and I don't see a clarification of why here.

Semi-protection

I've recently semi-protected this page due to the repetitive vandalism by an anonymous user. Feel free to discuss it here. CG 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Makes sense. I'd have suspected this fellow would have better things to do with their time by now, but I guess not. Somewhat amazing that they would bother to go to a public library just to make edits which were quickly reverted. --Fastfission 19:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference numbers

There seems to be a problem with the reference numbers. For example, in the section about Romania there is a link ({{ref|Romania}}) to endnote 28, but 28 is actually something else. The correct endnote number should be 24. This numbering process seems to be done automatically, but somehow is wrong? Do other people see the same wrong behavior? --Mihai 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• The problem is that some people have inserted external links inline with the article, rather than using the ref/notes template. At some point it should all be converted to <ref></ref><references/> style, but that takes a lot of work... --Fastfission 05:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

bockspur 10th of mar 06:israel, n.korea and south africa

on the 22nd of sept 1979 both israel & s.africa jointly tested a small device of less than 15 kilotons upon prince edward's island. South africa would go on to renounce nuclear weapons under a post aparthied gov't thus making it eligible for inclusion into the category of former weapon state and state that tested. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons without any doubt; thank you Mr. Vannu. North Korea has nuclear weapons, primary reason the U.S. does not threaten to liberate it's people anymore. I'll make the appropriate changes in ~week, if no one has any objections.

• Yes, there are objections. We know about the Vela Incident, and it is not known for sure at all whether it was a nuclear test, much less who sponsored it. The current information in the article on South Africa, Israel, and North Korea is correct as it is -- South Afria is already listed as a former state, the status of Israel's program is well-described, and North Korea's ambiguous situation (declared, but not proved) is also indicated. --Fastfission 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

fact:israel is a nuclear weapon state. It has not been making enough plutonium to make 100-200 devices(depending on the sources) for the last ~30 years just to have a SuperFund site.

fact: the earth doesn't have natural gamma ray bursters that corespond to the taletell seismic footprint of a nuclear detonation , therefore the 'vela' recoreded a nuclear test on a s. afriican island. Therefore s. africa either was hit with an atomic or participated in the test of one.

fact: when a state that is suspected of giving nuclear weapons know-how to others says they have the bomb, reasonable people do not have to wait around for b00m-b00m and the flash.

• Writing "fact" in front of something does not give it additional value. Nothing you have written above in any way directly addresses anything in the current article in a meaningful way. If you object to certain wording, please specify it specifically and why you object to it. The existing article clearly describes the current state of knowledge on all of these points and is well referenced. Your personal interpretations and opinions do not belong in the article (see our No Original Research policy). --Fastfission 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe...

I find it hard to believe that the scandinavian countries... (i.e., Norway/Sweden) are incapable of producing Nuclear weapons in a few years. The people there are very science oreitned, after all, thats where the Nobel prizes are held. 70.153.65.90 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Developing nuclear weapons has little to do with whether you are "science orientated" -- it is primarily a question of will, technological capabilities, and treaty compliance. And in any case, just because Sweden gives out Nobel Prizes does not make it full of geniuses itself (and receiving a Nobel Prize does not necessarily mean you'd be of any use on a bomb project). --Fastfission 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

North Korea reference

The table lists North Korea as having 0-7 nuclear weapons, citing North Korea's nuclear program, 2005. However, in reading this source, I did not see 0-7 anywhere, nor even 7. Here are the two parts of the article which most stood out to me as indications of number of nuclear weapons: "In the early 1990s, the CIA concluded that North Korea had effectively joined the nuclear club by building one or possibly two weapons from plutonium it produced before 1992... A reasonable estimate of the number of assembled North Korean nuclear weapons is up to 10." I read this as 2-10, or possibly 0-10 because of a lack of hard evidence. Whence the "0-7" figure?

If there's a good source for that, we should link to both (but the figure can stay 0-7). If there's no reference for this, I'd suggest changing the table to match the actual content of the reference.

0-7 is the low and high ball figure (some notable people suspect they don't have any assembled weapons at all, some people say as many as 7). In any case I don't recall why it is 7 rather than 10, that can probably be changed. --Fastfission 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no opinion, I ust wanted to make the citation match the numbers given. CRGreathouse 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

India's First Nuclear Test

I dont know why someone keeps changing it to 1974. India's OFFICIAL test was in 1998. Every country listed on the page performed unofficial test way before the suggested dates. India is no different. I understand Indian people here feel the need to show their superiority over Pakistan. but please keep it correct, for Wiki's sake.

" A nuclear weapons state, it carried out tests in the late 1990s in defiance of world opinion. However, India is still tackling huge social, economic and environmental problems." -http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm

This page lists the very first test of every country on the list. I'm not sure where you got a different impression. I am reverting your edit. TomTheHand 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

We need someone elses opinion in this. Try to make sure people agree with you before editing something. From memory, Pakistans first tests were performed in Balochistan in the late 70s. (ProtoType). India's 1974 tests were a completely different thing. Please do some research.

Sorry, are you asking me to do some research, or the other user? India detonated a device in 1974, but did not publically admit having a nuclear arsenal until 1998, which may be what you're thinking of. Pakistan's weapons program dated back to the 1970s, and it is possible, as the article already states, that Pakistan had untested nuclear weapons by the 1980s. However. they did not test a nuclear device until 1998. The table is accurate. TomTheHand 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

India's 1974 test was a full-scale nuclear fission device test. It has a yield of the same size as the weapon dropped on Nagasaki. I am not sure how one would not call that a nuclear detonation. There is no comparable "earlier" date for any of the countries on that list. Subcritical tests obviously do not count as weapons tests, but the Indian 1974 test was not a subcritical test. The only distinction even India has ever tried to claim between the 1974 test and the 1998 tests is that the former was called a "peaceful nuclear explosion", implying that they had not weaponized it. Nobody takes the distinction seriously now, and no one took it seriously then either. In any case it was most definitely a nuclear explosion in either case, and an official one at that. --Fastfission 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lithuania?

What are the requirements for a country to be on the "nuclear capable' list? I find it quite strange that such small country as Lithuania is considered nuclear capable only because it has nuclear plant in operation. Is that enough to make nuclear bomb despite lithuania rather limited resources? Why then aren't other bigger and more developed nuclear plant operating countries like Spain or Argentina on the list?

It is a quite stupid map, Belgium has more nuclear power plants as The Netherlands and it is not seen as capable of developing nuclear missles. For me, that map is just nonsense.

This Page Needs Updating

In light of the fact that N. Korea sucessfully tested it's first nuclear bomb (late Sunday, 8 Oct 2006 USA date) this page needs updating by somebody who can do it well. Thank You!

The USGS information disappears in a month so here are two raw screenshots that may be cropped and edited by documenters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTest.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTestMap.png

North Korean Nuclear Test

Should the North Korean nuclear information change now that they've tested a nuclear bomb?

What do you feel needs to be said that hasn't already? TomTheHand 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The map needs to be altered, since NK is now a nuclear state, with the October test being confirmed as nuclear. J.StuartClarke

Spain

During Francoist regime, Spain had plans for developing a nuclear weapons program. In 1951 they made the Junta de Energía Nuclear. In 1966, within the Palomares' incident some rests of the bombs were studied by spanish scientists. In 1968, Spain built the first military plutonium-based (military purpose only) nuclear reactor Coral-1. In 1971 studies were made to test the first bomb in Western Sahara. (Note: Spain has the second largest natural source of uranium of Europe). Spain continues producing secretly plutonium until 1981.

Of course Spain ratifies TNP in 1987.

• Spanish nuclear power

--Adalbertofrenesi 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)