Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Jimmy Carter

There is the quote on this page that "On May 26, 2008, ex-US president Jimmy Carter stated that Israel has “150 or more nuclear warheads” at a press conference at the annual literary Hay festival in Wales". Didn't Jimmy Carter die in 1981? 162.18.76.206 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but he left office in 1981. 134.50.14.44 (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that he has no real way of knowing what Israel has and what it doesn't. For all we know he is making this up. If not remove his quote then at list say that the statement has never been confirmed with real evidence. DeathShot9 (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's statement may not be particularly strong evidence, but Mordechai Vanunu's revelations to the Times of London in 1986 seem pretty strong. NPguy (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

States alleged to have nuclear weapons programs

Is it just me that finds the entire section 'States alleged to have nuclear weapons programs' extremely unneccessary if not even very biased? It states what one typical political entity says (Israel and the US) but does not consider what other states or political sides say. The point that USA and Israel allege that Syria and Iran possess unconfirmed nuclear power may be true, but as there is no reason to believe it more than what the Iranian and Syrian governments themselves say, it remains an assumption that in the whole is more of a political weapon than a neccessary truth. The content of the section is of course very relevant but should rather merely remain as a note under a section called something like 'Disputes concerning nuclear weapons' where both the opinions of government X and Y are dealt with. 83.255.5.252 (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. I mean, shouldn't we put the US's allegations about Iraq in there as well, with a note that it was proven false by a war and occupation, if we are going to include other unfounded allegations? Context is important. Seer (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The three cases are different. According to IAEA reports, Iran had a clandestine enrichment program for nearly two decades. This was a violation of Iran's obligations under the NPT. One (and to me the most plausible) explanation is that Iran was seeking the capability to produce highly-enriched uranium for weapons.

Syria has been accused of having an undeclared production reactor. But after the Israel bombed the facility and Syria bulldozed the ruins, little evidence is left. The IAEA found traces of uranium at that site, but has not yet reached a conclusion.

Iraq in the 1980s did have a nuclear weapons program, which was not found until after the 1991 Gulf war. By 1998, the IAEA concluded that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was fully accounted for and eliminated. In 2002, the United States - on questionable evidence - accused Iraq of having restarted its nuclear weapons program. This turned out to be far from the truth, as the IAEA and later the U.S. Iraq Survey Group concluded. NPguy (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

French Guiana?

Why does the map show French Guiana in south america as having nuclear weapons?71.243.52.162 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's part of France. Switzpaw (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. I looked it up because I heard on the news South America being referred to as "the nuclear-free continent." I was about to ask if that claim is still true, but I suppose that's a question of semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.213.92 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

France ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1974, meaning that it won't put any nuclear weapons on or near the continent. However since this is a map of the different countries involved, rather than where they put their weapons, I don't think there's anything wrong with the map. France treats French Guiana as an integral part of its territory. Thom2002 (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Shouldn't Canada also be listed under nations that formerly possessed nuclear weapons? We did have American weapons on our soil, and later sent them back and got our own short range nuclear missiles. Hdgerow (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether it belongs, but I believe Kazakhstan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8445539.stm) and potential others could fall in to this category on the Soviet side.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it was already listed under NATO nuclear weapon sharing. I went ahead and added here as well.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

According to Canada and weapons of mass destruction, Canada has had a much more active nuclear role than this article implies. Canada was one of the three signatories to the Manhattan Project (a treaty which was itself signed in Montreal), and participated very closely in the development of those first nuclear weapons. As mentioned above, Canada has stored American nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. However, Canada itself has owned nuclear weapons, stored on American soil under the condition that during a threat, those weapons would be remitted to Canada. Although Canada has now declared itself a "non-nuclear country," it seems to have a significant history of nuclear involvement, which is largely not reflected in this article. In particular, the statement that South Africa is the only country to have developed nuclear weapons and then eliminated them seems to be in error. That said, all of my knowledge in this area comes from the wikipedia article Canada and weapons of mass destruction, and I hardly feel qualified to make such substantial changes to this article. Would someone who has more knowledge than I be willing to expand on Canada's nuclear history, or perhaps correct me if I am wrong here? Thanks. YardsGreen (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Although Canada participated in the Manhattan Project, it does not possess and has never possessed nuclear weapons. After World War II, Canada became the first country to decide consciously not to acquire nuclear weapons. The article Canada and weapons of mass destruction talks about U.S. nuclear weapons being stored in Canada, not Canadian weapons stored in the United States. The article is a little confusing on this point, but it appears to say that only the missiles and not the warheads were stored in Canada. NPguy (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Canada and weapons of mass destruction states (all emphasis is mine):

Despite the fact that the nuclear warheads were never placed in the country, due to agreements between Canada and the United States, Canada purchased nuclear weapons through a tactical budget of the Department of National Defence under the projects NORAD, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line.

The Royal Canadian Air Force maintained a stockpile of AIR-2A Genie unguided nuclear air-to-air rockets as the primary wartime weapon on the CF-101 Voodoo all-weather interceptor after 1965. The rockets were held by detachments of the United States Air Force at the Canadian Voodoo bases, and would have been released to Canada if conflict threatened. These were removed in 1984, when the CF-18 Hornet entered squadron service and the Voodoo was retired.

While the article for the aforementioned AIR-2 Genie states:

The only non-U.S. user was Canada, whose CF-101 Voodoos carried Genies until 1984 via a dual-key arrangement where the missiles were kept under American custody, and released to Canada under circumstances requiring their use.

While these articles may simply be wrong for all I know, they do state that Canada owned nuclear weapons until 1984, although they apparently never kept their own weapons on Canadian soil. The former article has a curious lack of citations, and I have added a refimprove box to the nuclear weapons section. The citation in the latter article leads here [1] and quotes Pierre Trudeau as saying, "We are thus not only the first country in the world with the capability to produce nuclear weapons that chose not to do so, we are also the first nuclear armed country to have chosen to divest itself of nuclear weapons." YardsGreen (talk) 11:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that article uses language very loosely to suggest that Canada "purchased" and "owned" nuclear weapons even though it never possessed them. As far as I can tell, there were contingency plans joint use of nuclear weapons for air defense, but the United States would have retained full control over the warheads. This is similar to nuclear sharing arrangements with European NATO members. Some have raised questions about whether these arrangements are consistent with the obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not to transfer (Article 1) or receive (Article 2) nuclear weapons, but I believe they they are designed to be consistent with those prohibitions. NPguy (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

South Africa

South Africa is listed under the section of States formerly possessing nuclear weapons. But the flag shown there has been replaced on 27 April 1994 and therefore is incorrect. The current flag is this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_South_Africa.svg So if someone could please change it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Borga2000 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats the entire point, it was the South Africa of the 1980s that had nuclear weapons.--SelfQ (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How about the Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine flags then? They are the post-independence flags, not the pre-independence Soviet flag. --JWB (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats because the post-independence countries of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine were the ones that had the weapons, they could have kept them and become nuclear powers. For example had Belarus returned there weapons one year earlier this flag would have been used: Belarus. --SelfQ (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

South Africa had six weapons. Like a fraternity, you may join, but you can never leave.  kgrr ^talk 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The South African Flag Should be changed, we need to make a positive move lets hope Wiki will change it to our new Flag :-) ([Tyron Lathwood]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TyronLathwood (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

See preceding discussion for why this has not been done. NPguy (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

North Korean test

I have noted that the name of the North Korean nuclear test is being constantly changed. Is there any reliable source wether the device tested / test operation itself actually had a name, or the names are simply being made up ? - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the names are just made up. "Kim Il Sung's Return" is positively silly and I find no reference to it googling other than things deriving from Wikipedia. it is almost certainly vandalism and was added by a user who appears to have since been blocked numerous times for vandalism. surely someone will fix it to something? It should probably just be called "Test at Sangpyong-ri". --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"2006 nuclear test" sounds very appropriate. - Tourbillon ^A ? 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Usergreatpower seems to have removed mention of the test. Perhaps someone can add it back in? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. I managed to miss that he'd removed that. Thanks for spotting it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some called "State and Nuclear weapons" and others called "State and WMD"

I think this is a neutrality issue and it claims that some states have a right to Nuclear weapons whereas others have WMD. Either they are all WMD or all Nuclear weapons no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.71.207 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons is a subset of WMD. It is not a neutrality issue (all nuclear weapons are WMDs, no matter who has them), it is a question of article organization (all have WMD articles, some have articles devotes specifically to nuclear weapons as well). --98.217.14.211 (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

NATO nuclear weapons sharing

Turkey stopped participating in the nuclear sharing of NATO since 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.166.43.245 (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is recent and says there are still weapons there. [2] However Spiegel says weapons are stored in Turkey, but also that Turkey is not nuclear sharing. [3] --JWB (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Lists of countries

Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

One China or Two?

An editor recently changed references to "China" to People's Republic of (not to be confused with the Republic of China on Taiwan), citing a decision by the arbitration committee. I don't think that decision actually dictates the change that was made, and I think at least two of these should be changed back to simply "China." I don't believe this is prejudicial to the question of whether the PRC or Taiwan is the legitimate government of China. "China" is the country recognized as a nuclear weapon state party to the NPT [4], without prejudice to what we mean by China. NPguy (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to begin an edit war nor do I desire to defy the Arbitration Committee(Arb Com). ArbCom is the governing body for Wikipedia. I refer the reader to the Arbitration Committee rulings.

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee unanimously decided on 4 Dec 2005 and on other dates that WP is neutral on the China issue. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Principles

Quoting ArbCom,

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."

and

Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China

The above quote answers the issue raised by the NPGuy. The fact that the People's Repubic of China signed the NPT is not different from ArbCom's ruling that "although the United Nations.....have recognized..." The NPT is not the governing body of Wikipedia, ArbCom is.

I am merely the messenger, not the decision maker. Based on the ArbCom ruling, we must put "People's Repubic of China". Any dispute with this should be addressed to ArbCom and request that they overturn their original ruling. User F203 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was that the ArbCom decision doesn't seem to dictate a unique answer i this case. The UN NPT web site (which may not be the last word on the matter) lists "China" as the nuclear weapon state party to the NPT. That is an ambiguous term that does not refer solely to the PRC or to China, but perhaps to the combination. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use that same ambiguous term here.

Note that JWB has reverted the change by User F203. I happen to agree with that reversion, so I will leave it alone. The complicated formulation User F203 added seems comical and out of place here. NPguy (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

any nukes in cuba?

any, cause they had a few a long time ago Mickman1234 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not according to this source. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was all about preventing delivery of Soviet nuclear armed missiles to Cuba. The crisis ended when Russia agreed not to deploy them. It was revealed later that the Soviet Union had already deployed some tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, but these were removed by the end of 1962.

Accused by the US and Israel?

"Below are countries which have been accused by Israel or the United States of currently attempting to develop nuclear weapons technology." - Isn't this statement highly biased? All the countries under this: Iran, Syria and Myanmar if i'm right, need to be included to be in the list of Countries with undeclared Nuclear weapon technology. I mean, if Denmark tomorrow accuses Chile of nuclear weapon development, will it feature in this list? So it will become more of an opinion than sure-fire fact. Swaroop (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Various name of articles linked to this one

Could somebody explain me why there is a difference between United States, United Kingdom, Israël and the others states which own nuclear weapons ? For the first three countries, the name of their own article is 'Nuclear weapons and "name of country"' whereas for the others the name of each article is '"name of country" and weapons of mass destruction'... Is that not curious ? Well I propose to give the same article's name for each country.90.9.155.205 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

A long, long time ago, it was decided that the convention would be "X and weapons of mass destruction". A sub-article of this then was "X and nuclear weapons". But the smarties at the Articles for Renaming who had never edited these or any related articles decided that phrasing was unintuitive, and passed a vote so that it was "Nuclear weapons and X". So now they don't follow any rhyme or reason. Welcome to Wikipedia! --Mr.98 (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Propaganda 101- Ourselves and our allies have nuclear weapons. The filthy Muslims, Commies, and anyone else we don't like have Weapons of Mass Destruction. Welcome to Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egosintrick (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel's year

How come in the 'Year of first test' column, the Israel row says "Unknown or 1967 (See Vela Incident)" when the Vela Incident occurred in 1979? 75.100.92.236 (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Is "States accused" a good term for talking about Israel's status? I would think it is more along the lines of "Undeclared nuclear states." It's not that they have denied it (they haven't), or that anybody really has significant doubts that the Israelis don't have a bomb program (nobody thinks that). --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

- I'd like to add to this, the Vela incident has numerous, explanations the least likely of which is a nuclear flash, the most likely and widely accepted cause of the vela flash is a meteroid smacking into the vela satellite , and it has never been proven that the signal wasn't created by an aging and faulty component on-board the Satellite. How is it NO mod has smacked this accusation from this article? It is speculative and somewhat inflammatory I also recommend a review of the 'Vela_Incident' wikipedia entry as well as it is even MORE filled with speculation and conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.110.25 (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

-I agree, this is all speculations, and is just based on assumptions. Shouldn't be on that list. 71.184.34.250 (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. While the claim is speculative it is widespread and deserves a reference. I don't know how the previous editor has drawn the conclusion that a nuclear explosion is the least likely explanation. NPguy (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NIE of 2007 has been completely discredited.

Look it up. The fact that this piece of fiction is used as a source says nothing about Iran, but plenty about Wikipedia.

The principal flaw of the NIE was poor wording - equating weaponization activities with having a nuclear weapons program. The NIE makes the judgment that we do not know whether Iran intends to build a bomb, but that Iran could do so in a few years if it decided to do so. That seems eminently sensible. What would you have us look up? NPguy (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

another blatant lie is "protected"

" ... the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."

Can you say "Qom"?

I knew you could.

No First Use

I deleted two columns from the summary table. I deleted PTBT because it is not very significant any more, and No First Use because it is misleading. The variations among states nuclear doctrines are not readily reducible to a yes or no on NFU. And how do we know Israel has a NFU policy? Is that how we should interpret the pledge not to "introduce" nukes? According to Avner Cohen, then Ambassador Rabin told then Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke in the late 1970s that to "introduce" nuclear weapons required testing. Israel has made no public declaration on use of weapons it does not acknowledge having. NPguy (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "will not be the first to introduce" means NFU. If it requires testing as well, that is an even stronger condition, but doesn't change the fact that use implies introduction.

States have explicitly declared either NFU or FU in response to conventional attacks, so it is not just us interpreting their doctrines and guessing they mean NFU or FU, this is data on actual statements.

Why is PTBT not significant? And if significant in the past, doesn't that count? --JWB (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NPguy, the NFU policy can be misleading if reduced to a yes/no. Moreover, it is unclear how the states in your proposed table is ordered. The current ordering is quite clear. I would not object to a column for CTBT as it is an important treaty albeit one that is yet to enter into force. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to reorder rather than deleting. I think I only moved Israel up a bit, corresponding to actual development date and because some of the values in the right columns matched well. Still waiting to hear what is misleading about NFU. --JWB (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I do not agree that Israel's "not first to introduce" policy is equivalent to NFU. The statement is about testing and formally acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons; it's not about use. Does anyone doubt that one reason Israel has nuclear weapons is to deter a massive conventional invasion that threatened its survival?

If it is about testing, why does it say "No First Use" rather than "No Testing"? Testing does not imply use, and use does not imply testing - the first use ever was Little Boy which was not tested. Avner Cohen's statement you cited above seems to be aimed at shoring up the position that Israel has not "introduced" and violated its pledge to the U.S. even though there is no doubt whatsoever about Israel's possession. I don't doubt that one reason Israel developed nuclear weapons is to deter a massive conventional invasion; however, this is an inference rather than an explicit statement, and in any case possession of nuclear weapons is supplying deterrence without them being used, besides which Israel's conventional superiority is now also pretty secure. I do agree there is some contradiction between Israel's NFI pledge and its desire to deter a now-unlikely overwhelming conventional attack, but this does not negate the existence of either statement. --Anonymous interjection

Why does what say "No First Use"? I don't believe Israel has made such a statement, which would be seen as acknowledging possession of nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You were asserting that "No First Use" is really about testing. I'm saying it's about use, not testing. --JWB (talk) 03:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I never said that. Rather, was questioning whether Israel has ever said it has a no first use policy. I have never heard that it does. Israel's declared policy still seems to be that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region. "Introduce" is not the same as "use." The only statement I am aware of that seems to clarify the meaning of this policy is the one from then Ambassador Rabin. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Introduce" may not be the same as "use", but "use" certainly implies "introduce", and the contrapositive of that statement is that no introduction implies no use. Rabin's statement (what was the quote exactly?) does not change this, unless you think he was saying that Israel could use nuclear weapons and still have not "introduced" them because there was no testing before use, which is absurd. --JWB (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

We should not be in the business of interpreting Israel's declaratory policy to mean something Israel has never said and is unlikely to say. Israel's statement was not about use of nuclear weapons, which Israel does not acknowledge having. To interpret is as a no first use pledge is not accurate. NPguy (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Israel does acknowledge having the capacity to build nuclear weapons quickly, for example Moshe Dayan's quote here, and has pointedly not specified any steps that remain; a Hebrew University professor interprets the pledge as saying that weapons are 'only a screw-driver away'. No first use says "It also implies that Israel would not strike first with nuclear weapons during a war" and gives a reference. --JWB (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That claim is no more valid for appearing in another article (which it no longer does). When it comes to declaratory policy, I think we have to go with what a state actually declares, not editorial inferences. NPguy (talk) 04:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What would you call Olmert's December 2006 statement that that Iran aspires "to have a nuclear weapon as America, France, Israel and Russia"? --JWB (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Second, NFU is one example of a declaratory policy on "negative security assurances." There are many considerations that might go into such assurances: Is the country a non-nuclear-weapon state party to the NPT? Has it violated the NPT? Is it party to a nuclear weapon free zone treaty? Has it used other WMD? Is it acting in alliance with a nuclear weapon state? NFU is a very simple benchmark on declaratory policy that treats these variations as inconsequential. Also, some states may be more fastidious than others in matching their publicly declared policy to their actual policy. Just because a state declares a NFU policy does not mean that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons first if facing a dire threat. For all these reasons, I think adopting NFU as the benchmark for declaratory policy is not an unbiased way of presenting the issue. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are many such questions, which is exactly why we should list them all in one table for comparison. NFU is simplistic, and so are all the policies to some degree. Various policies of the same state may appear to be at cross purposes, if not actually contradictory. This does not mean we should suppress effective presentation of the raw data and only supply our harmonized interpretations of it. Providing the table is an easy way to let readers compare for themselves and perceive the somewhat chaotic situation. Nuances that can't fit in the table can continue to be presented in the article text. --JWB (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

JWB, I liked the previous table better because of the clear way it was sorted. It is sorted somewhat arbitrarily now presumably based on how the yes/no line up. Moreover, though I not disagree with the significance of the CTBT to the non-proliferation regime, it is a treaty that is not yet in effect unlike the NPT. There are also other nuclear weapons treaties that technically could be included as well. NPguy, which one did you like better the former table format or the current one by JWB? Nirvana888 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like NFU—it's misleading, problematic. NPT is fine, though I think the previous arrangement was easier to grok (rather than YES YES YES NO, just have a line between them). CTBT seems to get into a level of complexity that is not necessary for a table, but that's mostly an aesthetic comment. I think we need to think about such tables and their additions in terms of what the reader will get out of it at a glance. Will they ferret through the columns and attempt to divine a state's nuclear policy from a few YES/NO binaries? If so, they will not actually be learning much, because even though China and the USA have similar YES/NO columns, they have very different policies, for example. My guess is that what people get out of this particular column is "who is a nuclear power, when did they become one, and how many nukes do they have?", which was aptly and directly answered by the previous version, and other than the weirdness of Israel, is easily answered by the columns as previously given. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

China and USA agree on only 2 of 4 columns so far. The differences in the table do reflect actual differences in policy - China's NFU makes sense for a state that is not faced with a superior conventional invasion threat, and does not have enough nuclear weapons to contemplate a preemptive strike, and PTBT was largely a USA-USSR agreement to mitigate fallout from testing programs much larger than China's. The table doesn't explain everything, but it has a good density of facts for its size, and is not presented in isolation from the article text.

What impression does the table give overall? The impression it gives me is that various states have had widely varying approaches to arms control. If anything, the variance is increased by countries not wanting to participate in other countries' initiatives, and reacting with their own initiatives serving their own interests.

I do not get the objection about moving the Israel row up - Israel developed nuclear weapons after the NPT 5 and before India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Even if you consider its opacity policy puts it in a separate category (I don't particularly; it is more of a historical quirk of its relationship with the U.S.) the Israel category can just as well go above the India-Pakistan-NK category. --JWB (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the CTBT row tells you anything. US has signed by not ratified. Ditto China. Do they have the same status on this? Probably not. Are the same concerns and political mechanisms holding up the ratification? Probably not. If it were me, I'd drop that column—it doesn't provide useful at-a-glance information. That would leave only NPT, which I still think works better for separating out the rows as before. My understanding of the import of the table is to give an idea of chronology (when someone got the bomb), and quantity (how many bombs they have). I'm not sure the other information helps. I think the formatting on the current version is both ugly (no space between date of test and test name) and incorrect (numbers should be right-justified). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what difference you see between China and the United States. Both have signed; neither is testing. China is probably waiting for the United States to ratify, but so what? I find those columns worthwhile.

An additional column might be on fissile material production for weapons. The United States, UK, France and Russia have stopped and declared moratoria. China doesn't seem to be producing but won't say so. The other three are all (presumably) producing. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree more with Mr.98. The CTBT is not in force and therefore not legally binding for any NWS unlike the NPT. I would support a column when/if it actually enters into force. I propose we restore the much nicer original table format for the time being. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

So should we split into two tables, one with warhead numbers and one with treaty and policy status? I think the latter should be tabulated somewhere in Wikipedia. --JWB (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am not opposed to some discussion about the CTBT in the article. Let's see what others think. Do you think it would be OK if we restored the original table for now? Nirvana888 (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't share this view. If we do a policy column, policy on testing, production and use seem like obvious points. The most revealing point on testing is status of CTBT signature/ratification. All have moratoria, except DPRK. Earlier treaties on testing have become universal norms, so they don't distinguish among the nine countries. On production, see my earlier post. On policy related to use, I think NFU doesn't capture the whole picture. NPguy (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a main article which discusses nuclear weapons policy? If there is it might be helpful to have a look. Nirvana888 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a list article?

According to Wikipedia:Lists, the contents of a list article should be clear, consist of lists of links, and minimum explanation. (such as List_of_submarine_operators) However, lists in this article have incomplete length information and explanation.

What do you think about making this article a 'real list', splitting it into each articles. (A similar discussion has aroused at the jawp talk page, which I translated from this. So please give us some advice. ja:ノート:核兵器を保有する国の一覧) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yghwtrrl (talk • contribs) 03:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to develop nuclear weapons technology

I am going to remove Iran from the list of states alleged to have nuclear weapons programs if there are not any objections within a few days. U.S. intelligence makes the following judgment of an Iranian nuclear program:(Dennis Blair (2009-02-12). "Annual Threat Assessment of the Intelligence Community for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence" (PDF). Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Retrieved 2009-12-11.)

1. Iran has not currently made a definitive decision to pursue nuclear weapons
2. Iran ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003
3. Iran continues its efforts to develop uranium enrichment technology, which can be used both to produce low-enriched uranium for power reactor fuel and to produce highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.
4. Iran continues to deploy and improve ballistic missiles inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
5. Iran since fall 2003 has conducted research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications, some of which would be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

Judgments 1 and 2 says we don't believe Iran currently intends to develop weapons and doesn't have any active programs in this regard. Judgments 3-5 say Iran is doing civilian work which could have military purposes. If the threshold for inclusion is having civilian uranium enrichment and domestic ballistic missile programs, then this list of states may need to be greatly expanded.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to be sensible here. Obviously there is great controversy about whether Iran is intending to use its uranium enrichment technology for weapons purposes. Citing one estimate here and one estimate there does not change that fact. There are a lot of estimates. There are a lot of concerns, from a lot of different countries, organizations, etc. The most neutral answer is to simply say, at this point, there are a lot of concerns, which is what the section ought to say. Wikipedia does not determine the facts, it just reports them, ideally. Anything else than that is taking a side. I am more dubious about keeping Syria and Myanmar on the list when there is really a lot less public controversy in such cases and it is a lot harder to justify giving them such high profile in such an article. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I mostly agree with you, but the current wording is wrong because the U.S. either isn't actually accusing what is stated in the article or is accusing Iran of something which manu nations do. The entire current standard for inclusion seems ridiculous because should we really list any country which has been accused by any other country? What of plutonium particles found in Egypt, or secret enrichment at South Korean nuclear facilities? I am highly skeptical that editors should act as arbiters of 'public controversy'. The point is that a simple, reasonable, and consistent standard needs to be developed for inclusion. I might propose one of the following:

• Mentioning of issue in recent IAEA Safeguards Report
• Some form of finding by the IAEA Board of Governors
• Resolution by the U.N. Security Council

Other standards are possible as well, but such a standard may not likely include Myanmar. It is important that the article not set double standards about which countries are allowed to make accusations, or worse make misstatements because of sloppy language or sourcing.--71.156.89.167 (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed for the most part. I am not sure that having things be IAEA-exclusive is the best policy, because the IAEA is one of many players in such things (but an important one, to be sure!). I guess I'm hesistent to try and come up with sure-fire demarcation, because this is an inherently slippery issue. I prefer saying, "let's just use our judgment" about what states belong and which don't—and collectively, I think that probably will work well—rather than saying, "if X organization accuses a nation of something, we have to include it," because that leads to small accusations getting magnified (Fox News says something and suddenly a new country is on here), and murky-questionable-but-important accusations getting de-emphasized (IAEA is unclear/uncommitted and Iran is removed, even though it is clearly the major proliferation question being asked at the moment). I thoroughly agree of course that things need to be worded carefully and sourced well. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I wasn't trying to suggest an IAEA-exclusive policy, I was just trying to denote the deficiencies of 'State X accused State Y' as a criteria. I think finding some basic and general formulation which is an explicit statement of consensus would be good though.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"threshold" or "de facto" nuclear states

Would it be appropriate to have a section about countries that have the technology and materials to build nuclear weapons but have chosen not to. The list definitely includes at least South Africa, Brazil, Taiwan, Germany, Canada, and Japan. Probably a few other countries and Europe, Australia, and South Korea are on the list too (I have not read anything about that second group but suspect given the amount of "peaceful" nuclear technology and general technological sophistication. I would certainly want some citations before actually putting them in mainspace). Normally I would normally put citations here but for all the countries in the first group you can check out "_____ and weapons of mass destruction" or "_____ nuclear program" and there are citations. maybe for the second group too.

I have heard such countries called "threshold nuclear states" since they have crossed the technological threshold, though it's ambiguous because it could mean they are "on the threshold." I have also seen them called "de facto" but this is also ambiguous since in some literature only the 5 UN Security Council members are "de jure" nuclear states so only the 4 states that actually have nuclear weapons (india, pakistan, israel, n korea) are "de facto."

In any event this is a second (or third) category of nuclear power it might not belong here but maybe a link to its own list? Jieagles (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a spectrum, in proliferation analysis and studies. South Africa had, but gave up, most of the key technologies (they still have a residual tech base but can't enrich large quantities of HEU, etc). They actually built bombs, and then gave them up, putting them in a category all their own.

Sweden, Switzerland, South Korea, and Taiwan all had bomb programs of one sort or another at one time, which they walked away from (Sweden and Switzerland by choice, South Korea and Taiwan at US insistence).

Germany and Japan have all the scientific knowledge and industrial capability and resources they would need if they chose to move towards weapons, but are clearly not interested at the moment.

It's hard to draw the line. It doesn't take that much money and resources to put a program together. Motivation to do so is the most limiting factor. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot more than I do, but there seems to me to be a big difference between, as you said countries which lack the motivation or incentive and countries that lack the technology, money, infrastructure, or materials etc to do so (eg Burma, Syria, and Iran for the moment or even a country like Georgia, which feels threatened by a nuclear power and not protected by NATO or a nuclear umbrella, though obviously there are disincentives as well) It's the difference between a--purely hypothetical and currently unlikely--Middle Eastern arms race and an East Asian race. It seems like information that would be handy and interesting to have together in one place but, as you say, the spectrum makes it hard to put a label on it. Jieagles (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I think coming up with a clear and simple standard is quite important. As it currently stands, why is Myanmar included in the article when Egypt isn't?

Egypt has an essentially single party political system marked by violence[5] and the imprisoning of political opponents[6]. Egyptian human rights are severely wanting, with problems in freedom of the press[7], freedom of religion[8], tortue[9], etc.

Egypt has refused to sign treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons[10], and has previously used biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Egypt at least previously had a bomb program[11], has had traces of uranium suitable for a weapons found in their country[12], has had "repeated failures .. to report nuclear material and facilities to the Agency (IAEA) in a timely manner", has refused to implement the IAEA Additional Protocol, has access to bomb quantities of fissile material[13], and has recently had open debate about the pragmatism of developing nuclear weapons [14]

--68.251.188.242 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

We used to have a threshold section, back in the day, and it just became really impossible to figure out who was in and who was out. (Ditto with a "historically had programs" section.) It became hard to convey that level of subtleness in an article of this sort without it becoming endlessly long and kind of meaningless. I do think we need to probably have better criteria for who gets to be in the "are they making a bomb?" section if we have one. Perhaps we ought to just not have one—it is not really the same question at all as "who has a bomb" and "who has had a bomb in the past", which are factually straightforward (by comparison). In the end, maybe I am becoming convinced that Iran shouldn't be listed on a page called "list of states with nuclear weapons" at all because they do not have nuclear weapons, and never did. (If they end up getting them in the future, we'll add them.) This is not an argument that Iran itself should be removed but that we probably shouldn't have a section on this page about this at all. The fact that Iran is being accused of developing them doesn't really bear in mind on this particular page (though would on the Nuclear proliferation page, for example). Hmm. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There is not much difference between states capable of building a bomb with some effort, and states with nuclear power or other reactor technology, which the articles on nuclear power and technology list. --JWB (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and agree that accusations about Iran, etc. might be more appropriate for Nuclear proliferation, articles on nuclear power and technology, or even Foreign policy of the United States, etc. If we include them here, I think it might be better to be able to articulate some clear standard for their inclusion.--68.251.188.242 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. Iran is here because they are currently under IAEA special inspection and UN Security Council resolution and sanctions for an apparent but not confirmed weapons program. The clear standard is that there's a large body of evidence of noncompliance with nonproliferation requirements, supported by many nations and strong IAEA suspicions. How we handle borderline cases is an entirely different story. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So do they already have one as the name of the article implies? I was just concurring with Mr.98, who argues that the fact that Iran is being accused of developing them doesn't really bear in mind on a page about states with nuclear weapons. Are Syria and Malaysia under IAEA special inspection and UN Security Council resolution and sanctions as well? Is the fact that the IAEA has found traces of uranium at or near weapons grade level in Egypt relevant[15]? Perhaps a page on nuclear proliferation would be more relevant here?--68.251.188.242 (talk) 00:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

"States accused" and potential proliferators

The inclusion of Myanmar in the article raises serious questions about the thresshold for inclusion in the article. Proliferators could be those who are able or those who are willing, and of course both are constantly subject to change. A more thorough listing of potential proliferators could include Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Belarus, Brazil, Chechnya, Cuba, Egypt, Germany, India, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Kazakhstan, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, the Ukraine, and Yugoslavia. (depending on whether you ask the Federation of American Scientists, Carnegie, etc.)

India, Israel, North Korea, and Pakistan stick out because they are known or widely assumed to currently possess nuclear weapons.

Egypt, Iran, and Syria are all mentioned specifically in the 2008 IAEA Safeguards Statement. Iran further has been the subject of findings by the IAEA Board of Governors and has also been the subject of UN Security Council Sanctions. On the other hand, U.S. intelligence believes Iran ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003 and that Iran has not currently made a definitive decision to pursue nuclear weapons.

So this section suffers from a few major deficiencies:

1. The article's title would suggest this is a list of states with nuclear weapons
2. What is the threshold for inclusion? From the potential proliferators listed above, a number might seem to have more serious cases than Myanmar. As outlined above, it could be argued that Egypt among others poses a more serious proliferation concern than Myanmar. Can anyone do the accusing for a country to be included here? That would seem like a hefty list.
3. Accused according to whom? For example, Iran is being included of being accused of developing something when U.S. intelligence believes that Iran ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003 and that Iran has not currently made a definitive decision to pursue nuclear weapons.

Coming up with a clear, concise, and explicit standard would seem like a necessary and very good way to improve the article. There could be some subjectivity, but no standard at all doesn't seem like a good approach. Could we try to propose a standard for inclusion? Examples could include:

• a summarization of unsanctioned nuclear activity
• mentioning by external organization (such as FAS here)
• mentioned in Safeguards Statement by IAEA Secretariat
• unresolved finding by the IAEA Board of Governors
• resolution by the UN Security Council

--68.251.188.242 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved this section to Unsactioned nuclear activity.

I think that including a summary style list here could be alright, but that a potential list would need a reasonable and explicit standard and may include Egypt, Iran, etc. (IAEA investigations) as well as Brazil, Japan, etc. (domestic enrichment facilities, changing intent, etc.)--68.251.188.242 (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that this looks well and proper to me. The article doesn't really suffer for it, and the sections for this in the Nuclear Proliferation article make a lot more sense and give a lot more opportunity to be complete and fair without diluting this article. I think trying to cram all of the "potential" list into this article would take up far too much space, and that an abridged version would necessarily look strange to people (since nobody outside of arms control circles talk about Egypt at the moment) and would be a source of endless debate. Best, I think, to have one article that is all-inclusive and another which is very exclusive. --Mr.98 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the global map I have got to wonder what the difference is between these 2 categories:

• Other States believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)
• States accused of having nuclear weapons programs (Iran, Syria)

Mtpaley (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between having nuclear weapons and having a nuclear weapons program. Iran and Syria probably do not have nuclear weapons, but they have (or had) nuclear programs well suited to - and suspected of being intended for - production of nuclear weapons. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons, not just a program to produce them. NPguy (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ukraine and South Africa

Doesn't Ukraine have stockpiles from before the breakup of the Soviet Union? And I thought South Africa, similar to Israel, had undeclared nuclear weapons capability.

Also what about other former Soviet States?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Ukraine and South Africa are already mentioned in the article, see "States formerly possessing nuclear weapons". --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Total number of nuclear warheads

The article currently lists the U.S. as having 5,113 total warheads, based on a release the U.S. recently made. The release itself notes that "several thousand additional nuclear warheads are retired and awaiting dismantlement." The Pentagon will not give a precise number of the total number of warheads.

The problem here is how do we define total in a way which is uniform and consistent for all the countries. If we are to use the U.S. counting method, we need to find a similar counting method for all the countries. Otherwise, we need to use a consistent method which is found in many sources.

For example, FAS notes it estimates "the total number of assembled warheads is close to 9,600, probably a little less given ongoing dismantlement of retired warheads." While I am all for increasing transparency, pressure for disarmanent, and U.S. bargaining power, the article still needs a consistent standard.--68.251.184.119 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

One option might be to add a third category for "retired warheads/warheads awaiting dismantlement". We just need to be consistent to avoid misleading.--68.251.184.119 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no way it will be totally consistent across sources based on the fact that they are estimates in most cases. The factsheet says that retired weapons have been removed from their delivery platforms and are non-functional. I think that's enough not to count them as part of the total stockpile for our purposes. The footnote on the estimates section says fairly explicitly that we aren't necessarily counting retired warheads. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The FAS and NRDC are offering an independent and consistent counting method of the total number of warheads in the stockpile. One consistent methodology is thus being used to make the estimates. A few other sources give roughly the same estimates for the U.S. [16] [17] [18] [19]

A rough count of deployed and reserve warheads has been known for years, this refined the estimate by less than 100. Using the DOD number (which leaves out thousands of assembled nuclear warheads) is inconsistent, misinformed, and intellectually dishonest unless we are to attempt to use the same statistic for all the countries. For example, around a quarter (~3,000) of the weapons listed for Russia may be awaiting dismantlement as well, so this would mean that we are overstating the stockpiles of other countries if we lower the U.S. estimate. Also, Li Bin has said of the Chinese stockpile that "our warheads are not on trigger. That means if you count our arsenal according to the counting methods used by the U.S. and Russia, the number of our nuclear arms is zero.”--68.251.184.119 (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

A press release from the DOD tacitly acknowledged the independent estimate. When discussing the "total total stockpile", the release said "when you add 5,113 and several thousand, you get a number that you can pretty well calculate" and that "I can't give you the exact number, because we're examining the possibility of declassifying that information".--68.251.184.119 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

New table

Recon Army has added a new table noting the number of strategic and non-strategic warheads. I am somewhat indifferent to this new addition though find myself questioning its usefulness as I find it a bit too descriptive for a basic chart on list of states with nuclear weapons. Moreover, I do not like how he has combined first test and CTBT signatory into one column. I would like to hear from other regular editors. Nirvana888 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the old table, if only because in looking at the U.S. line I think this one is misleading. The total number of deployed and reserve warheads in the United States is 5,113, not the 9,500 or so cited in the current table. The difference is several thousand awaiting dismantlement, which are not properly considered "reserve." Further, accurate data on non-strategic nuclear weapons are hard to come by, so there's a lot more guesswork in that column. I wouldn't mind having a bit of both - a basic table at the top and a second table near the bottom with an "estimated breakdown of nuclear stockpiles." NPguy (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the concerns raised by NPguy and myself, I will restore the old table. I also would not mind a second table the near bottom of the article expounding on the classification of different warheads. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom - information released by Foreign Secretary

The exact number of nuclear warheads which the UK has in total and has operational is 225/160.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ge06eimPo1oS2tR3pGmTv836hE4gD9FUJIEO0

Can this article (and others) now be updated with this please. David (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The FAS source also reports this number.--70.236.71.25 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I have updated the table with the new disclosure by the UK. Interestingly, Hague uses the somewhat cryptic phrase of “the total number of warheads” in the “overall stockpile” will not exceed 225; though Kristensen believes this to mean that the UK has a stockpile of 225 warheads and not that they will not have more than 225 warheads in the future. Nirvana888 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear capable states

Has anyone a list of the states which have the technology to start a nuclear weapons program in reasonable time?--Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 04:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The hard part about building a nuclear weapon is not developing the technology but acquiring the weapon-usable fissile material. If you already have that material, it is a matter of months at most to produce a weapon. Countries that have such material in sufficient quantities include Japan, Belgium, South Africa, Belarus and Ukraine. A country with an operating enrichment or reprocessing plant, has the capability to produce weapon-usable fissile material within a few months to (for a small plant) a few years. The list of such countries includes Germany, the Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, and Iran. Finally, a country with enrichment or reprocessing technology could build an enrichment or reprocessing plant within a matter of years. The list of such countries that do not have operating plants includes Australia, Argentina and South Africa. NPguy (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

North Korea and Israel

Why does the map show North Korea as a state that has nuclear weapons and Israel as one that may?

There are vast amounts of information on the internet about how Israel definatly has Nuclear weapons while North Korea has only been experimenting.

Prehaps both the map and box beneath it should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

North Korea conducted two declared nuclear tests and openly claims it possesses nuclear weapons. Israel has done neither. That's a meaningful distinction, though there may be better ways to explain it. For example, "openly possesses" and "believed to possess." NPguy (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that any of the DPRK's claims must be taken with 'a pinch of salt'. It has failed so far in creating any nuclear weapons and has only created an explosion with nuclear material. There is no proof that it has successfully mastered nuclear fission to the degree required for it to be described as a Nuclear Weapons State or said to have it, it should therefore be in the catagory that Israel is in now and not in the same one as Pakistan and India (which have verifiable proof of nuclear programs and successful tests). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The distinction is meaningful. Your opinion that you don't believe North Korea's claims is not widely shared and should not be the basis for editing this article. NPguy (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

All it requires is a couple of searches online to find the proof or watch the news regularly to find out about North Korea's weapons program. Anyways by widely shared surely you mean you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What I've read lately credits North Korea with having at least crude nuclear weapons. The weapons may not work well, as the tests do not seem to have been very successful, but neither were they complete failures. If you have sources that contradict that, please point them out. But a key part of the distinction being made is between declaring possession of nuclear weapons and not doing so. NPguy (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So should we forget the events surrounding Mordechai Vanunu and Israel's nuclear weapons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alssa1 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Vanunu stuff just shows you that Israel has a nuclear weapons research program, not actual weapons. Of course, everyone knows they have weapons. But they are still "ambiguous" in their official policy and it's a meaningful (or at least notable) distinction. Note that the last North Korean test was on the order of a few thousand tons of TNT — small by nuke standards, to be sure, but still a nuke. --Mr.98 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs a (Regular) Article Section on Non-Nuclear States Known to Be Attempting/Have Attempted to Develop Nuclear Weapons

Syria, Iran, Brazil and Argentina being a few. I know that Syria and Iran are mentioned in tiny print in that little "Map" section on the right, but there should be a regular article section that allows for more details. Brazil and Argentina should be mentioned as formerly having such programs (not currently active).

Telemachus.forward (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an article on states with nuclear weapons, not on all states that are or may have been suspected of seeking them. There was much discussion in the past and several past cases (Iraq and Libya) were deleted. In my view, it would be cleaner to eliminate Syria and Iran than to add others. NPguy (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Needs a Section on Non-State Entities Seeking to Acquire or Develop Nuclear Weapons

Al Quaeda is the most notable, but have there also been others over the years? "Seeking" being more relevant than developing (as far as I have read, a non-state entity developing nuclear weapons is near-impossible, although assembling one from acquired materials would not be).

Telemachus.forward (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. This is about states. NPguy (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Section on "Efforts at Securing Existing Nuclear Stockpiles"

This also suggests a need for a third new section: Efforts at securing existing nuclear stockpiles from theft (especially in the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, India and perhaps North Korea), but also elsewhere as well.

Telemachus.forward (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This subject does not belong in this article. Maybe in a different one. NPguy (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

More on Former Nuclear Weapons Programs in Brazil and Argentina

"West Germany did not require IAEA safeguards, and following the 1975 agreement Brazil transferred technology from its power plant projects to a secret program to develop an atom bomb. Code-named "Solimões," after a river in the Amazon, the secret program was started in 1975 and eventually came to be known publicly as the Parallel Program. In the beginning of the eighties, the Navy Nuclear Parallel Program began to expand, especially after the uranium enrichment process named jet nozzle (which, as part of the Agreement, was bound to be transferred to NUCLEBRAS) turned out to be infeasible. During the decade, the civilian nuclear program lagged behind. Meanwhile, parallel research for obtaining fuel cycle know-how was intensified.

In 1987, José Sarney (president, 1985-90) announced that Brazil had enriched uranium successfully on a laboratory scale to 20 percent. At that time, some observers predicted that Brazil would have a nuclear-weapons capability by the turn of the century. On the eve of the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution - which submitted all nuclear activities to Congressional approval - NUCLEBRÁS was extinguished and the 'Parallels' became official and brought to the public through Decree-law nº2464 of August 31, 1988.

President Fernando Collor de Mello took bold steps to control and restrict Brazil's nuclear programs. In September 1990, he symbolically closed a test site at Cachimbo, in Pará State. That October, he formally exposed the military's secret plan to develop an atom bomb.

It was also revealed that Brazil's military regime secretly exported eight tons of uranium to Iraq in 1981. Nuclear Disarmament

Through a series of agreements, Brazil and Argentina have defused the issue of nuclear rivalry. On May 20, 1980, while under military rule, both countries signed the Brazilian-Argentine Agreement on the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy, establishing technical cooperation in developing the nuclear fuel cycle and coordination of nuclear policy. "

Some observers have argued that Brazil is still seeking the technological capability to produce a nuclear bomb,

Telemachus.forward (talk • contribs) 18:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that Brazil has had nuclear ambitions at various times — as have literally dozens and dozens of other countries. If you search through the history of this article, there used (maybe in 2005 or so) be a very long list of all countries that once had nuclear weapons programs of any size. It's huge — everything from Nazi Germany through Switzerland. In the end it became very hard to figure out how much constituted a "program" (just wanting a nuke does not a nuclear power make — theoretical studies can be done by college students, so does Princeton make the list?). Then there are a long list of places "alleged" to be working on weapons. Well, alleged by who? And when? We ended up with a very odd list that sometimes included Iran (and sometimes did not), sometimes included Iraq (and sometimes did not), and had odd entries for Myanmar and Syria and Saudi Arabia based on various intelligence articles and etc. Nobody could agree what criteria we should use, and in trying to invent new criteria we certainly strayed into original research. So in the end it was decided that, indeed, this article should be pretty much limited exclusively to states with nuclear weapons, per the title, with the only exception being states that formerly had nuclear weapons.

I'm not writing all of this to discourage you — it's just worth knowing how these types of suggestions worked out in practice over the years. That doesn't mean the way it is now is the way it has to be. But that's what NPguy means when he says, "we tried this, it's not a good idea". You'd have to come up with a pretty convincing rationale for what would and would not be on these lists, one that was neither too open ("anything goes!") but is also not too arbitrary ("things the New York Times has alleged"). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear sharing vs. nuclear possession

I must object to the putting of nuclear sharing countries into the same chart as countries that developed independently controlled nuclear weapons stockpiles.[20] They're not the same thing at all. The state of Italy never had control over those nuclear weapons. They did not produce those weapons. They could not produce more if they wanted to. They are not a nuclear state. I'm perfectly happy with there being a subsection of the article which talks about nuclear sharing, as there is currently, as something which complicates the traditional "state-based" approach to nuclear weapons, but putting that data into a chart which is clearly for weapons production states (with test dates and things like that) is more confusing than it is enlightening. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. NPguy (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure as in the event of nuclear war they 'would be shared', instantly transforming the host state into a defacto nuclear weapon state, as in deployed by native platforms as opposed to US platforms. Having them on the map is just as relevant as 'States suspected of having a nuclear weapons program' which are not nuclear capable yet. If anything change the listing to something like '(US forward deployed) nuclear weapons sharing states in NATO'. This might also open up a place on the map for Cuba as a former host in the short lived Soviet forward NW deployment and crisis. Also the former NATO nuclear sharing states like Canada could have a category.

Or- you could have 3 maps... 1) Former NW possessor and host states. 2) Current NW possessor, suspected (Israel), and host states. 3) Potential future NW states (Iran, etc.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 16:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons Sharing Image

Can someone tone down the sharp colors in the world map image in this section (File:Nwfz.svg). I've got a minor epilepsy and as I was scrolling down the page, I got a small headache from the image. Feng277394 (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to redo the map if someone could walk me thru uploading a replacement. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Map legend

"Other States believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)" "States suspected of having a nuclear weapons program (Iran, Syria)"

Doesn't this need to be changed so that it doesn't include speculation? Something like "Undeclared Nuclear Weapon States (Israel)" or "Nuclear Opaque States (Israel)" and "States under investigation (Iran, Syria)"

Or maybe merge all three in "Nuclear Opaque States (Israel, Iran, Syria)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.92.226 (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the map should match the categories in this article. This would mean eliminating the category of states states suspected of having a nuclear weapons program. I would not object to combining some or all of the categories for states that have (or are believed to have) nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we should get rid of the "suspected" states. They're more trouble than they're worth from a NPOV perspective, and including them here is more confusing than it is clarifying. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Scuttlebutt about Israel in the 1970s

I've reverted these two similar edits: [21] [22]

I thought I should just explain why.

There are two problems with them: 1. The sources are not great. Miscellaneous articles quoting confidential sources from the 1970s are not reliable sources on a subject that has been endlessly discussed and analyzed since then. If none of this information has been vetted or deemed as likely by analysts in the last 10 years or so, it can hardly be presented as an up to date opinion on Wikipedia. This isn't an obscure subject and there's no reason to use obscure sources for it. 2. Even if the sources WERE better, it's too much detail for a short discussion of the Israeli nuclear program. We have an entire article, Israel and nuclear weapons, dedicated to more detailed discussing of putative events. It should go there if anywhere, and I don't think it should go there unless there are better sources for it.

This is not to say that the Israel section need be set in stone; I may update it a bit myself in the next few days just to emphasize the French role in Israel acquiring the bomb, something which is well-backed-up by archival evidence at this point, and a useful piece of information regarding the history of proliferation. I think the Pakistan section should similarly be updated to discuss the Chinese connection, and the North Korean to discuss the Pakistani connection. (And personally I think all of the detail about the Agreed Framework in India is a bit much for the summary style of this article and should be moved to someplace more appropriate.) Nevertheless I think these particular edits to the Israel article are not good ones. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

States vs Countries

Shouldn't the title say 'countries' with nuclear weapons, instead of states? I'm sure it's possible for states to have another meaning, like countries, depending on the context. But I would think the title would be confusing for most people. There's no U.S. States listed. --Adam00 (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

State is a general term that refers to political entities, not simply states and provinces. Chris857 (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

concur- read as Nation State, i.e. State party to, etc. Don't they teach civics anymore? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Polish non-joke

Poland should be listed as a fomer nuke co-hoster country. After the 1981 military coup, USSR stationed nukes in the lands of Poland in a co-guarded and co-technical serviced manner, with 50-50% russian and polish human resources. Designated delivery vehicles were Sukhoi Su-22 varia-wing ground attack jets and "Scud" 8x8 missile launchers. Live arming codes were never handed to the polish leaders, but select polish soldiers handled genuine, inert core nuke warheads in several excercises and polish techies maintained actual, live core spheres.

The polish involvement was more then that enjoyed by West European countries with regards to locally stationed US nuclear bombs. This was done in secret to enhance the self-prestige of polish military leadership, whose high moral was crucial to maintain the army-backed "Constant State of Emergency" that held up the polish communist regime until 1989, but without the direct foreign military intervention of WARPAC / Soviet troops that caused so much trouble in Czech (1968) and Hungary (1956) previously. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In contrast, soviet nukes were stationed in the land of Hungary as well, but only the top 5 hungarian political leaders were told about that. Hungarian guards and techies couldn't go anywhere near the storage sites, even if they suspected the exact "special" nature of those bunkers and hungarian SCUD missileers trained only with conventional and cast concrete warheads. The shared hosting treatment of the "General's Junta" era Poland was really unique within the WARPAC. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that supports either of these claims? NPguy (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Poland_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Nuclear contains a citation related to this. I think it would definitely worth looking up which Warsaw pact nations hosted nuclear weapons and including them along with the NATO ones under a generic heading of weapons sharing. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If former weapon sharing nations are listed like Canada or Cuba ideally you would want to have a table listing them and current hosts like Germany along with whose weapons they were hosting, the numbers if available, time period, and political arrangement like "NATO weapon sharing" or simply "hosting forward deployed nukes".Doyna Yar (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The more I look into this, the more I think we need better articles on this and definitely a better section on this. The countries where the US alone kept nuclear weapons is a huge list — Taiwan, Korea, Phillipines, Guam, Japan (Okinawa/Iwo Jima), Greenland, and Canada, to add to the current list. The Soviet hosting is probably also a much larger list. This strikes me as rather significant and deserving of its own article with a link back here. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And if I'm not mistaken there's also the case of US nukes deployed on bombers in the UK during the cold war. An instance of one NWS hosting another NWS' nukes. Also there's the UK's Tridents stored, serviced, and loaded onto their boomers in the US. The UK also conducted tests at the US Nevada test site. I don't think any of the other nuclear players have done anything so cozy together. I guess that's why they call it the 'Special Relationship'. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The UK program is essentially an outpost of the US program at this point. There have been other cozy relationships (French-Israel, China-Pakistan, USSR-China) but none as cozy at that. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

With transfer of technological know how and materials, sure. But that doesn't come close to weapon handling, hosting, and testing inside another sovereign nation. The US-UK arrangement is historically much deeper than any other nuclear players cooperation. Doyna Yar (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge categories Believed and Suspected. There's no difference between these two. Put Israel in the same category as Iran and Syria.

Israel should be lumped into into the list containing Syria and Iran. It seems as though they were separated for political reasons. These two categories are synonymous. It looks like politics played a huge role in this. Good guys are "Believed" and bad guys are "Suspected", Good guys are yellow, bad guys are black. Let's not play sides here, this is not a political discussion.

Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity is diplomatically very distant from Iran and Syria's stated positions of denial. Israel's possession of nukes is an open secret. Even the Israelis don't deny it. Both positions are gray, but very different. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The categories should stay separate. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons. Iran is suspected by some of seeking nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons capability. Syria was believed to be seeking nuclear weapons, until Israel destroyed its clandestine plutonium production reactor. NPguy (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody of any repute believes that Iran or Syria actually currently possesses working nuclear weapons. Nobody of any repute doubts that Israel actually current possesses working nuclear weapons. I don't really see a grey area, myself. Personally, I would not even include Syria and Iran on that map — we decided a long time ago that being suspected of having a program is a chancy political question and gets us into difficult NPOV territory (what constitutes a "program"? does dual-use fissile material production, by itself? do you have to also have weapons designs and fabrication? is it about intentions? do purely exploratory stages count? whose suspicions matter? etc.). The question of who probably possesses actual, weaponized nuclear fission devices is a lot less problematic and a lot less NPOV, and Israel is basically the only questionable addition there, but it is so well-established, beyond a doubt, that they have the bomb that it doesn't really even need to come into question. There have been grey areas in the past (if this was 1989, we'd could imagine being in a difficult position regarding South Africa), but not at the moment. If it were up to me, I'd knock those two off the map, and include small references in the text that point people to the articles in question (since they are hot topics), but otherwise not lump them in with the others here at this point. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If the question were weather to lump Israel with Syria and Iran I’d say no. The circumstances are far too different though I would not have an issue changing ‘believed’ to ‘suspected’ or ‘speculated’ as more neutral while keeping them separate. If it’s weather or not to list Syria and Iran in the article or the map, in a strict sense of the article’s title, they probably do not belong. In the broader map issue it is a slippery slope (regardless of colors chosen). If you omit ‘states suspected’ then you may as well remove ‘states formerly’ as well for simplicity sake. Conversely, if we go into programs you’d have to consider adding states that could assemble a weapon in a relatively short time like Japan, states with former weapon programs, and then you may as well list all the states with civil programs just to cover all the bases. That would be one ugly map and well beyond the scope of the article. When were Iran and Syria added to the map anyway? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"States formerly" and "state suspected" are two totally different categories. I'm not sure why you would equate them. (The issue is not about "simplicity.") As for not including "nuclear capable" states, I agree completely. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only suggesting that "States formerly" doesn't adhere to the article's title any more than "state suspected" with regard to the map. I'm not saying delete them from mention in the article. However, being former possessors of nuclear weapons seems more to belong in a history of NW programs, proliferation, and disarmament. Doyna Yar (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"States suspected" is an exterior judgment, a judgment by the CIA/IAEA/whomever, which may or may not be true, which may or may not be interesting. Being a "former possessor" though is a real thing — they actually had control over weapons and/or the means of their production. I consider that a significant thing for this sort of article, and the map is useful in that respect. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

for some reason the 500px map isn't changed. Nice add on the latency link. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yitzhak Rabin

Yitzhak Rabin did not say "mere possession would be excluded from the pledge". The Washington Post concluded that.--AsiBakshish 09:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AsiBakshish (talk • contribs)

Let's go to the source:

Mr. Warnke said: "Then in your view, an unadvertised, untested nuclear device is not a nuclear weapon." Ambassador Rabin said: "Yes, that is correct." Mr. Warnke asked: "What about an advertised but untested nuclear device or weapon. Would that be introduction?" Ambassador Rabin said: "Yes, that would be introduction."

In Rabin's view, a secret, untested, but possessed nuclear device is not a nuclear weapon. Under what interpretation would that not exclude "mere possession" from the pledge? Warnke clearly interpreted Rabin as implying that he believed that "mere physical presence" was not "introduction". Rabin did not dispute this. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia, it would make much more sense to quote what he actually said rather than trying to add more words to it. Thom2002 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that in this case, direct quoting is most straightforward, and I have changed the wording considerably to reflect this, and linked to both the documents in question (and the synthesis of them, which is key for WP:NOR). At the moment I think it's pretty straightforward. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Flags

What are the flags for? --John (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them. --John (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

At first I thought your post a newbie joke. And after less then 24 hours for discussion, unilaterally pulling the flags does what exactly to improve on the article? If it's a historical reference a historically accurate flag does help. Doesn't anyone else take issue with this? Doyna Yar (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

How do you think the flags help? To answer your question, removing the flags removes visual clutter; as far as I could see the article is not about flags and so the flags were merely decoration, something deprecated by the relevant guideline. --John (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd interpret under 'Appropriate use', "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." as quite germane to the topic of this article and not aggrandizing or eye-candy. WMD programs and development are unfortunately as competitively nationalistic as it comes. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is, I guess, whether the flags add anything that the names of the states do not. I think they looked OK but I'm not sure there's a strong intellectual justification for them. I do get a bit irritated, though, when people march around to articles they do not edit regularly enforcing obscure MOS guidelines for no reason other than to enforce them. I also know that these kinds of arguments basically end up in little revert wars until somebody just gives up, and I have better things to do with my time... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not comfortable with the flag removal, especially in such a unilateral manner. I think they were relevant, historically, given state/regime evolutions. Many other pages containing nation-state issues embrace the use of flags. I will not revert the flags to the article myself. However there are 213 watchers of this page and it's Talk page. I don't know if there is any wiki-procedure for a wider decision. But I would ask for their consideration on the issue. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The way flags were used in this article never sat right with me, but I had not been aware that the site MoS indicates against such use. The article reads more smoothly without the inline images cluttering up the text adding little to no value for the reader. There is a lot of history in the subject matter of this article, and it should be explained clearly and succinctly; adding flags detracts from this goal. FiveColourMap (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like they're back anyway... :) Doyna Yar (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Poland

According to page 46 Poland has nuclear weapon.--Wiggles007 _dyskusja 18:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggles007 (talk • contribs)

Your link doesn't work. But I suspect it is in reference to hosting of Soviet nuclear arms in Warsaw Pact countries. See our discussion up a bit on this page about that, or see here. It's not the same thing as being a nuclear state, but I do think at some point we should update the "nuclear sharing" section to include a list of places where weapons were based (which is a long list). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Giving up weapons

This paragraph started out as this:

Some countries have given up their nuclear weapons such as South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Some scholars argued that under realistic reasons states may give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily. Accordingly, states may give up their nuclear weapons in the absence of an existential threat and the lack of a secure second strike capability.

And is now this:

Some countries have given up their nuclear weapons such as South Africa, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Some scholars argued that may give up their nuclear weapons voluntarily under realistic reasons states, namely if they lack a secure second strike capability and do not face an existential threat.

And neither of these are really clear as to what the heck they are supposed to mean. There's basic grammar parsing that I'm not following in the edited version, but even in the original version, it's not clear to me what "realistic reasons" is supposed to mean in this context. (Realpolitik? A specific theory of state actions? I don't know.) I'm also unsure of whether this is something we should have on this page or not — is this particular article important? Is the idea that states give up their arms for strategic reasons really worth inclusion? (Isn't that kind of the default and usually naive assumption with regards to nuclear activity, that it is all strategic? Doesn't most literature on this subject discuss the limits of strategic reasoning and point towards lots of non-strategic factors that seem to tip the scales?) Do we really need a discussion of different theories as to why "some countries" (all exactly four of them) have given up the bomb in this particular article?

I think my point of view is pretty clear from the fact that I'm challenging this inclusion — I think at best it's banal and jargony; at worst it is misleading, ungrammatical, and/or academic spam. But I could be wrong; I'm perhaps out of the loop. Thoughts? --Mr.98 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the contributions of the Turkish IP who added it, I'm inclined to believe that this is basically academic spam probably being added by the article author in question (who I've never heard of, but what do I know). I'm inclined to believe that all of those edits should be reverted; they seem to just be trying to drive traffic to the article in question and most are similarly banal (claiming states get rid of nukes because of strategic reasons and claiming that indeed not everyone has signed the NPT; the latter is an argument that is being presented as the only argument or at least as an important one — both of which seem dodgy to me — and the latter is just using a paper to cite something which can be cited much more straightforwardly elsewhere). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with what you edited out or their motivation to add it in the first place. That said, under 'states' motivation for development is touched on and given that on balance I'd say specific disarmament motivation per state is fair mentioning in brief. That's just an opinion and I'm hardly an expert on the issue. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not unrelated, actually. From the start it looked like an NPOV violation (undue weight to one guy's theory of why those four states gave up the bomb), which I tried to articulate above. The fact that this guy is spamming his article all over Wikipedia, in an obvious effort to make it look more important than it probably is, just reinforces the sentiment. Personally I think the given reason in that article, at least as summarized above, is pretty naiv. South Africa gave up the bomb because it didn't face an existential threat and because they lacked a secondary strike capability? In m y mind, that's about the least useful way of talking about the apartheid regime's decision to disarm their nuclear program in the early 1990s; it makes it sound like it was part of some grand scheme of international strategic relations, whereas nearly every discussion of that decision is about domestic politics for fairly obvious reasons. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should also say: I'm not really opposed to having some short discussion of why these countries gave up their nukes — if it can be short, NPOV, and referenced. I just don't think that's what this paragraph does at all, along with being academic link spam. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who edited this down. I had a similar diagnosis to Mr.98. I hadn't heard of the author, but the analysis seemed worth taking seriously even if it is not representative of scholarly thinking. That's why I decided to edit rather than remove. NPguy (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is not representative of scholarly thinking, then why is it the only discussion in the article? This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. To be NPOV we need to either cover something like the whole spectrum, or to not have it. Personally I think the line of discussion as represented above sounds pretty silly, but that's just me. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

"Widely believed"

A well-meaning user wanted us to clarify who "widely believes" that Israel has the bomb. It's such a wide list that I really don't see any better way to do it than "widely believed." Saying any specific "believer" isn't really going to cut it — it isn't a belief rooted in one agency, country, or author. I think the section on the Israeli bomb is already pretty good about establishing why basically all informed people on this topic think this is the case, but I thought I ought to just put it out there.

"Widely believed" here really means what it says; it isn't being used as a weasel word. It's just meant to indicate that Israel has never confirmed or denied this, or tested. If someone can convey that artfully in better language, I invite them to, but trying to list out who believes this is not going to be the right solution. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Israeli nukes are pretty much the definition of an 'open secret'. If they don't have 'em it's the biggest bluff in history :) Doyna Yar (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

They got 'em in 1976 and a CIA operative "accidentally" mentioned it during a speech. Shortly after that, Sadat signed the Camp David peace accords. Linuxgal (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia

Russia has more nuclear weapons than the United States. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the nuclear weapons went to Russia. Do not start a war edits. NightShadow23 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How do you know? You can't just assert facts on Wikipedia. You need to find a reliable source to support your claim. You have not done that. In fact, the reliable sources already cited in the article contradict your claims. Please do not keep making unsupported edits. NPguy (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur; YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE! Doyna Yar (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia entry (in Russian)[23]

(In Spanish)[24]

Another proof-[25]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, all the nuclear weapons transferred to Russia. Learn the history of the USSR, comrades. NightShadow23 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Citing another Wikipedia article does not satisfy the requirement of having a reliable source for factual information. In any case the first two articles are not in English and therefore difficult to verify. The third citation is a graphic without supporting analysis or date and not sufficient basis for questioning the cited reliable source, according to which stockpile has dropped significantly. NPguy (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Near as I can figure on the Russian wiki, the stats on USSR/Russian nukes are unsoursed and the notation translates (via google) to "↑ data on U.S. and Russian strategic warheads to include only the media, both states have also a significant number of tactical nuclear weapons, which is difficult to assess." Now that's as far as I'm willing to go playing with this. Site a recognized legitimate source and you've made your point. Otherwise stick to editing the .ru wiki and their editors can deal with you. If anything you prove the other sites need work. Oh, and the table is in order of development, so kindly leave the Soviet Union/Russia second ;) ,do svidaniya. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Американцы такие упрямые,с ними сложно договориться...Хорошо,что Вы не поставили себя на первое место по добыче нефти(в статье).

Теперь это комедия! Doyna Yar (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• У Вас плохо работает переводчик :D NightShadow23 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know Russian, but I was curious about the colloquy above. Google translate renders it as:

Americans are stubborn, difficult to agree with them ... well, that you do not put yourself in the first place for oil (in the article).

Now that's comedy!

• Americans are stubborn, difficult to negotiate with them.... Good that you do not put themselves into first place on oil production (in the article). NightShadow23 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This seems to suggest a POV behind the recent disagreement on this page over the size of Russia's nuclear arsenal, and a misunderstanding of the motivation behind retaining the current version. It seems a Russian IP editor sees this page as a reflection of American self-delusion - that Americans want to believe that the United States has the larger stockpile. But the cited source is the Federation of American Scientists, an organization openly critical of the U.S. government for retaining too many nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Here is another proof-[26] NightShadow23 (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not "proof" either. In fact, the cited source is the same one as in this article, but the numbers in that article (supposedly as of 2010) are outdated compared to this article (as of the end of 2012). As Donya Yar says, this is an indication that the Russian wiki article needs updating. NPguy (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello NightShadow23:

• We all know that Russia received the weapons of the USSR. We are not arguing about that. This article in fact says: "After its dissolution in 1991, the Soviet weapons entered officially into the possession of the Russian Federation."
• The estimates as to the current Russian stockpile are based on how many weapons they have dismantled since that time. It is a significant number.
• Most estimates on the Internet come from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). The sites which say 11,000 are also getting them from FAS, but they have not updated their numbers. FAS has recently changed their estimate to 8,500 warheads in Russia. The numbers do not stay the same forever; both Russia and the USA have been taking apart warheads over the course of the last few decades.

I hope this clarifies the disagreement. I can read Russian if you think it would easier to converse with us that way (I do not write it very well). Our numbers are up to date. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for useful information. I think you're right.

До свидания ;) NightShadow23 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 numbers

Changed table to reflect changed numbers on FAS site. I could not find a date on the FAS page, but it is copyrighted 2013 and teh table header says "(End-2012)". The only number changed is the US operational bombs, down 200 from the previous data. Edited Note 1 to match. SkoreKeep (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The page in question says "Current update: December 18, 2012". Also, when using their US numbers keep in mind that they have two categories of operational nuclear weapons, and for the US the total number of operational nuclear weapons is 1,950+200 = 2150. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Italy with nuclear weapons (not declared officially)

This talk page is not the place to invent allegations by improperly WP:SYNTHesizing by misreading primary sources in the absence of any secondary sources. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
All the people know the history of the southafrican atomic bomb, but less the history of the italian one. Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai that was in Parliament since 1968 and in the Military Affairs Commission since 1970 officially declared in Parliament to the Minister of the Italian Defence Luigi Gui that in CAMEN structure close Pisa was developed the italian nuke. In the following years 1973-1976 Italy even developed several rockets like the IRBM Alfa that with 1600 km of range was able to carry 1 Mt warhead launched from mobile blocks fit for destroyers or frigates. Later even launchers that could be used as ICBM were developed. In this way Italy is in the nuclear club even if not officially. Here is the citation that testify with all official words said in Parliament that Italy has its own nukes. Even today there are military secrets of the italian state. The article about it seems not complete. It's time to UPDATE it. I posted the citation with Parliament speaking to avoid all doubts. Glc72 (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC) This citation describes claims that the Galileo Galilei research reactor had been intended and possibly used for nuclear-weapons-related research. It focuses on issues of radioactive waste disposal. If correct, it would be an indication that Italy, like several other countries, once had an early stage program to develop nuclear weapons. Sweden is another example. There is no claim that Italy actually acquired nuclear weapons. This Wikipedia article is about states that actually have or had nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Also, in light of the British and French programs, one of the main justifications for NATO nuclear sharing and nuclear umbrella was to deter American allies from developing their own programs preventing further proliferation and limiting the players in the nuclear arms race. Keeping the equation basically in a US vs. USSR context allowed for the bilateral arms treaties, reductions, and decrease in east-west tensions that came over the decades which followed. It's not hard to see how another half dozen nuclear states in NATO would have played into the propaganda of the cold war or how difficult any nuclear negotiations would have been with so many seats at the table, much like the current situation with Pakistan blocking global negotiations today. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Do you want to explain italian to me?)I'm italian. The Deputy of the Military Affairs Commission Giuseppe Niccolai in a CLEAR WAY says to the Minister of Defence of Italy Luigi Gui that Italy by Galileo reactor was used to PRODUCE NUKES.It is in the OFFICIAL Italian Parliament Acts.May be you like to misunderstand italian words.Italy signed TNP in 1975-76,but before it produced its nukes as reported OFFICIALLY in Parliament. Secrets of state are in Italy too.And this is what is OFFICIAL (Go to read Italian Parliament Acts of the 23/01/1969 and try to DENY).More than the 50% of the italian middle aged people that served in the italian military system anyway would tell you that Italy has its own nukes.From 1963 (when nuclear civil and military program started) to 1976 Italy can have produced all nukes it liked as reported even in the article.In the article is even cited Sergio Romano former italian ambassador at UN.Glc72 (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC) I am entirely open to credible citations of any NATO nations nuclear programs pre-'sharing' and their inclusion in relevant articles. And oh, no... I never would have taken you to be Italian in a thousand years. Forgive me my fine Roman friend. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Italian Parliament Acts are more important than all because we are talking of Italy.Before than answering learn italian to translate in the correct way the official Italian Parliamet Acts citations.You answer with NATO that is just a military organization and nothing else and useless things about Rome.I'm not from Rome and avoid useless sentences of 1 thousand years. What is decided in Rome isn't many times what is decided in NATO.And this is valid not only for Italy. You want to ignore because otherwise you should change many maps,colors and articles.Italy is not officially declared nuclear power.My citation and above all Italian Parliament Acts of 29/01/1969 are more important than your opinions.Italy should be cited as suspected or not declared officially.You CAN'T DENY ITALIAN PARLIAMENT ACTS and my related citation to it.Time to update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.40.64.80 (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I know a little Italian myself, and from what I read (with help from Google translate) there was nothing in the cited article saying that Italy had used the reactor to produce nuclear weapons. The reactor was probably too small for that purpose, but not too small for research on nuclear weapons production. Perhaps the claim is that the reactor was intended for that purpose (i.e. research, not actual production). If I missed something, please find the specific quote that supports the claim that the reactor actually produces fissile material for nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC) You must read the article in the part where starts with " Atomico bellico" that means "military nuclear power".There is reported in the real official way (you can go to check also the OFFICIAL ACTS of the Italian Parliament Camera dei Deputati of the 23/01/1969) the citation (with his own words) of the Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai (that later was even member of the Commission for Military Affairs) that informs the italian Minister of the Defence Luigi Gui that in CAMEN structure of the Italian Navy are produced nukes (not only research).The CAMEN with Galilei reactor was a centre ONLY for military research and development of nuclear weapons and applications of the Italian Navy.It was close Pisa and close to Camp Darby.Italy had other nuclear reactors for civil aims. You can read in a clear way "PRODURRE ARMI NUCLEARI" that means"TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS" (IN THE SENSE OF FISSILE MATERIAL).Now it's SURE 100% that Italy produced its own nukes.The Minister accepted the information and didn't deny.At the italian nuclear studies worked also Edoardo Amaldi .To give you a complete picture in Italy nuclear civil centres production were closed in late '80's by a referendum,but CAMEN (later CISAM ) remained still active.CISAM reactor was closed some years ago and in Italy are stll active 4 nuclear research centres .Here the situation is totally opposite to the southafrican one.Italy never declared in international institutions but only in its Parlianment (and so it's offical) to be with nuclear weapons and never denied to have still active nukes produced before TNP in 1976.Italy took 1 year more accept it.So we know that it produced nukes and that it owns them,but the rest of the time till today is covered by military secrets. All people in Italy know that in La Spezia Arsenal of the Italian Navy there's something very hot.Alfa missile (range 1600 km with 1 Mt warhead launched from mobile blocks fit for frigates or destroyers,tested at least officially 3 times) in early '70s was developed not to launch a bomb of 1 kg but to launch nukes of 1 Mt.Italy began its military nuclear research in cooperation with France already in early '60s (with which Italy has many secret military agreements-even may be for a manteinance of nukes- without doubt more today than yesterday with EU policy ;many articles cite about fissile material exchanged in '60s between Italy and France citing the nuclear centres of Trino Vercellese and Tricastin) and later opened to USA too. In the article of the citation is reported as i already wrote that all the military activity in this sense is covered by secret of the State.This is more than a CLAIM.It needs to update article.I'd classify Italy as a country not officially declared but with nuclear weapons (because of TNP).Nukes were produced before than TNP at least till 1976 and today there's the secret of State on it.May be you are more able than me to present this claim in the related articles of the nuclear sector.Thanks for your kind behaviour.Not all people in Wikipedia are like you NPguy.I'm waiting for you NPguy.Glc72 (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC) I looked again and it still looks like plans and aspirations, but not actual production of nuclear weapons. For example, this quote: Progettare e realizzare un reattore dimostrativo completamente italiano; creare un gruppo di esperti, progettisti e operatori; esperienze necessarie per la progettazione di ulteriori impianti per usi vari (militari e civili) fino al reattore per la propulsione navale; formazione di specialisti militari per l’impiego dei reattori e per il controllo della radioattività seems to be a general outline of plans for a research and development program. Am I missing something? NPguy (talk) 00:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC) YES NPguy, you missed the last and main part of the Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai in the official Acts of the Italian Parliament of the 23/01/1969 reported in the article. I write you in italian and then i translate.Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai informs the Minister of the Defence Luigi Gui about CAMEN structure on the Italian Navy FUNCTIONS (that you translated in the right way but it's only the begenning of Deputy Niccolai speaking)that didn't deny and accepted with his own words:"PRODURRE ARMI NUCLEARI" that means "TO PRODUCE NUKES" (so in the sense of FISSILE MATERIAL ).You have to read "PRODURRE ARMI NUCLEARI" that is the final part of the speaking about CAMEN functions to the Defence Minister. Then Deputy Giusseppe Niccolai lasts "Nei primi programmi del CAMEN si parla esplicitamente della costruzione della bomba atomica italiana." Translation:" Already in the first programs (he is referring to when CAMEN started in 1962-63 but he was speaking in 1969) people talk in explicit way about of the production of the italian nuclear bomb".Deputy Niccolay in few words inform that in CAMEN there's research,developement and PRODUCTION OF NUKES.This isn't at all plan (it could be a plan in 1962-63 when CAMEN started) this is an OFFICIAL REPORT by the Deputy to the Minister of the Defence on the FUNCTIONS of CAMEN in 1969 that is totally different.We are talking of the Italian Parliament Official Acts. You just read the beginning, last in reading for some other words.You can find these words that complete his talking with the MAIN PART at the 7th line and following,just below what you read.There are NO OTHER chances in reading and translating correctly Italian Parliament Acts (Camera dei Deputati) of 23/01/1969,Italy has produced its own nukes. My father was before in the Italian Air Force (AMI-Aeronautica Militare Italiana) at launching pads since 1961 (during Cuba crisis when Jupiters where in southern Italy) and later in the Italian Army in Vittorio Veneto ,the main military HQ in Italy for Army (EI-Esercito Italiano).He already knew about Alfa rockets and other long range italian missiles tested for military aims in the Luigi Broglio base in the Indian Ocean close Kenya and in Sardinia (as you can image i know well by him weapons and my state).He already knew of italian nukes in early 70's (in fact Deputy Niccolai spoke in 1969).Italy was and still is very able to hold a low profile in this sector just declaring nuclear sharing (Italy is direct responsinble for Vatican security and can't declare for the image too many things;you can't talk of peace with Vatican influence and declare in great fanfare to have produced or owns nukes of 1Mt).I remember in early 80's there was a book (a Zanichelli Atlas very complete) that defined Italy not officially with nukes but with nuclear sharing and able to produce nukes in 24 hours.At that time for istance atlas cited South Africa as nuclear power.I image what formally it means to produce nukes within 24 hours.Some my friends former pilots of nuclear strikers told me that Tornados Ghedi (here are on italian aircrfts around 40 B61 type 3,4 and 10) based with nukes inside costantly fly so the 2 keys story is just a tale (in the reality those US B61 are "managed and owned" by hosting states-so The Nederlands,Germany and Belgium too in EU-even people of the italian military police cofirmed this) and they'd rather to die in their nukes bombs explosion than in a nuclear winter.They told me that 100 Hiroshima bombs exploded close the Equator (that weren't H bombs) or explosions for global 50 Mt in different points of the world would cancel life totally (as i also later read in a Sagan scientist interview). This is my personal and dad experience,but Acts of Parliament of Italy are official and not a personal experience or impression.Now i suppose it's time to update some related articles and i think you are better than me in this.Thanks again for your kind acting NPguy.Now this is an official claim.Glc72 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry I missed that quote at the very end: produrre armi nucleari. Nei primi programmi del CAMEN si parla esplicitamente della costruzione della bomba atomica italiana which translates as: to produce nuclear weapons. In CAMEN's first programs there is explicit mention of the construction of an Italian atomic bomb. Which is followed by this: La tentazione di costruire un proprio arsenale colpisce il governo italiano, che tra il 1974 e il 1976 fa eseguire tre test di un missile in grado di essere equipaggiato con una testata atomica. which translates as: The temptation to build its own arsenal hit the Italian government, which between 1974 and 1976 carried out three tests of a missile capable of being equipped with a nuclear warhead. But this is all about intentions and I see nothing that indicates there was any actual production of nuclear weapons. The rest of your discussion is about NATO nuclear sharing arrangements, involving deployment of U.S. nuclear warheads in Italy. This is well-known and already addressed in the article. NPguy (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I'd be willing to bet with digging there was similar government studies and debate about independent bomb programs in states in both cold war camps and beyond like India. Most countries probably weighed the idea and options of hosting after Hiroshima, capabilities aside, like the Cuban gambit. But talk isn't programs, and programs aren't bombs w/delivery systems. In the 80's there was something like 40 plus nuclear-capable states, comprising most of Europe, I'll give you that. However, the scope of the article is 'States with'. Italy is no more a NWS than Poland. There is in my opinion a sever lack of material on proliferation and individual national debates as such. There is threadbare info even on many NWS programs, like China, and their rationalization. There is little connection to strategic strategy in the article with regard to motivation or arsenal size/capability. And no 'tree' of proliferation among program sharing and espionage. Also as I've expressed in the past, if there is room to expand it would be past and present 'hosting/not sharing' nations like Cuba or South Korea. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC) In the sentence the Deputy doesn't express an intention ,but he describes something that EXISTS.I know italian better than you and you may be nuclear weapons better than me.The TITLE (MILTARY NUCLEAR:AN ITALIAN SECRET) of the ARTICLE is even CLEAR about IT. "PRODURRE ARMI NUCLEARI" means that CAMEN PRODUCED NUKES (To PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS).The Deputy is talking in 1969. The rest about NATO sharing is meaningless in this context.What this article officially claims by Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai is that Italy PRODUCED NUKES in 1969."The temptation " and following words that you reported AREN'T Deputy official words but only a description of the writer (that supports in the article the italian nuke existance,but he has an opinion.DEPUTY WORDS ARE OFFICIAL,NOT AN OPINION) of the article about the will to set the nuclear arsenal in rockets. THE ONLY OFFICIAL CITATION REPORTED IS MADE BY by Deputy Niccolai to the Minister of the Defence Luigi Gui is about FUNCTIONS (HE TALKS ABOUT FUNCTIONS AND NOT INTENTIONS) of CAMEN in 1969 ,one of those is "PRODURRE ARMI NUCLEARI"="TO PRODUCE NUKES".THE WORDS OF THE DEPUTY OFFICIALLY INFORMED MINISTER THAT ITALY PRODUCED NUKES IN 1969.THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT IS AN OFFICIAL PLACE, not a simple article or a simple opinion of a common citizen.The rest is BLA BLA BLA and opinions.We must look ONLY at what Deputy declared to inform the Minister.The rest of the article ISN'T official Acts of the Italian Parliament.One things are official speakings in the Italian Parliament (so what Deputy declared) and one thing is what article describes (article anyway supports in the whole contest that nukes were produced in CAMEN).Now it's a claim from official Acts of the Italian Parliament of the 23/01/1969.It's time to update articles related,no other chances even it changes the status quo articles or minding.I don't like original articles but neither to hide what is official because in OFFICIAL ACTS of the ITALIAN PARLIAMENT.DEPUTY NICCOLAI IN EXPLICIT WAY INFORMS ITALIAN MINISTER LUIGI GUI THAT ITALY PRODUCED ITS OWN NUKES in 1969.I repeat the rest are OPINIONS .You can call all the best italian translators that you know or turn things in your mind 1000 times,but it's so.All this matter today is covered by the secret of the State like is common all over the world.You are better than me in reporting and explaining this in the related articles.Now it's easy to realize what italian article means and reports,even my daughter 9 years old realized the meaning reading in italian.ONE OF THE MAIN FUNCTIONS( NOT INTENTIONS,OTHERWISE CALL A VERY VERY GOOD TRANSLATOR) OF CAMEN IN 1969 WAS IN THE INFORMATION OF DEPUTY NICCOLAI TO THE MINISTER OF THE DEFENCE OF ITALY LUIGI GUI "TO PRODUCE NUKES" (IN HIS OWN WORDS THAT ARE IN PARLIAMENT ACTS).I go straight ahead because i'm sure 1000% of it and so you can't misanderstand now.YOU CAN'T DENY OFFICIAL ACTS OF ITALY THAT REVEAL THE PRODUCTION OF NUKES IN CAMEN IN 1969.Would you deny official Acts of the US Low Chamber????If we deny the Italian Low Chamber Acts we must deny all Acts of the US Low Chamber. Do you understand my english?I think yes,because a guy from Manchester told me he understood me well.Doubting is right,but denying the evidence no.So it's time to update articles in the good way that as i told you,you know better than me. You NPguy have a lot of patience but also me.)Thanks again.Glc72 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC) These are the presentations of the Deputy Giuseppe (Beppe nicknamed) Niccolai and of the Minister of the Defence Luigi Gui.It's impossible to deny them and the Deputy words.Glc72 (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC) we need secondary sources. This one (UNISCI Discussion Papers, Nº 25 (January / Enero 2011) ISSN 1696-2206 167 167 ITALY’S NUCLEAR CHOICES Leopoldo Nuti 1 University of Roma Tre) [can't link -blacklisted] shows that Italy's physicists refused to work on a bomb. Rmhermen (talk) 01:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I don't see anything in either link (to Italian language Wikipedia biographical articles) or in the original citation to support the claim that Italy ever produced or possessed nuclear weapons of its own. I've found relevant quotes that fall short of supporting that claim. You refer to "OFFICIAL ACTS," but I have no idea what you are referring to. If you have evidence to support your claim, please provide the relevant citations and quotes. Otherwise I have to stick to my original view that the claim is not true. NPguy (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Next days i will post all the OFFICIAL CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI ACTS Of 23/01/1969.I've already made the request to the Archive of the Camera dei Deputati. Then it's the claim.And end of your opinions.ThanksGlc72 (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Here is the SPEAKING of Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai of 23/01/1969 in the Italian Parliament Camera dei Deputati.There are only HIS WORDS and the Italian Minister of the Defence words.Under "Il CAMEN COME NACQUE" ("How the CAMEN was born")you can read that since 1948-49 the FUNCTIONS of CAMEN were CLEAR.The FUNCTIONS of CAMEN since IT STARTED WERE 6.The 6th was "TO BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS".6th POINT in his own words "In the first PROGRAMS of the CAMEN ,onorevole Ministro, is already declared EXPLICITLY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ITALIAN NUKE".Then he lasts in criticizing CAMEN activity,but this doesn't interest to us. He is talking of the FUNCTIONS that were fixed when CAMEN started in 1948-49.I posted the OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE ITALIAN PARLIAMENT CAMERA DEI DEPUTATI on your Talk page NPguy .Now stop with your personal or original opinions.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glc72 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC) I looked at the links you provided. I agree that one of the purposes of CAMEN was to produce nuclear weapons. I still didn't find anything saying CAMEN actually produced nuclear weapons, and I did find this quote: le dimensioni del CAMEN sono troppo piccole perché esso svolga qualche attività nel campo dell'armamento nucleare Which I think means that the reactor was too small for nuclear weapons activities. At 5 megawatts (thermal) it was to small to produce significant quantities of plutonium. NPguy (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC) As i reported Italy had at least since 1963 4 other nuclear reactors in Trino Vercellese,Liri Garigliano,Latina and later Caorso that were closed in late '80s after a referendum.ENEL,Franco Tosi,Nuovo Pignone and others had all the technologies (compressors and so on) to produce uranium fit for a nukes and plutonium .Even who denies the italian nuke in Italy supports many things related to the evident developement of the italian nuke.. But the citations of the writer that denies the italian nuke are just opinions and NOT OFFICIAL ACTS. I'm making you the history of Italy,i don't know if you nocticed it.Remember that in the NPT (read well the article) there's only the " will " and not a clear imposed obligation and in every moment a state that has its own free sovereignity can withdraw.Italy had MORE THAN SUFFICIENT reactors to produce fissile material in the QUANTITATIVE sense.The military research that DIRECTED the developement of the nuclear weapons was in CAMEN as OFFICIALLY results.All the system was under the State control so all the nuclear plants too and for any aim.We've the Italian Parliament Acts of 23/01/1969 where is clearly declared that Italy developed by CAMEN its own nukes.A citation of Italian Parlianmet Acts is more valid than 100 articles of newspapers.Please find something that can deny that Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai declared THOSE WORDS in Camera dei Deputati or you are are trying to deny the official.THE REST IS OMISSIONS or BLA BLA BLA .ThanksGlc72 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC) So far I'm the only person who has cited any specific words, and none of them support the claim that Italy actually produced nuclear weapons. The onus is on you to find words that support the claim that it did. NPguy (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai words are more than your opinions in Italy and in the world.Please restore or i will do it.Stop to vandalize.You are using only your opinions against the Deputy words.I cited the the Italian Parliament Acts that support that Italy under CAMEN activity developed its own nukes.Glc72 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC) it will certainly not be accepted based on your original research in primary sources. Find some secondary sources discussing the matter, please. Rmhermen (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC) An OFFICIAL ACT is more than 100 articles.Do you deny Italian Parliament Acts and the words inside?In Italy even the people that deny the italian nuke support that Italy had all the technologies to develope them as i reported at citation 8.You are the only original.You have NOTHING that can deny Deputy Niccolai said those words.If you show me that he didn't say those words ,then you are right.About rocket Alfa there's even an article.Why should have produced Italy an IRBM?To launch 1 kg bomb? It was produced because Italy had developed nukes and in fact accepted NPT only in 1975.Anyway you must find something that deny that Deputy Niccolai spoke to Italian Minister of the Defence with those exact words to say to be right.I think it's mostly impossible.TODAY ITALY DOESN'T PRODUCE NUKES ,BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT HOLDS TODAY THOSE PRODUCED BEFORE 1975 COVERED UNDER STATE SECRET AND SECRET STATAL AND INTERSTATAL AGREEMENTS.ONE THING IS NPT AND ONE THING ARE MILITARY SECRETS AND THE REAL WILL OF EVERY STATE.We are SURE Italy produced nukes in the past,that's all.Glc72 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC) You keep asserting that I am denying evidence. I'm not. You haven't presented actual evidence. NPguy (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I've only been casually following this (the page is on my watchlist) and I have to say that Glc72's comments suffer strongly from TLDR and unnecessary capitalization implying shouting. Additionally, I do not understand Italian, but the sources I have seen presented seem at best to say that there is a state secret, but nothing that satisfies me. Chris857 (talk) 02:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Without proper independent citations, passion aside, it is vapor and does as such. And that goes for the Nuclear sharing page from me as well. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC) I've been lurking here. I made this edit on the Nuclear sharing page, saying "NATO: Remove content apparently off-topic for Nuclear sharing." Glc72 reverted that edit without comment and I have not pursued that, hoping for a consensus position to develop in this related discussion. I also made these three edits to this article, hoping to improve the english-language clarity, but that was also quickly reverted. If I correctly understand the sources re the January 23, 1969 discussion in the Italian legislature which I cited in that reverted edit (one of which is [27], linked and discussed a bit above), they would support an assertion that one of CAMEN's tasks was related to construction of the atomic bomb, but would not support an assertion that such a device was actually constructed or a larger assertion that such a device was weaponized into a deliverable nuclear munition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC) First of all Italy is SUPPOSED to have produced nukes before than 1975 and to own them. The deputy described the FUNCTIONS of CAMEN since when it started and one of them was to build the nuke in the military research part.NOBODY denied him and his description of functions.Can you deny what he related in Camera dei Deputati?Can you deny CAMEN FUNCTIONS that were allowed by the Italian State?You know NOTHING about it.ONE OF THE FUNCTIONS WAS TO PRODUCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.Can you deny it?Italy had all technologies to produce nukes,and even in the related articles of people that denied the italian nukes,is reported.I even reported that after 1975 Italy with the NPT decided officially to do not produce anymore nukes.Those functions ended in the Italian State only in 1975.Italy had several nuclear reactor to develope nukes and CAMEN reactor was for the military reserch to produce them.The rest is Secret Sate in this matter.You even denied an official declaration on NATO sharing that cancelled with citation.Here there's something wrong in your acting.First you DON'T KNOW ITALIAN, i'm sorry (and i'm wondering how you can accept articles written in russian or indian or korean or arab or whatelse i if you neither know a language more similar to english;that's a mistery).I can tell this easily as italian.You vandalized a part of article.It's a shame.You go against all what i posted with official citations having nothing in your hands.You aren't in good feith as Wikipedia asks in its policy.You deny an official act and even what a state decided.I want to meet in the real life (and i will find easily) some people close to me in EU that is well inside Wikipedia to avoid these situations not too clear.Your broad consensus +1000 articles +whatelse are less than those Deputy words of 1969.Can you deny the Deputy words?I think NO.Can you show me that in Italy today there aren't at 101% italian nukes ( or even out of its soil).You can't because it's matter of State Secret.WE can only say that Italy started to produce with the research in the CAMEN and that it had all technologies to do that.The rest are broad consensus,opinions or whatelse ...RUBBISH in face of an official act of the Italian Republic.Now i restore as it's right but i want read before your talks ...it seems you walk on the mirrors.I'll wait and if you won't answer with a trustble citation vs deputy Niccolai official exact words i'll restore.THERE's NOTHING that testifies OFFICIALLY or can deny at 100% that Italy hadn't produced nukes UNDER State Secret before than 1975 and that today could own.This citation supports IN A CLEAR WAY that one of the functions of CAMEN was OFFICIALLY to PRODUCE NUKES by ITS RESEARCHES( AND ITALY HAD ITS TECHNOLOGIES to in the QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SENSE-see nuclear plants in Italy- to build its nuke)as i cited.Glc72 (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC) NOTHING to declare to deny the deputy speaking?Reality is that you've NOTHING in your hands to stop this claim.NOTHING.Glc72 (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Unless you provide independent third party sources that Italy actually produced nuclear weapons (not vague claims of its intentions) there's nothing to do here. It should be that hard to find newspaper reports, or an account in a book about nuclear weapon history, given that this is rather a big deal. --NeilN talk to me 20:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC) We must be clear one thing is producing and one thing is owning .Italy could (so is suspected) own nukes that produced before than 1975 according to my citations.Is it clear?I cited Italian Parliament Acts that are more than 1000 articles of USA newspapers.Here is full not only of common people but even of people of secret services like CIA and not only that try to stop what they don't like.It's better know as propaganda.In my places was known before than in Usa.If i showed these behaviours to some writers they could write several articles about it.People already know about it in Italy.Here we have powers that are more powerful than the Us ones and not only. Glc72 (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC) This is List of states with nuclear weapons not List of states with some editor believes to have had nuclear weapons at some point in time. If you want to add Italy to the "States formerly possessing nuclear weapons" section, produce third party references unambiguously saying that. Again, not just that Italy had the capability or the intent. --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Italy with NPT has the will of not producing nukes,but we can't say that in the past it didn't produce nukes or that now it owns those ones.There are State Secrets everywhere.You can also write that Italy in the past could have produced nukes, but Italy isn't the same one of Southafrica.It held always a low profile.The reality is that it could even today own and it could made them "refresh" abroad.My citation is really clear.Since 1963 till 1975 Italy can have produced many nukes with 3-4 nuclear plants and the CAMEN research.IRBMs were developed in Italy to launch nukes not stones.Fermi like Amaldi like many others were from Italy.So let's avoid tales.My dad was in the military sector in '60s.I don't like to write half truths.Tales are for other people.Glc72 (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC) So, no references stating Italy had nuclear weapons. Okay. --NeilN talk to me 21:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) So no half truth.As i told you i know well Italy and reality is different from virtual.People here should explain me why Italy in 12 years shouldn't have developed nukes and and should have accepted Nato sharing whose control is in Usa hands (that isn't at all true).It would be irrational.You go against the reality.I like to study your minding.I studied human behaviour and i realize by your writings and articles many things of this world.It's really funny.Some articles (not all ) of Wikipedia in economy,military and policy are tales for some people not for me and many many other ones at least in the EU .I can't say for other less developed places in the rest of the world.You know that i know that you know.Glc72 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Suggestion: I see that there are a lot of country-specific articles titled Nuclear weapons and {country name} and/or {country-name} and weapons of mass destruction (e.g. Nuclear weapons and Israel, Nuclear weapons and Ukraine, etc.) How about creating an article named Nuclear weapons and Italy and hashing this out on the talk page of that article. Once that article stabilizes, create a WP:SS section summarizing the main points here with a {{Main}} link to that other article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Glc72, have you checked your (talk) lately? Anyway- There is no Italy and weapons of mass destruction article yet, though I think it's absence says alot about this pointless discussion in and of itself. To be blunt 'It Stinks'. There's the constant f-ing with the numbers by nobodies. And then every so many months we get some nationalist new-comer (I believe the last one was Russian, and we pawned him off on the RU wiki to save the argument) who espouses how their country is the greatest, has the largest inventory, produced the biggest thing, and is so great (in bed:)) etc. Anywho if you look back we get one or more of these flakes every year or so who know better. It is Wikipedia's nature and flaw that we are dealing with. I don't want to put down anyone's national inspiration or pride. But facts are facts and that is the true smell test here no matter who is allowed to edit. Weeding them out is a big pain in the butt. Who has the time? True academics certainly don't and who can blame them. Those of you who do are far better people than me. Enjoy fellow editors, I know I don't. Cheers 'n' onions-Doyna Yar (talk) 03:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC) 1)I image about russian (so they appeared,virtual world isn't the real one) nationalists.When a country it's poor nationalism is common. I even saw some their writing in Superpowers and Potential superpowers articles.I'm not nationalist but i like something that is named truth or similar to it.May be italian are less nationalist than all other ones.Sure.It doesn't mean that Italy has to be presented always in a low profile as reported in Talks of Italy.So at least restore "MAIN " (before middle power,THIS is THE starting point) in Italy presentation please. I posted ADEQUATE citations (i've much more citations,but 3 that i posted it's enough) and right descriptions for Italy as main and great power.I don't consider broad consensus.I already explained why. 2)I support Wtmitchell idea.You can write by the material that i suggested you an article named "Nuclear weapons and Italy".I trust you in writing it or at least in giving it a start.That's really a GOOD IDEA.The main lines would be that Italy could have produced nukes (reporting Italian Parliament Acts) and there's State Secret on this.You must cite NPT too with which Italy promised to do not develope nuclear weapons since 1975.I think it's good Wtmitchell.Avoid to talk about the matter of "owning " today.Don't write about it.Just write bout iItaly accepted NPT ,then everyone will read it in its way. 3)This is a gift to Wikipedia. I suggest you to write an article named "List of countries by national net wealth" and "List for countries by net wealth per capita".National net wealth is the main economic data to decide the economic and policy weight of a state in the world .You can base it on the Global Wealth Report 2013 Credit Suisse Databook that is the most complete presentation of this sector.Ths is a very good suggest for Wiki.Net national wealth if you know the meaning is much more important than GDP it must be set even in the states presentations (like for national gdp and gdp per capita that are in states articles ). Wikipedia without this article lacks the 50% of economy.For an encyclopedia isn't a good at all.In economy WIKI would lack the main brick.And that's reaaly incredible!!!!You can start to write it using this one . Just to make things simple.GDP is like the wage of a person in a year,net national wealth it's like what a person saved in all its life.Wages can change by years,but to build a big net national wealth it takes decades or much more.The biggest ones are in EU and USA and they change year by year following the bonds courses ,the stocks prices , the exchange rates and whatelse. Ah just to be clear about russians...Russia is in the G8 since '90s not for economic reasons ( at that time like now its net wealth is mostly insignificant in the world)but because of political reasons.It should be explained with a small sentence in the very good presentation of G8 article.The G7 is economic and political,the G8 is more political ,in fact in the G8 in USA russians didn't go because of their insignificant financial weight.It's even cited at the end of the G8 article.I saw somebody had the good idea to cite it.A great power can't be so (according to the "new" criteria" to describe it) without a significant high national wealth.This is more than sure.We live the present and the real and to many times is cited the future in the articles i checked.Future is foresable in the short but not in the too too long.It would be dreaming or inventing for propaganda as many studies of economy and policy do. I just read religious articles and i realize all of them (who,why,where).That's really the true engine of the world. Thanks a lot.I suggested you all for building new good things.Now its' time to pass to practice.I like to talk but this mustn't be a way to loose time or take time.Thanks.Glc72 (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I am a native Italian language speaker and part of the Italian Military History wikiproject I joined several years ago. We saw the activity on the matter on the it.wiki too, made by Glc72 in contemporary with these here, but we evaluated his analysis of the cited source on it.wiki as inadequate to support his conclusions. I read the Niccolai speech at the Italian Parliament and it means apparently the opposite: he complained that the Italian supposed nuclear facility lacked diligence, funds and expertise. That picture seemed to confirm that Italy was not capable to develop nuclear weapons at the time and not its opposite. Moreover, a speech made by a member of the Parliament during question time, asking comments to the Defence Minister and not receiving response, I suppose it can not be considered an article reliable source itself assuming that every single part of the complain list is the truth itself. --EH101 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC) What Glc72 wrote is right.He well translated and gave the right meaning in translation.I'm Italian from Tuscany where Italian language is born and where many of the facts described happened.Italy signed TNP in 1975,but developed nukes before and could even own them even today .I remeber that all countries have state secrets and secret agreements with other states.The rest are opinions in face of official facts of real life like Italian nuclear plants (3 since from '60's to 1975;Latina was the largest in Europe and Pisa that is reported in the official parliamentary Acts was a researches centre for developing nukes)and centres TO DEVELOPE officially weapons.Please avoid tales for boys of 18 years or people never grown inside.It is right as suggest upon to open an article about Italy.In Italy is common believed at every level (especially in the people that lived that period military history of Italy) that Italy owns its nukes and not Nato shared only.Thanks.188.13.162.16 (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC) If this were the case, it should be possible to find a specific quote in Italian that states that Italy produced its own nuclear weapons. The quotes identified previously showed that Italy (or some Italian officials) intended to develop nuclear weapons, but also suggested that they lacked the capacity to do so and in the end did not succeed. NPguy (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Nowhere is written in the parts reported by Glc72 that Italy lacked in capacity.What you are reporting are just critics to the CISAM that was used for research.Since 1963 till 1975 Italy can have produced all nukes it liked with 3 nuclear plants (one the larges in Europe ) and more than a research centre to develope nukes.One of them was CISAM.I'm from eastern Tuscany too.It's really clear that Parliament Act and even the capacities reported with all names of factories involved in the italian nuke.Italy had all to produce nukes and what is more important that this Parliment Act makes official the italian political knowledge about the developement and the production of nukes.151.40.41.170 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Just an observation- isn't it funny this dead horse is being whipped again by IP user(s) without names? Smells like a new tactic from a familiar and telling user to me. Here we go again:( Doyna Yar (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Yes. The arguments and the poor syntax are familiar. Welcome back, IP user formerly known as Glc72! NPguy (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC) 1) I don't know what are you talking about. 2) What Glc72 wrote is supported not only by me but also by other people.It seems you are more interested about Glc72 than knowing truth.About me (my name is Andrea)i speak at least 5 languages and i've 2 degrees.I don't care of Glc72 at all ,but what he wrote is right and official.And i'm noth the only you to think so seeing 188....You've the list of the factories involed in it.You can read them in the talking and they are reported in the article.May be you'll see these nukes if one day there'll be a war EU-Usa or EU other countries,but it'll be too late too update Wikipedia.09:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)151.40.86.215 (talk) Obvious IP sockpuppets are obvious. Both blocked for a month. Glc72 - STOP THAT. Retract the legsl threat and your main account can be unblocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Forgive my wiki ignorance, but how long does this Talk section on Italy persist until it is removed? It's a big chunk of talk humoring a banned user that goes nowhere and does zero to contribute to the article. I mean... if Glc72 in whatever form returns he'd have to start his argument from scratch rather than self-referencing, right? Doyna Yar (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Given the current setup of automatic archiving on this page, 180 days after we stop posting in this section. Chris857 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Considering all the reliable writings and the official citations you can without doubt open an article on Italy as country suspected to have developed nuclear weapons.89.97.225.73 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Has a month passed already? Doyna Yar (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)