Talk:US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement

message: Typing up some of the criteria for my dissertation, thought I'd dump them here for a latter date --Pickle 10:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes for a Future Exapnsion

message: At 10:54 pm 16 February 2009 UTC Mauls moved the article from 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement to 1958 U.S.-UK Mutual Defence Agreement citing WP:MOS then proceeded to dot the USes.
Let's examine the relevant section of the MoS.
 and 
:In American English,  (with periods) is the standard abbreviation for ;  (without periods) is the standard abbreviation in other national forms of English and is becoming increasingly common in American English. ... In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add full stops to the other abbreviations (, not ).
;Note:
#The article is not written in American Enlish (using defence not defense).
#The abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside the abbreviated form of the United Kingdom ... obviously.
Therefore what the MoS actually says is exactly the reverse of what Mauls reads it as saying.  The article is to be moved back and the dots are to be removed. JIMp talk·cont 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistant dotting 

message: The transfer of technology wasn't all one-way. The UK had a significant lead in several nuclear weapons technologies and this material was transferred to the US. Re-entry vehicle ('Re-entry heads' in the UK terminology of the time) designs being one notable area. These were tested using the Black Knight launch vehicle, BK04 on 11 June 1959 being the first proper RV test, using a conical RV, re-entering pointed-end first. 3-Dimensional Quartz Phenolic used for the later US and UK RV bodies was also of UK origin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.15 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UK contribution

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/MDAamend.htm
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:32:58, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/timeline/1962/
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:33:49, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/timeline/1961a/
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:35:04, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.danplesch.net/articles/WMD/WMDMar10FINAL.pdf
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:35:33, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/12/britains_next_nuclear_era_1.php
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:36:02, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/B31B4EF0-A584-4CC6-9B14-B5E89E6848F8/0/plutoniumandaldermaston.pdf
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 401 Unauthorized
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:36:32, 401 Unauthorized
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/1958MDA.htm
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:37:07, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/MDAlegal.htm
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-05-25 03:38:06, 404 Not Found
** In 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement on 2011-06-04 18:37:35, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 8 

message: Hi Hawkeye,
* there seems something wrong with formatting causing spaces in plurals and before commas in these. (And is Swiftsure missing after Churchill?)
:"... the US Skipjack-class submarine s."
:"... the UK's Valiant , Resolution , Churchill , , and Trafalgar-class submarine s."
: Seems something happened with the template. Fixed.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! JennyOz (talk) 06:13, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you thanking me? I should be thanking you.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format query 

message: The lead sentence says that the agreement is a "bilateral treaty", but does not state whether it is a treaty in the sense of US law, meaning that it was ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.  This should be clarified one way or the other.  If it is not a treaty in the US sense, it is presumably an executive agreement, which should be stated and linked. --Trovatore (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an executive agreement, it was approved and amended by Congress and is on the list of US treaties   Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks.  Can we add the date of ratification by the Senate? --Trovatore (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Already there. What I wrote was: "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed by Dulles and Samuel Hood, the British Minister in Washington, DC, on 3 July,[76] and approved by Congress on 30 July.[77]" What I am looking at is something called a "resolution of advice and consent to ratification agreed to in Senate by Division Vote." Did the US Senate ratify the treaty, or consent to its ratification?  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, that's what I'd like to know.  It's not Congress (as a whole) that approves treaties under the Treaty Clause; it's just the Senate, and it requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate.  So if it says it was approved by "Congress", that's already frankly suspicious.  I'm thinking it's probably not a treaty (in the US sense) but rather one of the sorts of executive agreement (some of them do involve Congress). --Trovatore (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have no basis for thinking that. The Senate passed a resolution of advice and consent, and not just once, but every time the treaty was amended or extended. That looks like the wording of the Treaty Clause.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, sorry, "Congress" was what you wrote, I guess, and not what it says in the sources?  In that case you're probably right.  The House doesn't vote on treaties, which was why it made me suspicious that you said "Congress". --Trovatore (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Treaty" 

message: Hi User:Hawkeye7, at section "Eisenhower administration": "...paving the way for the Agreement for Co-operation Regarding Atomic Information for Mutual Defence Purposes, which was signed on 15 June 1955".
But at Project E, section "Negotiation": "...This paved the way for the Agreement for Cooperation Regarding Atomic Information for Mutual Defence Purposes with Britain, which was signed on 12 June 1955".
Which day is correct, 12 or 15?--Jarodalien (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (Has a look at the source.) 15 June is correct.  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which one is correct? 

message: As the agreement is still current, whereas the article title gives the impression it is historical. Whizz40 (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Moved   — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement →  – Still current and in effect Whizz40 (talk) 14:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to the change, but don't see how the title gives the impression that it is not still current. It is always referred to as the 1958 agreement when it is renewed or modified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for confirming Hawkeye. I guess that could be made clear in the lead and the order of the alternative names in the opening sentence swapped from the current: "The 1958 US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement, or UK–US Mutual Defence Agreement,". Whizz40 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 February 2022