Talk:Nuclear-weapon-free zone

message: According to the map, Austria is in a NWFZ; but the article doesn't mention it. While it believe it is a NWFZ, is there a reference for that?--Oneiros (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling gives a lot of references, not sure which is best to include or why it's not in article currently. --JWB (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it: de:Bundesverfassungsgesetz für ein atomfreies Österreich--Oneiros (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The foreign east-Germany is a NWFZ too. See 4+2 treaty.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.218.18.72 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. :File:Nwfz.svg must be corrected.--Oneiros (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a UN-sponsored treaty - article text now explains this is part of the definition. --JWB (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hrm. But east-Germany is not nuclear sharing, but NPT.--Oneiros (talk) 06:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Nuclear sharing, nuclear weapons are stationed in only one place, Büchel, not all over West-Germany... in a war, they would be put on airplanes that could fly anywhere inside or outside of Germany. The coloring should be read as Germany the national government, not a range of territory. That, and I don't have SVG vector data for the former BRD-DDR boundary. :) --JWB (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria? 

message: As the article is currently written, I am unclear as to if the UN-recognized nuclear-weapon free zone prohibits ships from nuclear weapon states which carry nuclear weapons from using ports in the NWFZ. Is that allowed? (The EEZ map seems to imply that it's not, but it's never stated explicitly - at any rate it probably would be best to redraw the EEZ map to be a more explicit NWFZ map.) Is it allowed if the weapons are deactivated for the duration of the stay in port? Are there exceptions for emergencies (can a disabled ship limp into port in a NWFZ with the weapons, or does it have to dump it's nuclear weapons overboard first)? How do things work with "we can neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons aboard this ship"-type policies? (I realize that local laws may change the scope, but for the purposes of the article, I'm looking for what the UN-sanctioned NWFZ policy is.) -- 174.24.206.145 (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is up to the individual treaties (which I have not checked) and I don't know of any effort by the UN to harmonize or change provisions beyond what each region's countries chose in the treaties. AFAIK the 5 NWFZ treaties for inhabited areas were initiatives of the countries and their regional organization, not of the UN. --JWB (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ports & nuclear weapon carrying ships 

message: The lead section of the article says that the definition of an NWFZ "does not count countries or smaller regions that have outlawed nuclear weapons simply by their own law". The cited source for the definition is from 1975. However, the infobox at the top of the article appears to include Mongolia as one of the listed NWFZs. Also, a 1974 UNGA resolution (3261 F) reportedly said that "obligations relating to the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones may be assumed not only by groups of states, including entire continents or large geographical regions, but also by small groups of States and even individual countries" (although I am having trouble finding that language in that resolution), and Mongolia appears to have some form of UN recognition status (which was achieved decades after the 1975 definition was established). Also, the second section of the article says there is "one UN-recognized zone consisting of a single country, Mongolia". When I tried to adjust the lead section to account for the existence of this described "one UN-recognized zone", my change was reverted. How should Mongolia be considered in the lead section and the infobox? Is the description of the status of Mongolia in the second section accurate? Should Mongolia be removed from the NWFZ list in the infobox? Do the (unsourced) population count and population percentage that are provided for "All NWFZs combined" in the infobox include Mongolia? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Mongolia is not a nuclear-weapon-free zone, in part because such zones are treaties among states of a region.  It is not recognized as a zone by the UN, but there have been UN General Assembly resolutions recognizing its nuclear-weapon-free status.  The article should not list Mongolia as a party to a zone or show it on a map as a member of a zone, but it would be OK to keep the current graphic and change the caption to make clear that Mongolia is different. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so please review this revision. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering Mongolia 

message: The maps should reflect Australia, Belarus hosting/possession of nuclear weapons Greatder (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it shouldn't, because they don't. NPguy (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear weapon possession of Belarus and Australia