Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 1

message: Strictly as a point of discussion I find it hard to believe that Germany does not possess a nuclear weapon, based on the number of Midlle Eastern 'experts' with ties to this country. Germany, up until the adoption of the EU was an economic powerhouse, and central power in Europe. The enmity between France and Germany has not diminished in hundreds of years. france has a bomb (or two or three thousand)...i.e. Germany has matched this. (Please remove this to a speculation/editorial/discussion page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)( And as a point of concern, France has had a pretty liberal 'Nuclear secrets' policy with the Middle East as well...)
The page appears to have been messed up, with all text having been replaced by an obscene, not to mention nonsensical, comment.
This is at 4:20 PM GMT, 16 November 2005.
Perhaps it can be reset to the last edit? (I'm not knowledgeable about the Wiki editing process).
For people wanting to access the resource, there's a Google cache copy at http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wlJonLPquZcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons+%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons%22&hl=en
There is also Weapons_of_mass_destruction#Countries_that_may_possess_WMD. --Jiang | Talk 04:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought Ukraine dismantled them. They gave them to Russia? --`Jiang | Talk
----
This kind of article really needs some sources. Rmhermen 04:58, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
--------------------
*North Korea - claims to possess at least one nuclear bomb
*Japan - There is a conspiracy theory that Japan tested nuclear weapons during WWII
*Germany - There is a conspiracy theory that Germany tested nuclear weapons during WWII
*Belarus - Inherited a number of warheads left in its territory when the Soviet Union colapsed, but claims to have handed them all to Russia.
*Kazakhstan - Inherited a number of warheads in its territory when the Soviet Union colapsed, but claims to have handed them all to Russia.
*Ukraine - Inherited a number of warheads in its territory when the Soviet Union colapsed, but claims to have handed them all to Russia.
*South Africa - At one time it was confirmed they had six low grade uranium bombs, but has since voluntarily dismantled them.
----
I reverted a change that placed Israel in the list of countries that admitted they had nuclear weapons because I have seen no such admission by them (and it would have been big news, I think). If I'm wrong please feel free to make the change again and cite a source here.
I reverted a change to the number of weapons posessed by the US, made by the same user at the same time, not because I know any differently but because I know so little that I'm not able to judge between the numbers. Again please feel free to make the change again if the latter is really correct. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussions

message: The claim:
:However in recent years several illicit internal informants within the ADF have leaked rumours that Australia received a small number of warheads from allies (most probably the United States) during the high-risk tension with Indonesia while intervening in East Timor. 
This sounds more than slightly improbable to me, the given link does not include such a claim, I can find nothing on the Web, there wasn't anything on the news, etc. Would the person who made this claim like to cite a source? Securiger 16:53, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: "However recent news has surfaced that due to a clerical error, Ukraine may still possess several hundred warheads which were not accounted for in the armaments repatriation move 14 years ago. In any case, even if Ukraine does possess these weapons, they are technically missing and not in a deployed state or any part of Ukraine's defense posture. [7]"
The link says "missiles" it never says *nuclear* missles. Maybe there is another reference? Also that last statement about "technically missing", seems weird to me; if they are launched, they will still be technically missing. If they exist, just because the bureaucrats can't find them is not consoling. Whose got 'em, General Jack D. Rippersky in his private missile collection?
Please, more references and footnotes, (and not just in this article.) 67.124.100.109 03:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ukraine question

message: Should this article make some mention of nuclear weapons deployed to NATO countries under dual key arrangements?  These warheads were owned and built by the U.S., but they were operated by other NATO nations and required approval from both the U.S. and host governments before use (hence "dual key").  Off the top of my head, I think Germany, Italy and the U.K. (before developing the V-force) all had weapons deployed under this kind of arrangement. --Blackeagle 20:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, that sounds like it would be a valid and interesting section to have, if you have the data on that. --Fastfission 23:18, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NATO Nuclear weapons depolyments

message: http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/clearwater.html
Canada actually had nuclear capability, even if it was given to them by the states. Maybe someone should add this?Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
:I disagree with this one.  Although the weapons were located in Canada, they still belonged to the United States and thus were the United States' nuclear weapons, and not Canada's.  If we include Canada as a country that had nuclear weapons then we also have to include countries like Turkey (where US missiles were also deployed) and Cuba (Soviet missiles were deployed).--Lairor 19:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is: who had control over their assembly and launch? I find it really unlikely that the US would give a country complete control over US nukes (the US policymakers were smart enough to know who would pay dearly if Canada/Germany/whoever got a little trigger happy with US nukes). It appears most such arrangements were dual-key -- they could only be used with joint Canadian-US approval. Considering the US supplied the weapons and could hypothetically withdraw them, and Canada did not have its own weapons production industry, I would say that Canada was not really a "nuclear power" in the formal sense even though it had some control over nuclear weapons on its soil. --Fastfission 04:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: During their tour, committee members, staff, and consultants (including Ramey and Agnew) were struck by the lax protection at some sites. At one base, they were amazed to find an aircraft on quick reaction alert armed with fully operational U.S. nuclear weapons and under the control of a foreign pilot. "The only evidence of U.S. control was a lonely 18-year-old sentry armed with a carbine and standing on the tarmac" 
which led pretty rapidly to this memo and Permissive Action Links. I plan to add something on this to Nuclear sharing when I have time. -- Rwendland 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The situation in Canada was a bit more complex than NATO. The nukes that were deployed were for air defence and were under the control of NORAD. NORAD was and is a joint U.S./Canadian Command; who "pulled the trigger" might have been who ever was on watch at the time. I would be inclined to concider Canada a nuclear weapons state for the period that they were armed with devices. (disclosure: I am a Canadian) DV8 2XL 11:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada Actually had american nuclear weapons 

message: There are a number of sources which have insinuated that they think North Korea might be bluffing when it says they have a functional weapon. The process of removing plutonium from a reactor and getting it into a state usable in a weapon, much less the ordnance of a plutonium weapon itself, is somewhat complicated, so it's not an unreasonable guess, considering they've neither tested nor shown a weapon to any outside observer. So, I think having the "low range" of the estimate for them, for now, is not unreasonable. Nobody seems to "know" much of anything for sure about the North Korean program at this point, only what the North Koreans have claimed (they are not known for their honesty and are conversely known for their brinksmanship) and what analysts have estimated based on the amount of time they have been running their reactors without safeguards. A few people went over and said they saw some "plutonium" but plutonium metallurgy is not a simple thing (it is a notoriously difficult metal with a number of distinct states each of which have their own differing requirements for weapons use). I think the "possible test" (with Pakistan) is a bit too speculative to warrant saying that they tested in 1998 unless it was substantiated by a bit more than a "leaked" Los Alamos report that plutonium was detected in the air after the Pakistan test (whether Korea was involved is still a questionable logical jump). Anyway, this will probably all unfortunately get ironed out within the next year, but until then let's not, err, jump the gun.  --Fastfission 04:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: North Korean count as it currently stands

message: I'm not sure about this sentence: "The United Kingdom tested its first nuclear weapon in 1952, drawing largely on data gained while collaborating with the United States during the Manhattan Project"
I think Britain developed nuclear weapons separately from the US as they wouldn't share information. It was only after the UK developed its own bomb that the Americans agreed to co-operate, with the proviso that Britain bought American missiles. Can anyone else confirm this? Jeff Watts 09:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat of a complicated question. They certainly knew a lot about the US project -- many of their scientists had been members of the Manhattan Project in key areas relating both to reactor technologies as well as the implosion mechanics. If anything I would say that they probably had all of the "theory" worked out ahead of time. In practice, making a weapon is a lot harder than that -- after 1945 they certainly got no more assistance from the US and had to develop much of their weapon independently. Once the UK was in "the club" the US did indeed collaborate a number of times, I'm not sure if the missile purchasing was always required. I know that the UK received some information on the hydrogen bomb from a few joint tests with the US, and I know that the US received a lot of information on things like weapons material dispersal from some of the more messier and politically questionable tests the UK conducted in Australia. The first UK weapons, though, were made on the model they helped created during the Manhattan Project. --Fastfission 22:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: United Kingdom nuclear programme

message: I don't think it is "irrelevant or inflammatory" to note under the "Iraq" section re: it's nuclear weapons program that 1. the U.S. used the threat of an Iraqi nuclear program as the justification for a major war and 2. that they didn't find any evidence of one. These are major events in the history of Iraq's putative program and their status as a formerly nuclear ambitious state, hence I think it is pretty relevant in a section about their nuclear program. As for inflammatory, inflammatory towards whom? The United States? Pointing out that they couldn't find any evidence for a program is hardly inflammatory -- it is simply factual, and bears high relevance on the subject of whether Iraq had a nuclear program! --Fastfission 19:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So who exactly is it inflammatory to? I'm still not clear on this. I don't find your reasoning very compelling. The war was not some isolated little thing which had nothing to do with their "capability", perceptions or not. Perceptions still cause real effects; just because they ended up being wrong doesn't mean they shouldn't be noted in a relevant place, obviously. --Fastfission 19:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: War in Iraq results?

message: I think it makes sense to use regime-specific flags for past programs. It doesn't make any sense to use the flag of post-war Germany () to refer to the program of Nazi Germany (). I initially had changed Japan's WWII program listing to their wartime flag () but it has been changed back to their current flag (). Any thoughts on this? --Fastfission 18:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem either way.  Technically, the flag of Japan during WWII was the same one that they have today.  However, the flag they were most known by during that period was their naval flag, which represented their imperialism.  The Nazi flag was officially the flag of Germany, the naval flag was not officially the flag of Japan.  That's the key difference I think. —thames 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, okay, whichever is the case. Of course, it was the Japanese Navy that ran the program, but I suppose that's not the important thing here! ;) --Fastfission 19:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags for past programs

message: This isn't really important, but the table listing how many warheads each country has seems to be in an arbitrary order. Maybe they should be in order of number of warheads, or perhaps by the year of the first test? Osprey39 01:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yeah, I didn't notice that. I think year of first test probably makes the most sense. --Fastfission 12:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ...there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. CG 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: I snipped two bits of the Israel section:
:Former Prime Minister Shimon Peres unofficially acknowledged that Israel had nuclear weapons in the summer of 1998. 
The Jordan Times quote doesn't say nuclear weapons. Also, does anyone know how reliable The Jordan Times is? (I'm not asking as a rhetorical question)
:It is clear that Israel can deploy or employ nuclear weapons at will
A bit superfluous if Israel has nuclear weapons, incorrect if Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons. Andjam 14:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Israel does have nukes.  There is no doubt about it.  Tobyk777 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Not with nuclear weapons, no. They've often threated to pre-emptively strike, though. I'm fairly sure that they've never threatened with nukes explicitly, because that would violate their whole ambiguity approach. --Fastfission 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel 

message: I really think that Iraq should be placed under the list of "suspected nuclear powers." If there is evidence that Ukraine still possesses some nuclear weapons then Iraq should definitely be put in this list as well, just make a note that the UN Chief Weapons Inspector said that "no weapons existed." That does not necesarrily mean that they don't. There may only be scanty evidence of them existing, and there is also scanty evidence of them selling them off ot neighboring countries. I firmly believe that Iraq should be put under the list of supsected nuclear powers.
Also make a note that the UN Chief Weapons Inspector would most likely say that "no weapons existed." when referring to Jamaica, New Zealand... well basically a large list of countries.  Continuing with this well thought through logic that must therefore also "not necesarrily (sic) mean that they don't." and that we should also firmly believe that all countries be put under the list of "supsected (sic) nuclear powers".
Also make a note that there certainly are chemical weapons in Iraq now, they just don't belong to Iraq.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.234.251.211 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 11 November 2005  (UTC)
:*  (SEWilco 14:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Iraq

message: In my opinion, "consider[ing] the development of nuclear weapons" does not equate to "nuclear capable" as defined at the beginning of the section.  I suggest removing Saudi Arabia (and reference links) from the list of nuclear capable nations.  --Mark Fri Dec 16 08:29:31 UTC 2005
:Saudi Arabia is in the "Other nuclear capable states", i.e "this list represents only strong nuclear capability, not that any political will to develop such weapon would exist". It certainly shouldn't be in this list, as it certainly does not currently have a "strong nuclear capability". I agree Saudi Arabia should be removed. -- Rwendland 15:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pakistan denies helping Saudi Arabia getting Nukes:  ...but who believes them?  Scaremonger 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabia