Talk:Nuclear disarmament

message: I deleted a bunch of stuff about Silent Echo.  Just factually incorrect (such as stating that George H.W. Bush was President in July 1993... Clinton was inaugerated in January of 93.  CP Guy
There seems to be a lot of sweeping statements in the history section. In particular: 
 Campaign growing in strength, then fading (how do we know? what's the measure?) 
 Dissidence in the USSR (how do we know there were no public voices?) How do we know Sakharov had little effect? 
Maybe somewhat unavoidable in making a sweep of history, but some basis would be good. Kingsindian 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on the paragraph in the introduction about the USSR. It reads like a slightly nationalistic American high school history paper. No sources, and sweeping POV generalizations. Andre Sakharov had little effect? Mikhail Gorbachev had little effect?--Nbauman (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: I deleted a bunch of stuff

message: I made some grammatical fixes in this section, but someone more knowledgeable than I needs to flesh it out. I'm all for disarmament, but it's not obvious that figuring out strategic uses for the existing nuclear arsenal contradicts a policy of decreasing the total number of weapons. I think it's an important part of the story, but there needs to be much more evidence. Also, someone should add something about Bush's recent announcement that the U.S. would be cutting the arsenal significantly -- not only as an important fact, but to show that the Bush line on nuclear weapons is a little more complicated than it's presented to be.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albnelson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "US nuclear policy" section 

message: The sentence near the beginning of this article is absurd: "deterrence, which, through the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons, has kept the world free of nuclear war since 1945."
This is totally confused. You can't say that nuclear weapons had a part to play in keeping the world free of nuclear war - don't you see this is absurd? You may say that nuclear weapons had a place in keeping the world free of MAJOR war, but not nuclear war, for without the nuclear weapons the world would have been free of nuclear war because there wouldn't have been any weapons to fight it with anyway.
You are effectively saying that the very existence of nuclear weapons saved us from the perils presented by the existence of nuclear weapons. What you must say instead is that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, due to their highly destructive nature, prevented the outbreak of major war on the scale of WWI or WWII.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.148.165 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  See here 

message: It seems that this article has neither arguments for nuclear disarmement, nor aginst nuclear disarmements; also 1 particular argument isn't described anywhere: that nuclear weapons stockpile allot of nuclear energy that could otherwise be put to good use
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.95.46 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this information?  Most of it looks familiar, except the 20,008 (presumably 20,000) and 15,000 metric tons (i haven't seen that one). NPguy (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments

message: Kenneth Waltz and the references provided should not have been deleted from the article page.
Remember, you do not censor the views of experts on wikipedia simply because you do not agree with them.
Thank you.    -- Boundarylayer, 2012
:The views of Kenneth Waltz are relevant to this article.  Waltz believes that nuclear proliferation is good because deterrence promotes stability.  This position should be labeled as contrarian - a seriously argued viewpoint that is not widely shared.  The reason for my deletion was that the cited article was on the narrow issue of Iran's nuclear program and did not support the broader description of Waltz's views.  Find a better source and paraphrase it properly and it should be OK.  The stability-instability paradox, by contrast, appears to be a fairly minor viewpoint.  The wikipedia article is a stub with a single citation. NPguy (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with 'npguy' as almost always. So now, all of a sudden, npguy deletes stuff because the source was misconstrued. Go ahead, npguy, and do that all across your contribs. WP will be much more succint after that.  --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kenneth Waltz]] and [[Stability–instability paradox]] references removed, why?

message: How it can be done technically? What are the results and outcomes of the possible technical process[es]? I think, this would be an important subtopic for such an encyclopaedia article, more important than guesswork about people's opinions. - 91.122.13.129 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technically? 

message: i suggest this text be included in the section named Nuclear disarmament movement, just before the entry 
On June 12, 1982,
on April 22 1981,Nichidatsu Fujii, addressed the Opening Plenary Session of The World Assembly of Religious Workers in TokyoBy Donna GAIL Broussard,http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1982/4/30/world-peace-march-members-welcomed-by/ , where he announced the world peace march to march and chant around the globe in support of the U.N. 2nd. special session for disarmament. The Buddhists and their American supporters, walked to New York from California, Louisiana, Canada and Maine.
on June 12, 1982, Nipponzan-Myōhōji  marchers from the U.S.A., Europe, Africa, and Asia, joined with mobilization for survival organizers and religious and peace groups from around the world in Central Park.
Marty h smith (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  the world peace march 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nuclear disarmament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728150929/http://www.uspw.org/index.php to http://www.uspw.org/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Quote: "Many view the pursuit of nuclear weapons by these states as a threat to nonproliferation and world peace, and therefore seek policies to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons to these states, a few of which are often described by the US as "rogue states"."
Many others see the US as a major threat to world peace, and consider the US a "rogue state". A more balanced sort of propaganda, if at all, would work against the reputation of Wikipedia to be very unfair and biased. Also, why is the US nuke pursuit no threat to non-proliferation in the first place? Everyone shies away from honest answers here.  worm (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: fixed that.  --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  US is the greatest ROGUE of them all.   --5.15.84.70 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  This was long overdue. All across WP you find pro US, pro jew propaganda stuff. abominable!  --175.194.138.57 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the article so utterly biased in favour of the Pentagon and U.S. ? 

message: A suggestion well worth discussing !
Israel is an illegal occupier - and given their critique of Imperial Germany they really should lead the way and compensate the Arabs whom they mass-murdered ! See Nakba for reference !  --193.238.111.66 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The day when Israel hands over its nukes to Palestine, will there be peace ? 

message: But now many mainstream politicians, academic analysts, and retired military leaders also advocate nuclear disarmament. Sam Nunn, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz have called upon governments to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons [...]
Putting Kissinger in the middle of there is the height of hypocrisy. Remember the documentary proof that Kissinger wanted to nuke Vietnam. This guy cannot be allowed to be portayed as a "quasi-peacenik".    --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember the documentary proof that Kissinger wanted to nuke Vietnam. 

message: This line kind of struck me. What does it even mean? Did Israel adopt nukes "widely" on the opposite? 
But then, no one actually reads the article or talk page.   --112.204.24.173 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "N.K. not widely adopted nukes" 

message: In the intro paragraph of this article it states "The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament."
As far as I am aware that isn't entirely true. Lately it has been synonymous with complete verifiable irreversible disarmament however as Jeffery Lewis, a scholar at MIIS, points out   denuclearizarion is native to the Korean Peninsula and is not limited to disarmament but also the removal of US nuclear weapons from Korea among other things.  For that reason I think it should be best if that line is removed as it could be too misleading. Nuke enthusiast (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with denuclearization in North Korea is that the term has different meanings to different people.  This is one of those meanings.  So in that sense it's not misleading and seems OK.  But maybe it is an oversimplification to suggest that it's the only meaning of the term. NPguy (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It might be better spin it off into a new page that explains the history of the phrase and link it to this page. Nuke enthusiast (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denuclearization 

message: Does not seem to fit a neutral POV. SamualLB (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Did my fix do the trick?  Can we drop toe POV flag? NPguy (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no further comments I plan to remove the POV flag. NPguy (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. policy options for nuclear terrorism Bias 

message: I came to this article to learn about global nuclear disarmament and didn't find the information I was looking for.  I was hoping to learn about the inherent instability of full global denuclearization.  A rogue nation could break the denuclearization treaty and secretly build nuclear weapons; other countries would suddenly find themselves at a significant military disadvantage. Surely this matter has been studied with some rigour?  This article does not cover the basics.  89.241.81.159 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to look up a couple of initiatives launched by the United States over the last ten years: the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament launched in 2015 and the working group on Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament launched in 2019.  Both have dealt with the potential problems of small numbers of nuclear weapons or going to zero. NPguy (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not cover basics of global nuclear disarmament