Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

message: Check this article for some related details; http://newsweekpakistan.com/the-man-who-designed-pakistans-bomb/   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.46.165 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: THE MAN WHO DESIGNED PAKISTAN’S BOMB

message: Former Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto had publicly said "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own". This statement was issued by him as State Secretary of State of Pakistan, in 1965, not in 1974 or 1972. Recent studies conducted by International Institute for Strategic Studies (link)and Nuclear Threat Initiatives (NTI) also confirmed this statement's time. 
There are no such evidence that he issued this statement in 1974. Instead, the only statement he issued by saying "India's nuclear program is designed to intimidate Pakistan and establish "hegemony in the subcontinent", which was issued shortly after Indian test. So, Instead of putting his statement together in one paragraph, both of these statements should be posted in different paragraphs. Because they are issued in different time, and different places. Any views? 
Even, the one "The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?", was issued from his jail cell in 1978 in a book he wrote "If I am assassinated", when he was ousted by his own appointed Chief of Army Staff General Zia. There should be concern about it, since this page is focused on neutrality, true facts, figures, and each individual's role in the scientific research delegated by Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto. 
Any views? Comments?
:The "eat grass" quote is so famous that it needs to be in this article, but the context should be corrected. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Bhutto's statement

message: Pakistan and WMD's introduction is too long and confusing. Instead the the information should be in the new head line such as "nuclear physics in Pakistan". Also, the article's title should be change to "Pakistan and Nuclear weapons". This may sound more professional. 
Also, about the weapon delivery, somebody has erased the Naval and Nuclear-capabel Aircraft Delivery systems info page.  
Most of the page is seem to be "copy and paste".   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.143.129 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is too long 

message: This page is being vandalised on an almost daily basis. I have to keep checking this page to see if it is being vandalised. It's most likely being done by Indians.
This page must be given full protection!!!
Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Protection

message: Some mention should be made of the historical decision by Pakistan prior to the Mumbai attacks to state openly that they will not use nuclear weapons first unless attacked. A No First Strike policy. I do not know if this has become official but the statement on Indian soil was a landmark in and of itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No First Strike Policy 

message: you guys had more information instead of the boring atomic agencies and stuff like that...can we show a bit more effort on this article.Tere naam 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more Info 

message: The 'status' columns is particularly confusing. Status marked against every missile is different on every line. For example, is Hatf-III "under going production" imply it is not "deployed" like Hatf-IV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adityagupta101 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missile Table requires cleanup 

message: There is a lack of agreement between the number of nuclear warheads Iran is said to have in this article and in the article List of countries with nuclear weapons.
:This is a section for Pakistan's WMDs and there is no mention of Iran having working nuclear weaponsDaiyusha (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagreement

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.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb00/nb0025.htm|title=Uranium
** In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Mon Jul 17 15:37:32 2006, 404 Not Found
** In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Thu Jul 27 00:51:15 2006, 404 Not Found
----maru   (talk)  contribs 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I can't find (online) any source for the main quote "We will defend our country using any means necessary and build a nuclear capability second to none. We will eat grass for 1000 years, if we have to, but we will get there." -  the only time it come up is morrors of wikipedai and a very recnet US spectator article.  160.5.247.8 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote 

message: plz put facts not opinion
(69.225.201.109 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent developments

message: No mention of cruise missiles.Pakistan has sucessfully reverse engineered American cruise missiles that accidently dropped into Pakistan.A few sources and we can create this section as it's important.-Vmrgrsergr 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt if Pakistan is capable of reverse engineering American missiles on its own, but it certainly can and probably did give such missiles to China to reverse-engineer.Daiyusha (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  cruise missiles 

message: Article mentions but does not explicitly define "NCA". I assume this is "National Command Authority", but we need to define it explicitly in the article. NCA is a disamb page which does not mention any Pakistani organization likely to be the appropriate meaning here.
National Command Authority links to an article on the National Command Authority of the United States.
-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed!--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NCA]] / [[National Command Authority]]: Links are bad 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was No move There is not a consensus for the move among established editors, and a quick Wikipedia search on weapons of mass destruction returns articles under that name for may states including India, Israel and the five members of the UN Security Council. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "weapons of mass destruction" was not invented by U.S. media as a scare tactic.  It is a term used by the UN to describe nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.  There is no bias in the term.  There is bias - in the form of ofuscation - in the proposd title "Pakistan and its Nuclear deterrent."  Furthermore, there are discussions elsewhere on the web of Pakistan having a chemical weapons program, though not a biological weapons program.  Therefore, I think the best thing to do is keep the title and include sections ofn CW and BW (the latter would say that Pakistan is not believed to have a BW program). NPguy (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: A user recently edited this article to make A.Q. Khan look innocent of the crimes he committed, and otherwise to make Pakistan look innocent and autonomous in its nuclear program.  These changes are largely inaccurate (for example, Khan was convicted of stealing URENCO designs), and should be corrected.  I'm marking this point because I don't have time to do this now. NPguy (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can u provide a link to edits you are referring to please, I am rather neutral in the whole matter. Ryan4314  (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I am not aware of any significant doubt that Khan stole the centrifuge designs from URENCO, nor of any reason to believe he developed them on his own.  I am not an expert on the literature in this field, but I wanted to alert others to what was going on.  Some view him as a national hero of Pakistan, but they should not be enabled to bias the content of the article. NPguy (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: if you would have read the reference article through which the information is given in the wikipedia page "http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm" you will find that "his conviction would be later overturned on a technicality". i am asking you would a court let loose a man who stole Nuclear secrets to create a Nuclear Bomb. i think not. if you read this interview of a.q. khan on this matter and if you research a little yourself, you will find like me that most of it is media propaganda just to spice things up. and i am correcting this media propaganda so that the world can have unbiased information. i mean think for a minute Netherlands court freed a person who had the capacity to create a N-Bomb?. if some one leaks Nuclear secrets the thing that happens to them is the same that happens to Mordechai Vanunu. i hope u know who Mordechai Vanunu is?? Zuhayer171288 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Khan was tried in absentia.  He was never in custody and therefore was not "freed."  Overturning "on a technicality" generally implies that the conclusion was correct but proper legal procedure was not followed.  I stand by the statement that he stole the designs. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Ofcourse you "stand by the statement that he stole the designs". and with that you must also believe Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). and you must also believe that the US is not is Afghanistan for "OIL and DRUGS" etc. MAN WAKE UP stop believing in the MEDIA PROPAGANDA. i have got no idea whether khan stole something or not. but i know that the "MEDIA" spices things up so that more people watch/read their news. if you are willing to let the media tell you what ever it wants you to hear then GO ON. but if you Know like i do that MEDIA IS being USED TO TELL PEOPLE LIES then it becomes your & my responsibility to tell the people the truth. as i said before i don't know whether khan stole something or not. But the reports are very clear the case was "Overturning on a technicality" and people are not freed on a technicality in Nuclear Secrets related cases. This technicality is not just some small mistake made by the lawyers that ended in khan's release, this technicality is concocted by MEDIA so that the news can be made spicy because the bottom line is that the court ruled in favour of khan & that is explained in the interview of khan (http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2009-04/artikel-2009-04-interview-khan-english-version.html)" & as always you are always free to correct me...Zuhayer171288 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be missing two key points.  First, Khan was tried in absentia.  He wasn't there for the trial.  He was never jailed.  He was never released.  Second, in an honest justice system, people are freed on technicalities.  Do do otherwise is to encourage abuses of the law  by the authorities.  In addition to stealing Urenco centrifuge designs, Khan ran an international criminal enterprise to traffic in centrifuge technology, spreading it to Libya, Iran, North Korea and who knows where else.  It's hard to imagine a single person who has done more to undermine international security by profiting from the spread of sensitive nuclear technology.  He has contradicted his own statements so often that I would not trust anything he says. NPguy (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: you seem to be forgetting that both of us are talking.... you dont consider answering my queries and start your writing as if i have not contributed anything. If you have already made up your mind about truth/justice, good/bad, happy/sad things, discussing further with that attitude is not going to lead this discussion anywhere ....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhayer171288 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewashing AQ Khan's crimes 

message: "Manmohan Singh had warned US president Barack Obama that Pakistan's nuclear sites in North West Frontier Province areas that are Taliban-al Qaeda strongholds are already partly in the hands of Islamic extremists.". Hence  
the debates in DC. Should this be included? Biophys (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, this is not about production of nuclear weapons by terrorists. This is about firing nuclear weapons by precisely the same personnel who would fire them in the case of war, however on the order from terrorists, who either overrun the facility, or penetrate it through their agents. Are these facilities safe? Obviously, they are not, because US Congress spent billions to keep them safe, but still has no idea how the money are spent, judging from the publication in New York Times.Biophys (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And please do not tell about big and heavy warheads. They have tactical nuclear weapons on the basis of plutonium.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taliban has nuclear weapons?

message: Someone has wrote that the Pakistanian cruise missiles could deal with relative ease with anti missiles systems such as the Patriot (I assume he/she meant the PAC 3 type) and Arrow 2. Well, let me tell you, any kind of cruise missile could easily do it as those systems are specifically built to deal with high altitude, rapid ballistic missiles and no one pretend to use them agains cruise missiles. However, the AWACS system could easily track most kinds of cruise missiles, the SM-6 could intercept them with relative ease and there are a range of means -from UAVs to Lasr weapon which is almost operational that could deal cruise missiles. So, I think that the reference redundant.--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cruise missiles

message: I have deleted the below sentence as it is factually incorrect.
"However, Pakistan, like India and Israel, is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and, consequently, not bound by any of its provisions."
India and Israel are not the signatories of NPT along with Pakistan and North Korea.
:The statement was factually correct.  North Korea is a signatory, having signed, acceded, and subsequently withdrawn.  Being a "signatory" means that a country has signed.  After acceding (or ratifying), a country becomes a "party" to the treaty. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy Deletion

message: The articles states that Pakistan made a number of cold tests of nuclear devices. But the phrase "cold test" is never defined. The article should state what it means, or link to some other article that contains an explanation (e.g. do you just pretend that there is a nuclear explosion, or do you try to use cold fusion, or do you perform a test in the winter, etc). 90.232.166.122 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "cold test" mean? 

message: Seems pretty ridiculous to me that this article makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the scientist who admitted to selling technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya.  I don't feel like writing the insert but I'll provide some news links.  The section entitled "Security Concerns of the United States" (as if it's purely an American concern) needs to be drawn out and renamed.  The bias on this article practically stinks in my opinion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/world/a-tale-of-nuclear-proliferation-how-pakistani-built-his-network.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/world/asia/05pstan.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan
The second link is Khan admitting to giving centrifuges to North Korea.  Patently absurd that the Pakistani article on WMD makes no mention of nuclear proliferation.  This was big news, and it still is as Clinton is now visiting Pakistan with a new aid package and these concerns were brought up directly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world/asia/20diplo.html?ref=world
anonymous ````  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.134 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a brief mention of A.Q. Khan in the section on the development of nuclear weapons.  The main gap is that the section on uranium infrastructure is too short.  That section needs to be beefed up and Khan should feature prominently. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Dr. A.Q. Khan? Need Section on Proliferation Concerns 

message: indians keep putting in foreign assistance however when anyone puts a foreign assistance section in the india and WMD article, they keep deleting it. Do something about it please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign assistance 

message: In the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article it states that N.Korea had exchange partnerships with Pakistan. perhaps we should mention that Pakistan exchanged nuclear technology with missile technology.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  partnerships 

message: No mention of cruise missiles reverse engineered from American tomahawk missiles accidentally dropped into Pakistan. Should be added.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  cruise missiles 

message: The sentence about China's assistance for the nuclear program should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the foreign assistance section since MOS:INTRO requires leads to be a brief summary of the whole article. The sentence is also cited by a reliable source. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  China's assistance on lead 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2007/may-2007/bhutto-was-father-of-pakistani-bomb/?locale=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113203148/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517101729/http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp
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 01:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120112210540/http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810150255/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510025046/http://india.nydailynews.com:80/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack to http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145342/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145333/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108072529/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712233956/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C28%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\28\story_28-2-2006_pg7_24
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222163116/http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2 to http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2
*Added  tag to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/11/25/story_25-11-2008_pg3_2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604034533/http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml to http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721120736/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article was recently edited to change U.S. to US throughout.  This is supposedly the British English standard.  I have two questions.  (1) Why use this standard for the name of the United States?  (2) How do I know that this is the British standard?  Where can I find that? NPguy (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Any search engine should get you the results, outside of America nobody uses full stops in acronyms something that should also be obvious from using a search engine. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  British English 

message: As of 2020-03-28, the section of this article on Alleged foreign co-operation says, "The former US officials have also disclosed that China had allegedly transferred technology to Pakistan and conducting putative test for it in 1980.China tested N-weapons for Pak: US insider The Times of India 6 September 2008
Does that Times of India article exist?  I looked and could not find it.  
Even if it exists, is it credible?  Unless it cites another publication that seems credible, I think that sentence should probably be deleted, and the rest of that section rewritten so it makes sense without that sentence.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did China conduct a nuclear test for Pakistan in 1980? 

message: You need citations for your edit to the infobox changing "Largest yield test" from "25–40 ,,," to "65 kt in 1998
(PAEC claim)"


Approximating and calculating the exact, accurate and precise yields are difficult to calculate. Even under very controlled conditions, precise yields can be very hard to determine, and for less controlled conditions the margins of error can be quite large. There are number of different ways that the yields can be determined, including calculations based on blast size, blast brightness, seismographic data, and the strength of the shock wave. The Pakistan Government authorities puts up the yield range from 20-~40kt (as noted by Carey Sublette of the Nuclear Weapon Archives in her report. The explosion measured 5.54 degrees on the Richter magnitude scale, the PAEC provided the data as public domain in the KNET sources.
My review of these references: 
* Ref. [1]: I cannot find "yield" nor "24", "40", nor "65" in this reference.  I deleted that reference from this item.  
* The second and third note cite different yield numbers.  
* The fourth says, "The Pakistan Government authorities puts up the yield range from 20-~40kt".  
CONCLUSION:  The numbers "25–40" seem adequately documented.  The change to 65 kd is not.  I therefore reverted the change to 65 back to 25-40.  
You also need citations for changing "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles from "150-160" to "170".  The current references similarly support the earlier numbers, not your change.  I therefore reverted that as well.  
Your claim that "And according to Global Fire Power report Pakistan is swiftly growing their nuclear asserts and by year 2025 they can become world's third largest nuclear arsenal" needs an explicit reference. If it's there, I've missed it.  Given the questions I have about the other changes, I'm reverting this one also without further research.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  growing size and largest yield? 

message: Why do you say the actions of Indian customs to detain a Chinese vessel with "dual use" equipment is not notable?  
I see two issues here: 
# Detaining a foreign vessel like this seems highly irregular, bordering on an act of war.  
# Attempts by a nuclear weapon state like Pakistan trying to obtain such "dual use" equipment seems like it's highly relevant to a discussion like this about its WMD program.  
I've spent much of the past week revising the Wikipedia article on Richard Barlow (Intelligence analyst) and adding a section on "Violations of the NPT" to the Wikipedia article on "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons".  A major concern that has surfaced in my recent research on nuclear proliferation is assistance the US provided to the Pakistani nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s.  Barlow and Robert Gallucci have both said that Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons today if the US had not illegally exported many items like this, in violation of US and international law, with the active encouragement of high-ranking US government officials.  Moreover, those technology transfers were essential in allowing Pakistan to build “the world's largest atomic black market", without which North Korea would not have nuclear weapons today, and Iran would not have a substantive nuclear-weapons program..
I plan to revert your deletion of that edit.  
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DavidMCEddy, unless we want to make a page specifically for Pakistan and proliferation/counterproliferation this is the most appropriate place to put such information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Interdictions like this are not that uncommon.  Trying to piece together bits of evidence like this into a coherent narrative amounts to WP:OR original research. NPguy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is piecing anything together, there is also only one source so it literally can’t be WP:SYNTH. Interdictions like this are not uncommon, but what about that means they shouldn’t be covered if reliable sources cover them? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether this information in itself is significant enough to put in this article.  It's a single data point, like the aluminum tubes in Iraq, that is not necessarily of any significance to the subject of the article. NPguy (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian customs detaining a Chinese vessel  

message: On 2020-07-19T13:53:22‎ and again 2020-07-21T20:05:04‎ user:192.164.14.51 changed the "Peak stockpile" and "Current stockpile" both from 160 to 200.  On 2020-07-19, I checked the reference and saw a number 160, so I reverted the change.  Today, when I checked, the SIPRI website did not offer me the same summary that I remember from a couple of days ago, and it is pushing me to subscribe.  Nevertheless, they allowed me to look at part of their report.  I found that they reported 150-160 warheads for Pakistan, not just a single number.  I didn't find them giving different numbers for "Peak" vs. "Current stockpile".  However, they did say, "Pakistan’s nuclear weapon arsenal is likely to continue to expand over the next decade".  I think it's unlikely that Pakistan's "Current stockpile" is less than their "Peak", so I made the two numbers the same.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak stockpile = 150-160 warheads? 

message: On 2020-08-09T18:22:39 you deleted the following:  
:
You wrote, "Deprecated source".  
Why is this source deprecated?  I can't find the remaining source.  It seems to have disappeared from the web.  Anyone familiar with the politics between India and Pakistan should know that nothing published in India about Pakistan should be accepted at face value.  However, it still seems useful to know that Indians seem to have indicated concern about the threat of escalation of the India-Pakistan arms race.  
I'm reverting your deletion.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is a source deprecated? 

message: An editor recently deleted a purported quote of Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto "We will eat grass," etc.  Though the whole quote may not be genuine, at least part of is famous and genuine and should be highlighted somewhere in this article.  I did a little digging found several references but none with enough specificity to cite.  Can someone find a proper citation and put the quote in proper context in this article? NPguy (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  We will eat grass 

message: Can you please provide a complete reference for your updating the numbers of warheads in Pakistan's "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles?  
I cannot fine "(2021 estimate)".  Even with that, I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the reference to SIPRI -- .  The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is a highly respected source for information like this.  They should be cited in this article.  
If you have another source that you like better, I suggest you include that source in the same .  This source gives numbers that seem to be more current than those in . 
I look forward to seeing your addition of a complete citation.  In the meantime, I am reverting your edit.  
Thanks for your efforts to make the "sum of all human knowledge" more freely available.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  need ref. for 2021 estimate 

message: There is no foreign source available that claims Pakistan detonated a staged thermonuclear or fusion weapon. Disputed and doubtful claims should not be stated here. Anupom.001 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there any evidence that claims Pakistan tested a true thermonuclear weapon? 

message: This is by-far the worst page the wikipedia has published. It is more written with conspiracy theories and rumors than actually what it is. The page is also politicized, and it is also based on rumors rather than fact. This page needs major overhaul and clean-up. User talk:PeerBaba (talk) 3 November 2023 (UTC)
:Is there any specific claim made in this article that is not adequately supported by a credible reference or is contradicted by some other reference you believe is credible? 
:If yes, please mention it here or modify the text so you think it is better. 
:Realize, however, that Wikipedia pages represent a consensus of the different editors who have tried to make this article better. FYI, I just found 204 notes and multiple other references. "View History" > "Page statistics" reports over 1,000 edits by 361 editors. 
:If you make major changes that contradict source(s) that others find credible, you can expect such changes to be reverted. In such situations, it's best to discuss your concerns here, describing the deficiencies you perceive and how you think they would best be improved. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Worst page

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress