Talk:Nuclear proliferation

message: I was curious as to if anyone had any intentions of updating any pieces of this article to reflect on current happenings? DesireeLaPointeUG (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be quite a project.  It may be simplified somewhat by the fact that this article mostly summarizes the content of other articles.  So one approach would be to update based on the current versions of those articles.  It's not clear how many people are paying attention to this article. NPguy (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Relevance?

message: I was linked to here from said word as a link, but the page I came from was the one on the Mutsu nuclear cargo ship. Should there be a seperate page for denuclearization or perhaps a disambiguation page between weapons denuclearization and civil denuclearization?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.116.212 (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Denuclearization?

message: I check on this page every now and then and I've noticed the revert to "coutervalue" as a replacement for the penultimate tactic of "Mutually assured destruction".  I find such edits soften the portrayed effects of the potential problems caused by nuclear proliferation.  In general, I do not feel that this page adequately reflects the danger and potential harm of the issue.  I guess that's opinion, but isn't softening the article reflective of POV as well?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nihilozero (talk • contribs) 08:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutually Assured Destruction

message: This page may need updating for recent developments in Iraq and North Korea, but I'm only familiar with the headlines, not the details... -- Catherine 04:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)
:Whoa...! Did you say recent? It has no mention of Pakistani nuclear tests... conducted in 1998! (Sigh) I guess I'll try to find time to fix it... I think that's an embarrassment. OK, done a quick fix. Andrewa 16:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old untitled remarks 

message: If Mr. Bush spells it so, you should perhaps create a redirect to this page with these words ;)
Because Mr. Bush has always right - if you tell sth. other he will bomb you nuciar :)
:Please cite a source for this usage. --WikiSlasher 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually he pronounces it like nukear not nuciar. Here's the source from CNN. Nuciar proliberation gives no Google hits. Media Matters also cites this, apparently it was made at a House's dinner or something.
"Plus this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here it comes. Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation.
BUSH: Nukear proliberation (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WHITFIELD: President Bush sharing the stage and laughs with someone bearing his likeness at last night's White House Correspondents Dinner. Mr. Bush on Mr. Bush, later on CNN SUNDAY." --JForget  17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuciar Proliberation

message: Given how big a deal this seems when I read the news articles about it, maybe we should have an article on it? See current events. --Dante Alighieri 18:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article on Nuclear proliferation with a section about Pakistan that needs to be updated. See also Abdul Qadeer Khan for a related article. -- ChrisO 11:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then, someone should update the nuclear proliferation article. ;) As for the article on AQK, it seemed a bit sparse on current information regarding the issue. Anyone know a good source for more data? I was browsing google news but didn't really come up with that much useful info. --Dante Alighieri 16:31, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan Nuclear Scandal

message: I've added the Template:WMD box-table to the country section of the article.  This box adds lots of relevant links in a compact, and pleasant looking, way; so I think is useful.  But arguably it's a bit off-topic, so I'm not completely certain this is a good idea. Any views?
I first tried it in the See also section, but it was too big to fit there nicely. -
Rwendland 12:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:WMD

message: With a bit of restructuring/tidying/updating work, including making a better fit with NPT (there's some duplication) and perhaps related articles, this would be approaching featured quality I think. Rd232 08:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPT 

message: Considering that we have quite a large article in Iran's nuclear program, I am surprised to see no mention of Iran in this article.  Certainly some discussion of it is merited here. Simesa 11:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: Has anyone compared this article to the text in the new article Nuclear power phase-out?  In that article I annotated this article as the "Main", but that might get edited out. Simesa 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing article 

message: Please adjust the map to reflect the correct territory of the highlighted nations: Alaska for the US; Corsica for France and Sakhalin Island for the Russian Federation.
:There's a new map from List of countries with nuclear weapons which I think is a bit better, but if there is anything I missed please let me know. Thanks. --Fastfission 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Sigh) Well, for a start, Australia has never had a nuclear weapons program. The claim seems to stem from a film Fortress Australia made by Peter Butt. There's no evidence to back it up; All he found was documents in the Australian Government archives which showed that some politicians wanted to develop a bomb at various stages. There was never any work done on one. Andrewa 14:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map inaccuracies 

message: Recently "from nation to nation" was removed from the definition:
:Nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.
leaving:
:Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.
I can see what you are getting at, but this is too simplistic.  When company B starts manufacturing nuclear power plants, using technology transfer from company A (from the same nation), by this new definition this is "nuclear proliferation". This isn't "nuclear proliferation" in its commonly understood sense. Somehow "nation" must remain in the definition. I think this change should be reverted unless someone can draft a better change.
If fact I'm not sure nuclear power plants should be in the definition.  By the old definition the IAEA is a "nuclear prolifererator" when it helps a new nation develop a nuclear power station according to its charter.
Or when one nation sells the first nuclear power station to another nation (making both the U.S. and the former-USSR large-scale proliferators). -- Rwendland 19:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From nation to nation 

message: This article is currently sprawling and duplicates a lot of content from other articles. My recommendation is to cut down the individual country reports — make the Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. bits just small summaries along the lines of their entries on List of countries with nuclear weapons and just link to pages with the details. That should free up a lot of space and make it much more readable (and not force us to update three different articles whenever something changes in the news). This page also seems to have a lot of entries which it doesn't need, like a short history of the Indian nuclear program. While that is certainly a form of proliferation, it's a subject better covered on a page of its own. 
Another option in this regard is to write a short "History" section which incorporates some of these countries and links to their relevant pages, looking at them as examples of proliferation or anti-proliferation efforts and how they affected proliferation as a whole. 
At the moment the page is unreadable and looks more like a compendium of articles than an encyclopedia article itself. I suggest splitting off into separate articles that which doesn't already have a separate article, at the very least. --Fastfission 02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries.  Would someone like to blend GNEP into this article? Simesa 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is the text about the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation ok?--Saimondo (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Global Nuclear Energy Partnership]]  

message: I updated the signatories to the Additional Protocol, addeda section on limitations to safeguards in the Additional Protocol, and added an external link to a fuller discussion of such
KonaScout 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional protocol 

message: Should the map of armed nuclear nations have North Korea added as a nation with recognized nuclear weapons.
Sign your comments. And Yes, it should. CarolinianJeff 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Fundamental metric tensor recently changed the statement that the United States and Canada supplied the CIRUS research reactor to India subject to the "stipulation" that it be used only for peaceful purposes.  The new version says that it was only an "understanding" but the United States and Canada, implying that India made no peaceful use commitment.  I don't think this is correct.  I believe the United States and Canada both insisted on a peaceful use commitment and India agreed.  Thus, when India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, it claimed that it was a "peaceful" nuclear explosion.  This also led nuclear exporters, in the Nuclear Suppliers Guidelines, to call for the condition of no "nuclear explosive" use as well as the standard peaceful use commitment.  Rather than just revert, I'd like to undtand the reason for the change. NPguy 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  India's peaceful use commitment on CIRUS 

message: The line about "some countries consider US/NATO weapons sharing to be a violation of Articles I and II."  Which countries?  Where is the evidence for this?  This is thrown out there without a single citation.  This seems pretty clearly to be propaganda.
:Article 1 of the NPT; Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.. Quoted at   Imc 12:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite a big thing at the 5-yearly NPT review conferences, with the non-aligned state group regularly raising the issue e.g. in 2005 "Nuclear-weapon States ... must refrain from nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements." It also lead to a Proposed US Senate Amendment to the NATO Expansion statute. Rwendland 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US and Weapons Sharing

message: I removed the latest addition on nuclear apartheid, because it doesn't belong where it was - as an argument for proliferation.  Iran claims that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, so this should not be seen as an argument for proliferation.  It seems to belong in the article on Iran's nuclear program page, as an element of Iran's position.  I think the argument doesn't stand up to the facts, but it has been effective in getting developing countries to line up behind Iran. NPguy 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll move it there then if you think that's the more appropriate location. Lothar of the Hill People 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Apartheid 

message: I corrected two errors in the new section on nuclear weapons cooperation between the United States and the UK.  First, warheads are not transferred under the U.S.-UK agreement (and neither of the cited references supports this claim).  Second, such transfer would not violate the NPT.  The NPT bans transfers only by nuclear-weapon states to non-nuclear-weapon states.  It does not bar transfers among nuclear-weapon states.NPguy 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think you'll find a NWS cannot transfer complete weapons to another NWS: Article 1 NPT "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or ...".  The US has supplied the UK with nuclear weapon designs and components, and exchanged fissile material with the UK (though not complete weapons) - I'll dig out the refs and add this to the section. Rwendland 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops!  I should have relied on the Treaty text instead of my faulty memory.  I'd be interested in what you come up with.  I think transfers of material go both ways - U.S. to UK and vice versa - and I'm not aware of transfers of weapons components. NPguy 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US and UK 

message: I'm concerned about two recent edits that rely on a single article from Asia Times.  One extracts a lists of counries where A.Q. Khan went on a shopping spree for duel-use equipment to support Pakistan's enrichment program.  The other relies on a quote from Homi Sethna about how Atoms for Peace helped many countries get weapons.  I don't think either point is wrong, but I also don't think they represent the big picture.  For example, the weapons program that benefited most directly from Atoms for Peace was India's.  Canada and the United States helped supply the CIRUS reactor based on a peaceful use pledge from India.  India used CIRUS to produce the plutonium for its first, supposedly "peaceful" nuclear explosions.  Similarly, the A.Q. Khan saga should focus not on the list of countries but on how Khan evaded exporrt controls by importing dual-use equipment and technology.  When export controls were strengthened, Khan set up his own supply network.
There are some relatively comprehensive secondary sources (e.g. ISIS, Monterey, NTI) online that would provide a stronger and more representative basis for making these points that the single, narrowly focused article. NPguy (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits re Atoms for Peace and A.Q. Khan 

message: The list of countries has several duplications.  Pakistan is listed twice, as is North Korea.  There's also some discussion of cooperation between the two.  My recommendation is to delete the entire second section on each country.  However, there are some facts in the second section that are not in the first, which might be worth keeping in some form.  What do others think? NPguy (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of subtle problems with this article.  Breeder reactors are referred to as "future breeder reactors" as if there aren't already plenty of them in operation.  There's weaselly language that doesn't really make it clear to readers that "peaceful" nuclear reactors leave fissile plutonium in their "waste fuel"... That's how India developed Smiling Buddha from the "used fuel" that came out of CANDU reactors.  (Not that I'm opposed to nuclear reactors.  Came here for the greenhouse gases, stayed to learn about nuclear proliferation.) --arkuat (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup needed 

message: Does anyone else realize the sheer irony of having "nonproliferation" redirect to "nuclear proliferation"?  Kind of messed up....
I think the best option would be to have  1 page (i.e. most of this one) relabeled "nonproliferation", then make a new one on "nuclear proliferation" that deals w/ the more current-events and type-specific stuff.
Also, I mentioned this on the counterproliferation talk page, but somewhere we need to provide an accurate definition of NP vs. CP.  The CP page is filled w/ stuff that should be on here.  I could put the definitions on each, then maybe link to the other in order to show the contrast.  Ideas?TehGus (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterproliferation 

message: The image :Image:Vanunu-glove-box-bomb-components.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Vanunu-glove-box-bomb-components.jpg

message: Folks, there is a straw poll set up for the Nuclear optimism article. If you are interested please enter your opinion in the discussion page.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll on nuclear optimism 

message: It has been suggested that List of states with nuclear weapons#Potential Proliferators be merged into Nuclear proliferation#Unsanctioned nuclear activity by me here. The general rationale is that the list's title would suggest it is a list of states with nuclear weapons and that allegations or unresolved concerns do not necessarily bear in mind on such a page if a state is not known to currently or have formerly possessed such weapons. Do others feels that allegations or unresolved concerns from Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Libya, South Korea, etc. might be more appropriate for this page?--68.251.188.242 (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hey!  Nuclear Security Summit (2010) is going on and Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non- Proliferation, 2010 has been scheduled - need an expert to cover these, or at least put them into the article! Simesa (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competing Conferences in April 

message: Prince Hints Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race by the Associated Press published December 6, 2011 New York Times from Dubai, United Arab Emirates, excerpt ... 
99.19.45.187 (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved confusing report location out of quote.   97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  potential [[Saudi Arabia]] resource 

message: Spain is blue on the map, implying that it "... at one point had nuclear weapons and/or nuclear weapons research programs" however, spain is not mentioned in the article nor can I find any "spain and weapons of mass destruction"-page on wiki either.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.167.118 (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain 

message: There are some old inline templates in the "nuclear apartheid" section and elsewhere that don't seem to have any active discussion. Can they be removed? Joe Bodacious (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old templates 

message: This source provides the requested info, but I don't know how it stacks up against WP:RS: http://news.ptfs.com/foia-and-declassification/2011/08/declassified-documents-chronicles-u-s-intervention-in-pakistan-nuclear-plans
Joe Bodacious (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to do more homework than that.  You'll need to explain what specific documents support what specific unsourced claims in the article.  I have little doubt that there is interesting information at that site, though it is mostly primary sources (Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to avoid original research).NPguy (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source for Pakistan requested cites 

message: We can have a separate article for this subject and go through the details. What do you think? Can any one find some sources? Mhhossein (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Additional Protocol could use an article of its own.  Here's one potential secondary source. NPguy (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Protocol 

message: I just edited this page and clicked the wrong button, so my edit summary was cut short. What I wanted to write is that E. Solingen is probably an important expert, but her opinion that was previously the second sentence of this article was presented without any source or context. Of course governments decide to build nuclear weapons when they think it's in their interest, why else would they? FNAS (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half of edit summary missing 

message: There needs to be a section on the 'Overkill Ratio'-- this is a term from the 80s, I believe, when the stockpile of nuclear weapons was at its greatest volume.  The 'Overkill Ratio' is a measure of the volume of nuclear weapons vs. the total needed to destroy the surface of the Earth/wipe out all life.  I.e. If the total number of missiles required to decimate the Earth would be 100, & there were 1000 nuclear weapons in existence, the Overkill Ratio would be 10 to 1.  The section should include a table, perhaps by decade, of the Overkill Ratio since the first use of nuclear weapons.  I do not have the technical expertise to write such a section.  SaturnCat (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overkill Ratio 

message: The map at the beginning of the article shows Oman and UAE having programs for developing nuclear weapons. Is there any evidence for these claims?--Arado (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's not just the UAE and Oman but the entire Gulf Cooperation Council (also Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait) that are colored incorrectly.  Someone who knows how to fix the map should do so. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The map is not good. All Gulf countries are colored. 
--88.136.1.107 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oman and UAE 

message: "The People's Republic of China detonated a nuclear weapon in 1964"</br>
The PRC was linked to the state. I have linked it and the part until the word 'weapon' to this page instead. An issue remains because every other country has a link to the country's page, but the PRC now does not. Sure, you could have put two links, but I chose not to because there would be no distinction for an unsuspecting reader. Or should it be done anyway? Like this.</br>
Example: The People's Republic of China detonated a nuclear weapon in 1964.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue with links 

message: A new section on the Republic of China has been added among the four states that are presumed to have nuclear weapons outside the NPT.  The section seems out of place and misnamed.  The generally accepted geographic hame is Taiwan.  The placement of this section implies that Taiwan, like the other four states, has or had nuclear weapons.  In fact, Taiwan is more similar to the NPT signatories in the later section listing NPT signatories.  Taiwan's placement in this section might seem inappropriate, since Taiwan is not recognized as a State Party to the NPT.  However, when it was internationally recognized as the Republic of China, Taiwan did sign and ratify the NPT.
My proposal is that the section on the Republic of China be renamed "Taiwan" and moved to the end of the "NPT Signatories" section.  In addition, a brief discussion of its NPT status should be included.  If there are no objections, this is what I plan to do.  The section probably needs copy edits as well, but that can wait. NPguy (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: An editor added the following text on Taiwan, citing a number of sources in Chinese.  The new text is not in good English so it is hard to understand what it is trying to say and harder to still to verify using non-English sources.
:In 1988 upon being questioned by Director of American Institute in Taiwan, David Dean, in person with the United States satellite image recording a minimized nuclear test at Jioupeng military base field in Pingtung in 1986, Chief of the General Staff Hau Pei-tsun claimed that scientists in Taiwan had already produced the controlled nuclear reaction as the continuous progress in decades after the previous accomplishment equivalent to 1/6 of Hiroshima scale in South Africa in 1980, as per General Hau's Diary and President Nelson Mandela's later findings.
There may be good new information here, but it needs to be clarified.  Please discuss here. NPguy (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: Spain did have a nuclear weapons program, Proyect Islero, which reached a point where two small nukes were practially ready and there were planned tests in Western Sahara, then a Spanish colony.
https://www.ondacero.es/programas/por-fin-no-es-lunes/podcast/capsula-tiempo/proyecto-islero-cuando-espana-estuvo-punto-tener-propia-bomba-atomica_202109186145983c8b645000018cc93d.html
185.219.11.126 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what the article says.  It says Spain had a nuclear weapons program, but it never reached the point of producing nuclear material for a weapon. NPguy (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain nuclear weapons program