Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 2

message: While updating the table to values given in http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm, I wondered if non-deployed weapons should be counted in these totals? It seems obvious to me that only deployed weapons ought to be counted. It is mainly the US and Russian totals that are affected, as it would appear that around half of the Russian ones are undeployed/unserviceable/awaiting dismantling etc. Thoughts? Guinnog 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice 69.218.202.201 keeps reverting to the undeployed figure. If there is an argument for using this number, I'd like to see it here, please. Guinnog 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original reason I changed the 18 000 figure for Russia was to make it correspond with 'From a high of 65,000 active weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. Many of the "decommissioned" weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed.' It seems to me that only actively deployed weapons are relevant in quoting figures. Any thoughts? Guinnog 00:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The total stockpiles would include non-deployed (since they could be re-deployed). But if the table title was changed to "deployed" then it would be fine. I don't care either way what the table is, but it should be one or the other. --Fastfission 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.218.202.201 continues to drive a coach and horses through Wiki policy. I've tried to discuss here, and tried to compromise. I am disinclined to get into further reverts. Anyone else care to help? Guinnog 21:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basis of numbers in table 

message: Gramatically, would this section be better named =States formerly conducting nuclear programs=?  Does one possess a program? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States formerly possessing nuclear programs 

message: Is it really appropriate to have Iran listed in the same category of States as Israel and North Korea?
Iran is not even in the same league as those two powers with respect to possessing, much less deploying Nuclear Weapons.  Also, the claims as to Iran's intents vis-a-vis their Nuclear Programme are nothing more than "he said, she said" and are not backed by any real facts.  
As it stands now, Iran is guilty of "not proving their innocence".
I would question the intents of whoever decided to put Iran in this category.
*Iran and North Korea are not entirely in different leagues, though Israel of course is. There are some real "facts" behind the Iranian nuclear ambitions, in part because they seem in every place to make choices which allow for the creation of nuclear weapons rather than ones which would allow equally for nuclear power creation but not weapons creations. Regardless, the category as it originally stood was for nations which western intelligence agencies suspect of being engaged in active nuclear weapons programs not confirmed or admitted to, and in that sense Iran clearly fit. --Fastfission 19:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the anon user. Iran is suspected of having a civil nuclear program that could lead to a miltary one, but not of having nuclear weapons. So I think it fits best in the other nuclear-capable states. CG 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't listed as having nuclear weapons, but having a nuclear program. Considering the US, the UN, and most of Europe thinks they have a program, and I think we should categorize them accordingly. --Fastfission 01:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "Yellow: States suspected of having possession of, or suspected of being in the process of developing, nuclear weapons and/or nuclear programs. (Israel, North Korea and Iran)." from the image description page. Rmhermen 18:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran 

message: I've recently semi-protected this page due to the repetitive vandalism by an anonymous user. Feel free to discuss it here. CG 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: There seems to be a problem with the reference numbers. For example, in the section about Romania there is a link () to endnote 28, but 28 is actually something else. The correct endnote number should be 24. This numbering process seems to be done automatically, but somehow is wrong? Do other people see the same wrong behavior? --Mihai 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference numbers 

message: on the 22nd of sept 1979 both israel & s.africa jointly tested a small device of less than 15 kilotons upon prince edward's island. South africa would go on to renounce nuclear weapons under a post aparthied gov't thus making it eligible for inclusion into the category of former weapon state and state that tested. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons without any doubt; thank you Mr. Vannu. North Korea has nuclear weapons, primary reason the U.S. does  not threaten to liberate it's people anymore. I'll make the appropriate changes in ~week, if no one has any objections.
*Yes, there are objections. We know about the Vela Incident, and it is not known for sure at all whether it was a nuclear test, much less who sponsored it. The current information in the article on South Africa, Israel, and North Korea is correct as it is -- South Afria is already listed as a former state, the status of Israel's program is well-described, and North Korea's ambiguous situation (declared, but not proved) is also indicated. --Fastfission 05:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bockspur 10th of mar 06:israel, n.korea and south africa 

message: I find it hard to believe that the scandinavian countries... (i.e., Norway/Sweden) are incapable of producing Nuclear weapons in a few years. The people there are very science oreitned, after all, thats where the Nobel prizes are held. 70.153.65.90 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Developing nuclear weapons has little to do with whether you are "science orientated" -- it is primarily a question of will, technological capabilities, and treaty compliance. And in any case, just because Sweden gives out Nobel Prizes does not make it full of geniuses itself (and receiving a Nobel Prize does not necessarily mean you'd be of any use on a bomb project). --Fastfission 13:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I find it hard to believe... 

message: The table lists North Korea as having 0-7 nuclear weapons, citing North Korea's nuclear program, 2005.  However, in reading this source, I did not see 0-7 anywhere, nor even 7.  Here are the two parts of the article which most stood out to me as indications of number of nuclear weapons: "In the early 1990s, the CIA concluded that North Korea had effectively joined the nuclear club by building one or possibly two weapons from plutonium it produced before 1992... A reasonable estimate of the number of assembled North Korean nuclear weapons is up to 10."  I read this as 2-10, or possibly 0-10 because of a lack of hard evidence.  Whence the "0-7" figure?
If there's a good source for that, we should link to both (but the figure can stay 0-7).  If there's no reference for this, I'd suggest changing the table to match the actual content of the reference.
:0-7 is the low and high ball figure (some notable people suspect they don't have any assembled weapons at all, some people say as many as 7). In any case I don't recall why it is 7 rather than 10, that can probably be changed. --Fastfission 14:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no opinion, I ust wanted to make the citation match the numbers given. CRGreathouse 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korea reference 

message: I dont know why someone keeps changing it to 1974. India's OFFICIAL test was in 1998. Every country listed on the page performed unofficial test way before the suggested dates. India is no different. I understand Indian people here feel the need to show their superiority over Pakistan. but please keep it correct, for Wiki's sake.
" A nuclear weapons state, it carried out tests in the late 1990s in defiance of world opinion. However, India is still tackling huge social, economic and environmental problems."
-http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm
:This page lists the very first test of every country on the list.  I'm not sure where you got a different impression.  I am reverting your edit. TomTheHand 22:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, are you asking me to do some research, or the other user?  India detonated a device in 1974, but did not publically admit having a nuclear arsenal until 1998, which may be what you're thinking of.  Pakistan's weapons program dated back to the 1970s, and it is possible, as the article already states, that Pakistan had untested nuclear weapons by the 1980s.  However. they did not test a nuclear device until 1998.  The table is accurate. TomTheHand 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: India's 1974 test was a full-scale nuclear fission device test. It has a yield of the same size as the weapon dropped on Nagasaki. I am not sure how one would not call that a nuclear detonation. There is no comparable "earlier" date for any of the countries on that list. Subcritical tests obviously do not count as weapons tests, but the Indian 1974 test was not a subcritical test. The only distinction even India has ever tried to claim between the 1974 test and the 1998 tests is that the former was called a "peaceful nuclear explosion", implying that they had not weaponized it. Nobody takes the distinction seriously now, and no one took it seriously then either. In any case it was most definitely a nuclear explosion in either case, and an official one at that. --Fastfission 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India's First Nuclear Test 

message: During Francoist regime, Spain had plans for developing a nuclear weapons program. In 1951 they made the Junta de Energía Nuclear. In 1966, within the Palomares' incident some rests of the bombs were studied by spanish scientists. In 1968, Spain built the first military plutonium-based (military purpose only) nuclear reactor Coral-1. In 1971 studies were made to test the first bomb in Western Sahara. (Note: Spain has the second largest natural source of uranium of Europe). Spain continues producing secretly plutonium until 1981.
Of course Spain ratifies TNP in 1987.
*Spanish nuclear power
--Adalbertofrenesi 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain