Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 1

Old discussions
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The page appears to have been messed up, with all text having been replaced by an obscene, not to mention nonsensical, comment.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. --Jiang | Talk 04:52, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What about Kazakhstan and Ukraine? RickK 04:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * 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)

I brought back the sentence about the 'nuclear club', since I have heard reputable political scientists use that term. Vroman 20:22, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Nuclear Threat Initiative lists the following countries: Argentina 	North Korea Belarus 	Pakistan Brazil 		Russia China 		South Africa Egypt 		South Korea France 		Syria India 		Taiwan Iran 		Ukraine Iraq 		United Kingdom Israel 		United States Japan 		Uzbekistan Kazakhstan 	Yugoslavia Libya. Why do you write "Although hard information about this is lacking, it is suspected that Germany has undertaken advanced design work on a full range of nuclear weapon types" but "Sweden decided not to pursue a weapon production program."? Any facts or sources? Please clarify what you mean with "Australia (...) exports uranium to France, which does not separate its civilian and military nuclear programs." And I do not see why Israel needs an extra note, why don't you just include the information above? Get-back-world-respect 19:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Previously it went "Israel refuses to say they have nuclear weapons", now it goes "Israel denies having". If the first statement is true it should be included. The NTI states: "Officially, Tel Aviv has declared that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East". Get-back-world-respect 21:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some rephrasing might be needed. I combined seperate note about Israel to information above. My point with Swedish and German nuclear weapon researches was that Sweden really had a such program, but Germany (after WWII) did not, despite of speculations about their research on nuclear weapons. Sweden does not make secret about their previous program and Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate (SKI) has published an exclusive raport about it. I removed more speculative sentence about Germanys (post-WW) design work on nuclear weapons.

I also rephrased the sentence about Australias uranium export until more reliable resources about this issue is found.--Kulkuri 21:57, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be good if the article included the year when the country first developed, tested, or when it was revealed they had, nuclear weapons.--Ben 01:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There were some problems with the figures for warhead counts:
 * Apart from SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II and SORT signatories, they are all estimates and should be indicated as such.
 * They were stated to be for deployed weapons, but the number for the US and Russia - on the basis of the stated reference - is actually all up totals, including not only weapons in cold storage, but even some that are completely dismantled and awaiting destruction.
 * Similarly the number for the UK said 200 deployed, whereas the cited source guesses (by a rather hand-waving argument) 200 all up, including spare parts, and only 36 - 44 deployed.
 * The totals we had listed for US and Russia was simply higher than was given in the cited source, even counting all up totals.
 * These figures are over two years old; both Russia and the US are (or at least were, at the most recent information I have) dismantling warheads at a furious pace, peaking at over a thousand per year.
 * The estimate for grand total was double the sum of the subtotals. Securiger 16:40, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disputed
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)

I agree with Securiger. and have removed it from the main page, especially since the text is already copied here. Research does not back up that claim. -Vina 20:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine question
"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)

NATO Nuclear weapons depolyments
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)
 * 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)

Canada Actually had american nuclear weapons
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)
 * 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)

Unlikely but true! Not Canada, but before Permissive Action Links were developed, in reality some NATO pilots did have effective control of U.S. weapons:
 * 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)

Edited to clarify a point: Bomarc missiles were surface-launched, and were (for budget reasons) mutually exclusive with the Avro Arrow program. The article had suggested that the Bomarc was actually carried as armament by the Arrow, which is incorrect.
 * 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)

North Korean count as it currently stands
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)

United Kingdom nuclear programme
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)


 * 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)

War in Iraq results?
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)

Fastfission, I'm not going to argue about this, but the fact that you used "!" repeatedly in your post indicates clearly why this is an inflamatory. It is unnecesasry because it is covered extensively by other articles, and, by its own content, has little to do with iraq's actual nuclear capability. The conflict stems from a mispreception of capability, but not actual capability. Surely factual articles about one topic should not devote space to mispreception, illusion, or false belief. I do believe that a statement such as "Iraq's incorrectly precieved nuclear capabilities were a major cause of the 2004 Iraq conflict" with a link to the appropriate article. That sums it up, in a way that is less likely to upset anybody, and bears far greater usefulness to anyone (since they can click the link to find out more).Miros 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

Flags for past programs
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)


 * 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.   &mdash;thames 19:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

The rising sun w/rays was not the national flag. It was their war ensign. Dudtz 9/6/05 7:34 PM EST

Australia?
See |this this old Village Pump entry for some comments on Australia's entry. More to follow here, watch this space. Andrewa 02:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC) (link updated Andrewa 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC))


 * going back through the edit history for this article, I found a reference which was possibly inadvertantly removed as a result a separate dubious claim . -- Ian &equiv; talk 03:18, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, of course, Peter Butt's film Fortress Australia. An interesting political statement, and probably one of the sources of these rumours. He produced nobody who would verify his claims, despite interviewing everybody who might have been part of the project and would agree to talk to him. It didn't stop him making them. I attended one of the interview sessions. Andrewa 03:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the current entry:

From 1950 to the early 1970s Australia first attempted to gain access to British nuclear technology, then investigated a fully indigenous nuclear program on a number of occasions, going so far as to plan and begin clearing a site for a plutonium-producing nuclear reactor at Jervis Bay (A.C.T.) in 1969, but abandoned its efforts at that time. In the context of nuclear weapons, this is at least controversial, and in places quite misleading. Jervis Bay is not in the Australian Capital Territory. These were the two different sites considered, see Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant. The plant if built would have been fully covered by safeguards, hardly suitable for a weapons program. All reactors produce plutonium, but a plutonium production reactor is one designed for that purpose, either exclusively or as a power station as well, such as the magnox plants. This was neither. It was just a power station.

Australia has large indigenous supplies of uranium. True. I just thought I should say that.

Currently Australia's uranium exports policy prevents export for military purposes, but there have been allegations about Australian uranium ending up in nuclear weapons. Well, yes, there have been. Unproven allegations by people who want to close down the uranium mines, and obviously don't regard safeguards as effective.

''Curiously for an industrialized nation that is also a major uranium supplier, Australia has no nuclear power plants. However, this is not surprising considering its small population and easily obtainable and abundant supplies of coal.'' Well, exactly. Cheaply-produced, high-grade coal which we export in large quantities. So it's not surprising or curious at all.

There have however, been two research reactors in Australia that produce radioactive materials mainly for medical purposes. No. MOATA didn't produce medical materials, or if she did it was a very minor part of the operation. She did a little transmutation work at one stage, but was designed and mainly used for completely different purposes. Radioisotope production of all sorts was and is HIFAR, built before MOATA and only now about to be replaced by OPAL.

''However, since mid-1995, only one has remained in service (HIFAR). Australia has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is now one of the strongest supporters of anti-proliferation efforts.'' Correct, but strangely expressed. In fact we have been ever since the formation of the IAEA. The only question has ever been how to best produce non-proliferation.

Australia has never had a weapons program. I know that is a POV statement, in that I can't prove it to the satisfaction of all. But, the current entry, which claims that we did have such a program, is at least as POV, and inaccurate as well. Andrewa 03:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Andrew. Could you read this and comment please? (I'm not being rude BTW. I tend to agree with your POV) -- Ian &equiv; talk 07:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll admit to just skimming it, but it seems to be saying, many times over, that that Australia never started an independent nuclear program, though they discussed it a few times and this Baxter fellow seems to have, against the policies of the government, advocated the purchasing of dual use technology from other countries, but failed each time. It's an interesting story but I don't think it makes them a state formerly possessing a weapons program. --Fastfission 13:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed them from the list. Aside from the Fortress Australia documentary, there doesn't seem to be anything supporting the assertion that they actually had a weapons program. The other link given (the article above) states this many times over. They may be "nuclear capable" but I'm not sure (did they ever build the enrichment plant? if not, then I don't think they are). Even the page for Fortress Australia seems to at most assert that Australia tried to buy weapons at one point, along with a lot of unconvincing things (they were worried about their defense, big surprise!) which aren't inconsistent with the above article's take on things. Even if true (I have no clue), that doesn't constitute having a nuclear weapons development program. --Fastfission 16:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * G'day Ian, thanks for the link to that PDF, I'm having a look at it.


 * It should be remembered that Sir Philip Baxter was chairman of the AAEC 1957-1972. During that time, one of his priorities was to annually ask the Australian Government for money to run the research program. In doing this, undoubtedly he played the bomb card on occasions, appealing to those in Cabinet and Treasury who wanted Australia to have the bomb. These references in now-released Government archives were probably one source of the rumours that became Fortress Australia, but that's speculation really. Andrewa 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In either case, though, using bomb innuendo to get funding is not the same thing as working towards a bomb much less having a bomb program. Innuendo does not a bomb project make (unless you happen to be in the current White House... ). --Fastfission 18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Quite. To my mind, it would be borderline to say Australia has ever even had a nuclear power program. We have never had a power reactor. We called tenders for one, and did some research on designs that nobody else was interested in pursuing, knowing that there were good reasons for this but wanting to do something a little different. This research was justified on the grounds of wanting to have expertise on which the Government could call when the time came to have a nuclear power program, and also for advice on such matters as safeguards and proliferation risks. We did a detailed evaluation for a power reactor, including some environmental studies, and started site preparations. These cost some money. On bombs, we had no expenditure, no research, no detailed evaluation, and no credible proposal for any of these.


 * We have an active program of pure research. We have done some applied research too, particularly in centrifuge enrichment, berylium moderated reactors, and refueling patterns for pebble-bed reactors. We have a medical radioisotope program, using both proton-rich nuclides from the cyclotron and neutron-rich nuclides from the reactor, and an industrial radioisotope program based on the reactor. We have world class forensic use of neutron activation analysis.


 * And we provided several test sites for the British nuclear test program. But I don't see Algeria or Polynesia listed as having previously had bomb projects. The Australian entry in this "featured article" is not quite that silly, but very nearly. It is a politically motivated rumour with no basis in fact, and a classic case of why Wikipedia is not so great. Andrewa 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Two further observations on the Hymans document. One, the author is listed by Peter Butt as one of the principle consultants on Fortress Australia. Two, the extensive bibliography does not include any of the published annual reports of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. They make interesting reading, too (but are not available online AFAIK). Andrewa 02:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree to remove Australia, whose situation falls into the general statement that every developed country is potentially nuclear capable. DonSiano 16:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I also watched "Fortress Australia", and found what was claimed plausible, especially as there have also been claims Australia took an interest in biological weapons (eg Secretary of the Department of Defense F.G. Sheddon asking Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet if Australia could develop biological weapons that'd affect Asia but not Australia). But what has been said here seems like a fairly serious rebuttal. Maybe there should be a wikipedia entry Fortress Australia discussing the allegations in the documentary, and possibly a note in this page to the documentary. Andjam 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The speculations in Fortress Australia were certainly plausible. But that doesn't make them encyclopedic (or for that matter accurate).


 * An article on Fortress Australia is appropriate, it has attracted quite enough attention, and perhaps another on Peter Butt, he's quite famous enough locally. But I question whether a link to it would even then be appropriate in a list of countries with nuclear weapons. The section would need to be headed States accused of having programs by people who who have yet to provide any evidence and whose motives are bloody obvious. OK, that's over the top. But what should the heading be? Perhaps divide the existing Suspected nuclear states section into subsections verifiable and... what?


 * The most serious thing here is not the pollution of Wikipedia with politics. We all know that happens and always will. The problem is, this list has made a mockery of the FA program. See Wikipedia talk:Stable versions. Andrewa 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely the entry is a Farce? While it is true Australia has had a small nuclear program, to make reference to it as being a "former nuclear program" on a page refering to nuclear weapons is surely excessive. The Australian Nuclear program can surely not be noted as a nuclear weapon production capable program. Aaclarkcdr 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a farce but I'd certainly call it exaggeration. The closest they got to a program was to perhaps talk about it or at least hint at it might being an idea, and maybe pursue semi-dual use technologies, but anyone with any knowledge of how proliferation actually works would know that that's pretty far from being anything but babysteps towards a real bomb. --Fastfission 14:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Table
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)
 * 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)

I'm an anonymous user who keeps changing Russia's total on the table. I'm doing this because the article about Russia and WMA says that Russia has 19,000 nukes.


 * Actually it says "19,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled in 2002 with perhaps only 8,500 of them operational". The current table reflects both estimates. Do not continue to revert it without a good reason. --Fastfission 21:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the number of Russian warheads are very divergant (7,200 to 20,000), that's why I've added two sources. But doesn't that contradicts this sentence above the table:
 * ''...there were about 20,000 active nuclear weapons in the world in 2002. CG 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being spiteful and pointlessly contentious. All I'm doing is trying to fix a contradiction between two articles and you keep blocking me.


 * No, you're reverting despite the fact that many editors have objected and have tried to communicate with you about it. Maybe you don't understand how these are done here, and we've been blocking you simply because you seem to refuse to discuss and keep reverting. The table clearly says "deployed" at the moment which makes the 19,000 figure completely incorrect. --Fastfission 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I've gone through and updated the entire table, updated the Russia and weapons of mass destruction article to match, and added a nice fleshy footnote which explains the numbers of the table. If you continue to revert to the old, incorrect values, it can be nothing but malicious vandalism. --Fastfission 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you cannot accept being wrong. There are many varying estimates on the internet. Just because you cite one, it's not indisputable and I'm not a vandal.


 * Sorry buddy, that's it. First you cry about how the pages don't match up. Then I make them match up and put the most recent, up-to-date soruces out there. The "varying estimates" are the most up-to-date versions of the estimates from the same sources as were originally there. You're clearly out to just make things difficult, I've blocked you and all of your IP addresses for a week as a consequence. Enough is enough. --Fastfission 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you sure told me (loser).

Fastfission, can you add 69.218.202.201 to the block? Guinnog 22:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

You guys aren't very smart, are you? And loser isnt a personal attack; it's an adjective that's very becoming of you.


 * What exactly are you trying to achieve with this? Guinnog 02:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I'm trying to achieve?

I have no idea, which is why I was asking. Guinnog 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, think about it. It'll come to you sooner or later.

You said it was about achieving congruence with the Russia WMD page. But when Fastfission adjusted both pages to reflect current best estimates, you continued to revert to 'your' figures. Frankly, I think it is at best 'original research', and at worst petty vandalism. If there is another reason for your actions (which contravene wiki policy, as well as common decency and courtesy, perhaps you would share it with us? Guinnog 02:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to be petty, but it's 'contravenes' and you failed to close your parentheses at the end of your post. Anyways, I was right; it came to you (sooner than later).

No, your actions are plural and so take 'contravene'. Well spotted for the bracket though. You're saying you're a vandal? Or that it's 'original research'? Either way, please stop it. This project can survive your unhelpfulness, but why not turn your talent towards helping instead? Guinnog 07:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you just made a typo. I thought that you were talking about my action on this page and saw no 's' after action. I've added one for you.

Thanks for that, I make typos all the time. Have you done any subedting? It's great fun. Guinnog 21:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, what's subediting?

Israel
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)
 * Israel does have nukes. There is no doubt about it.  Tobyk777 21:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons; but didn't they threaten their attackers in the Six Day War with nukes, and haven't they threatened Iraq since then? I don't have any sources, so maybe I'm mixing up Tom Clancy with reality, but I'm pretty sure that happened.


 * 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)

Ehud Olmert basically admitted to Israel having nuclear weapons today, December 11, 2006. ""Can you say that this is the same level, when [Iran] is aspiring to have nuclear weapons, like America, France, Israel and Russia." As reportedby the Jerusalem Post:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881872535&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Iraq
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))


 * In what way would Iraq satisfy the requirement of "countries believed to have at least one nuclear weapon, or programs with a realistic chance of producing a nuclear weapon in the near future"? Nobody believes they have at least one completed nuclear weapon; and any program they might have once had is now certainly defunct. --Fastfission 16:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
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)


 * Pakistan denies helping Saudi Arabia getting Nukes: ...but who believes them?  Scaremonger 01:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)