Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 6

Nuclear weapon capable Warplanes
There is the picture to the right - and the picture's caption reads: "French nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (right) and the American nuclear-powered carrier USS Enterprise (left), each of which carries nuclear-capable warplanes" What is different/ required for a warplane to be nuclear-capable? I have no idea of the answer. being a nuclear-powered carrier, and carrying nuclear-capable warplanes are two totally different capabilities, with NO inter-relationship. Storage of nuclear weapons for use with the warplanes when authorized will require unique security and safety measures, that again have NO inter-relationship with the nuclear powering of the aircraft carrier. I will suggest thought on deleting this picture from this article. Anyone know of any aircraft of any nuclear weapon capable nation that other than mission or limited payload could be confirmed as a non-nuclear weapon capable aircraft. Wfoj2 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe most aircraft are not nuclear capable. That is, they are not capable of carrying and delivering nuclear weapons without modification.  It's not just about payload, but also command and control systems necessary for nuclear weapons.  But I agree with the sentiment to delete the picture, which is at best misleading.  Under the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives of 1991, the United States has not deployed nuclear weapons on surface ships. NPguy (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Brazil nuclear weapons program?
Haven't there been rumors that Brazil is thinking about starting a nuclear weapons program? Keraunos (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and didn't South Korea have an instance of unauthorized enrichment?
 * Oh, and didn't Egypt have traces of HEU found in their country?
 * And then as you point out, Brazil (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_79.html) and Argentina both had previous weaponization programs which the U.S., at a minimum, believes (cue sinister music) to be shut down. Argentina even supplied HEU to Iran which would be used for "medical purposes", while Brazil and Egypt (along with much of the Non-Aligned Movement) have had the audacity to support Iran enriching uranium to 3.5 percent.
 * What makes all of this more troubing is that many, if not all of these nations, have domestic uranium enrichment and ballistic missile and/or quasi-space programs which they dare to carry out in public. In fact, all of these nations seem to be working towards some form of nuclear weapons (cue sinister music, evil laughter, and mushroom cloud in background) capability.
 * So do we need to add all of these countries to the article? Or is the threshhold for inclusion finding a nation such as Vanuatu accusing them of it first?--71.156.89.167 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brazil has no nuclear program for weapons. Is this is a joke? They do explore uranium and tried to build 3 power plants. But not for military use. Once they did also order a atomic submarine. But it would be build by France or Germany, not in Brazil.AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Brazil nuclear weapons program?
Haven't there been rumors that Brazil is thinking about starting a nuclear weapons program? Keraunos (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and didn't South Korea have an instance of unauthorized enrichment?
 * Oh, and didn't Egypt have traces of HEU found in their country?
 * And then as you point out, Brazil (http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_79.html) and Argentina both had previous weaponization programs which the U.S., at a minimum, believes (cue sinister music) to be shut down. Argentina even supplied HEU to Iran which would be used for "medical purposes", while Brazil and Egypt (along with much of the Non-Aligned Movement) have had the audacity to support Iran enriching uranium to 3.5 percent.
 * What makes all of this more troubing is that many, if not all of these nations, have domestic uranium enrichment and ballistic missile and/or quasi-space programs which they dare to carry out in public. In fact, all of these nations seem to be working towards some form of nuclear weapons (cue sinister music, evil laughter, and mushroom cloud in background) capability.
 * So do we need to add all of these countries to the article? Or is the threshhold for inclusion finding a nation such as Vanuatu accusing them of it first?--71.156.89.167 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brazil has no nuclear program for weapons. Is this is a joke? They do explore uranium and tried to build 3 power plants. But not for military use. Once they did also order a atomic submarine. But it would be build by France or Germany, not in Brazil.AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

China no first use policy
If I remember correctly, China omitted its No First Use pledge from some official declaration in april 2013, which was reported in some media as maybe indicating a change in policy... Ssscienccce (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Mediolanum sockpuppetry
As this keeps coming back up... The Italy/nuclear weapons thread turns out to be a very prolific abusive sockpuppeteer,. New editors or IPs readding that content should be reported. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter as source for new numbers for Israel
It seems strange to change the numbers here based on an offhand comment by former U.S. President Carter when the careful scholarly analyses used elsewhere in this article include different, generally lower numbers. Views? NPguy (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Israel/North Korea
Why is North Korea thought to definitely have nuclear weapons whereas Israel is only a maybe? I'm pretty sure both have but popular opinion is the other way around if I am not mistaken 86.185.210.221 (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect the difference is that North Korea has openly announced that it has nuclear weapons, has announced weapons tests, and has carried them out; see
 * * 2006 North Korean nuclear test
 * * 2009 North Korean nuclear test
 * * 2013 North Korean nuclear test
 * Israel has done none of those things.
 * Unician &nabla; 01:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess it's both the official denials and/or ambiguity on the part of Israel, and the fact that Israel never tested one of its nukes. Wlthough nuke tests are pretty much unnecessary, since a nuclear bomb is in essence the most simple device you can imagine. If you got the material, you can build it and be sure that it works.  -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The accompanying map does not have Pakistan marked in red, though the article indicates it should be. I don't know how to fix this. Can someone who knows how do that? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually it is, but the boarder is blurred with India. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My mistake. I should have looked more closely. I was trying to give Afghanistan to Pakistan. That would work out poorly, wouldn't it? Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why no mention of the other states very likely to possess undeclared weapons?
Saudi Arabia for example. Given its recent public display of its nuclear capable DF-3 ballistic missile in a military parade, before a Pakistani military liaison officer (and its purchase of DF-21s). Do we wait till testing to speculate? Pusillanimity over proliferation leads to ... proliferation.Cpsoper (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC).


 * In addition I believe some in Sweden admitted they had developed nuclear weapons in the Cold War but got rid of them following the break up of the Soviet Union. As for Saudi Arabia rumors are rampant that they purchased at least 2 nukes from Pakistan under the agreement they remain in Pakistan loaded on planes ready to depart immediately 24/7 in case of emergency, that way "technically" neither party violates the NPT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.89.96 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2014


 * I believe the title of the article "List of states with nuclear weapons" defines clearly the limits of the article and leaves no room for speculation or rumor. Perhaps there should be a "List of states with threshold potential for nuclear weapons" or some such thing. But such suppositions do not belong here. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hosting Nuclear Weapons
I've said before if there's room for "nuclear sharing" and it's history in the article, then there should be some mention of the hosting of forward deployed nuclear weapons, and history of such deployments. In example Cuba or South Korea. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a way to block repeated IP user vandalism?
I'm sure I'm not the only one exhausted seeing user 151.40.whatever running amok. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked Callanecc for a page protection. The User:Mediolanum is an IP-hopping user. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For future reference, the various kinds of page protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. The usual solution to a problem like this one is “semi-protection”, meaning that only auto-confirmed users can make edits directly; IP users and brand-new registered users would have to ask at the talk page first.  Unician &nabla; 16:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

North Korea estimate end 2014
This rapport shows that North Korea has between 15 and 22 nuclear weapons and not the <10 that is suggested http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/North_Korea_Nuclear_Futures_26Feb2015-Master-ISIS_Final.pdf --86.162.167.172 (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

China's "250" -- politburo propaganda? A Joke?
China are roundly accepted as having a LOT more than a merely 250 nuclear warheads -- http://mic.com/articles/2685/georgetown-students-help-uncover-chinese-nuclear-weapons. There are even Mao era propaganda videos that can be found on YouTube proudly promulgating where they hide their probable slew of WMD's -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upNFeyC8ThM

Not unlike economic information, China's official state admissions regarding nuclear potency are almost certainly more lies than truths. I think Wikipedia should reflect this and at least make some reference to China's 'undisclosed' nuclear capabilities. Especially given the rise of the nation, its geopolitical jostling in the region and what this might hold for the world in coming years. Citing some "Federation of American Scientists" - a body communist China have no obligation (or intention!) to report [accurately] to - is borderline false information and hardly aids readers seeking real world data on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sablicious (talk • contribs) 12:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Georgetown University student figures you cite have been widely discredited. NPguy (talk) 00:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But you accept the propaganda on "possibly non-existing" Israeli jew's nukes ? An even sicker joke --91.60.151.90 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Delivery mechanisms in table
I don't know why this was added and I don't really care. However since the delivery means of states with nuclear weapons has evolved over the decades with some gaining new capabilities and others condensing their delivery options I'd suggest changing it to 'Current delivery mechanisms' or just delete the column as it beckons a section discussing how this delivery has changed since the dawn of the atomic age. I'm not sure that belongs in this particular article. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unless a source can be provided and the delivery mechanisms for each country is accurate and complete, then it doesn't belong in the article. See Verifiability on how material in Wikipedia should be backed up clearly by reliable sources (I.e, an online news website is not a reliable source when discussing nuclear delivery mechanisms!). Also, the details as presented by Avaya1 are still incorrect, for example India only maintains a land-based nuclear arsenal, while China also maintains a purely land-based arsenal but has a suspected limited nuclear triad (with SSBNs and nuclear capable bombers) according to the yearly publications of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Avaya1, Your edits are incorrect. Pakistan, for example, does not maintain strategic sea-based nuclear weapons. At best, it has merely tested sea-based nuclear weapons. You need to either find a better source or not edit at all. Israel is incorrect too, as it does not have a suspected nuclear triad, it has merely tested a sea-based tactical nuke delivery. A good source detailing each countries nuclear arsenals are the yearly "military Balance" publications from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Antiochus, this was a typo while I was editing (I intended air-based). Please wait about twenty minutes, until I have finished adding the sources - instead of reverting half way through the edits. Most of these sources are extremely thorough (and if you find a more detailed source, feel free to add it). The original table did contain mistakes, for which I apologise. But we have multiple reliable sources stating that Israel has a suspected nuclear triad (and the sea-based capability is not suspected to be a tactical nuclear weapon, which Israel likely does not possess). I have also now found multiple reliable sources stating that China has what is commonly understood as the definition of a nuclear triad. Avaya1 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Pakistan doesn't maintain an active air-launched nuclear strike capability either. While the Pakistan Air Force has experimented with delivery mechanisms, and it operates two squadrons if nuclear capable aircraft (F-16/Mirage 5), it still does not maintain a permanent air-launched strike capability and thus far is only involved in the experimental and technical side of Pakistan Strategic arsenal. Therefore, I do not feel that speculative or experimental nuclear capabilities should be mention in this article. I think that only fully active and confirmed delivery mechanisms should be mentioned. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The same goes for Israel, it has experimented with sea-based nuclear tipped cruise missiles, but it does not maintain a permanent sea based nuclear arsenal. At present, Israel only has a fully-fledged land and air-launched nuclear capability. Speculation on a nuclear triad should not be mentioned, as experimental sea-based weapons does not equate to a permanent capability. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * According to many reliable sources, Israel maintains a suspected sea-based nuclear weapons capability. This is generally reported as the suspected 'raison d'être' of the Dolphin submarines (and the reason for a lot of policies such as banning dual-citizens from serving on them). It is suspected (by the sources) to be a permanent sea based capability, not an experiment (as with everything to do with Israel's program - we can only use the word suspected).  E.g. []


 * For Pakistan, it makes sense to add that, if we can find detailed sources explaining this fact.Avaya1 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since it's obviously staying, UK should include '(with former air-based forces)'.Doyna Yar (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1, I suspect that spiegel.de would be a far less authoritative source than the IISS. Furthermore, a Nuclear triad in its traditional sense (with regards to a sea-based arsenal) consists of SLBMs, not the mere nuclear tipped cruise missiles that Israel has experimented with. Suspicion that Israel has a nuclear triad based on experiments with nuclear tipped cruise missiles is misleading. I would rather we stick to confirmed delivery mechanisms that are backed up by reliable sources.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a suspected deployment (but the entire nuclear weapons program is suspected - nothing is confirmed, and yet we included it with that proviso). The mention of the 'suspected' sea-based deployment is supported by a lot of reliable sources, (we are not relying on Der Spiegel). For example, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, by Avner Cohen, (Columbia University Press 2013), page 83 - states "The new sea-based strategic arm is presumed to have a second-strike nuclear component". This is book published by Columbia University Press. [There are also articles on Janes (although that is not accessible on the internet).]


 * Whether submarine-launched cruise missiles fulfil the definition of a nuclear triad is another issue. But the reliable sources say 'nuclear triad', so from the point of view of Verifiability it passes. In the Avner Cohen book above, it says: [Israel] is "restructuring its nuclear forces into a triad form." (page 84). If you prefer, there is space in the table to write 'suspected sea, land and air-based forces' instead of 'nuclear triad'. Avaya1 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I added an extra column, single sourced from the IISS. This is a good compromise and offers the reader alternate reliable sources in addition to the ones you provided. The IISS only provides details of strategic forces where evidence suggests that the delivery method is credible and in current/active operation. This, I feel, is worth having in the table. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reasoning for using one source for all estimates, when we have a variety of more scholarly and detailed sources available to us. There is no Wikipedia guideline for choosing a single source for an article, especially to the exclusion of academic texts printed by university presses.Avaya1 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, it makes no sense to privilege one source with a separate column (just because you happen to prefer that source), over all the other reliable sources, published in the academic literature. To do so is POV. Our job as editors is to reprint the information provided by the reliable sources (and there are many academic sources on this subject), in a neutral way. Avaya1 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the IISS source? I don't understand. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, we have dozens of reliable sources there, published in university presses. Why are you prioritizing a single sources, when we have multiple sources? The edits don't make any sense. For example, adding a separate column for IISS, when we have multiple sources, with a range of information. And why do you keep adding 80 to Israel's suspected nuclear warheads, when there are dozens of reliable sources, reporting a wide range of different suspected estimates. Avaya1 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The IISS is a very reliable and authoritative source on military matters. They publish annual reports compiled by professionals for professionals - this information absolutely belongs on Wikipedia. Having two separate columns gives equal weight to all reliable sources, including university presses etc, it does not favor one over the other. As for Israel's nuclear weapons, I think it is best that the column primarily used the citation from the 'Federation of American Scientists', as this avoids WP:SYN and promotes consistency instead. However, I added a note to Israel mentioning that other reliable sources estimate as many as 60 to 400 weapons may be in service. I see no problem with this. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Firstly, all the citations (I have added), are reliable and authoritative sources, some of them arguably more authoritative than the IISS source. The IISS source certainly belongs on Wikipedia, but not ahead of the other sources, which is what adding a separate column for it indicates. There is no SYN here, since we are simply reporting what is contained in the sources. As for the suspected Israel estimates, Avner Cohen's book contains a table of estimates. As per WP:RS, we should report on the range of estimates, rather than cherry picking one estimate and reporting that. There is no justification for cherry picking one source - between equally reliable sources - except POV. Avaya1 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, both of our sources are reliable and both belong on the article. There is nothing wrong with two columns, especially if different reliable sources contradict one another - because it is not our place to determine which one is more accurate or more correct than the other. In fact, many articles do the same, for example see Israeli Air Force. they use three different columns for the three different reliable sources that give figures for in service aircraft. I absolutely disagree with your accusations of POV and would like for you to withdraw that statement please. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Avaya1, I am not going to edit war and we are both on the verge of breaking the 3RR. Lets both settle down and talk this out, perhaps we should invite the opinions of others too? Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason the two columns can't be reasonably combined using all the sourcing. IE India; Land-based[13], and probable air-launched[14]. Or Israel; Land-based and air-launched[21], Suspected nuclear triad[22]. I still think the column(s) inclusion opens up a discussion in the article about delivery mechanisms and their development. Then there's the whole Land/Air/Sea umbrella terms in dissection covering pad, road, rail, silo/cruise missile, gravity bomb/cruise missile, and SLBM which I don't even want to go there. Also since tactical warheads have their own delivery mechanisms, like torpedoes, etc. it might make some sense to label the column 'Current Strategic Delivery Mechanisms' or something like that. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merging the two columns into one does sound like a good idea. I think it would look better too. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Antiochus the Great, there's a sample of some different estimates on The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's bargain with the Bomb (Columbia University Press, 2010), Table 1, page xxvii. It's accessible through google books. There's a wide range of estimates, so we should include a range our the table. There's not going to be anything more reliable than such a range, which is likely to include whatever the real number is (of which numerous reliable sources are making different claims).Avaya1 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)
Total censorship of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.170 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Paranuclear / Nuclear Latency / Threshold Nuclear state
I have always heard this referred to as "Threshold state" or "Threshold weapons program" rather than latent or paranuclear. Is there a reference in the usual literature for the other terms?... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * How about this? I think latency is fairly common in the scholarly literature.  "Threshold" is used more in the policy arena, without definition. NPguy (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll let you guys decide what to call it. I'm more interested in seeing the page discuss the existence of such threshold states. There are states on the threshold possibly looking to cross it and those on the threshold looking to back away from it. 76.103.93.154 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I could see a brief cross-reference from this page to a separate article that addresses the issue. This article is intended to cover states that actually possess nuclear weapons.  The distinction you make between states moving toward or away from the threshold may be useful conceptually, but it is heavily subjective.  It is not clear to me that Iran is looking to cross the threshold and Brazil and Japan looking to back away, which entail judgments about intent.  All can be described as being at or near the threshold -- or having a high degree of latency -- in terms of having capabilities that could be used to produce nuclear weapons in a relatively short time. NPguy (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I somewhat agree, though perhaps not entirely. I only mention the idea as an additional alternative, considering the page also mentions nations that either formerly had them, but have since relinquished them, or are merely thought to have them. However, I do think there's at least a little difference between high latency and demonstrated interest, capability, and intent. I don't know if I could put Iran in the same category as, say, Jamaica. 76.103.93.154 (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel
The wording of the article on Israel is ridiculous Hasbara style. Not a single non-jewish expert assumes that Izzys do not have the bomb. For all practical matters, Izzys do have the bomb and fool no one with their laughable paltry wording of "opacity". if the below is not enough then no one can help the disinformants who wrote the wikipedia entry.

The entry on Izzy nukes amounts to disinformation. wikipedia does not aim at being an encyclopedia any longer. reclassified document ;-) from s.o. in the position to know. --91.60.138.163 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.iiss.org/-/media/Silos/Survival/2013/Survival--Global-Politics-and-Strategy-February-March-2013/55-1-02-Doyle/55-1-02-Doyle.pdf
 * http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=70546
 * http://www.thenation.com/blog/201369/what-about-israels-nuclear-bomb
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/israel-nuclear-weapons-secret-united-states/380237/
 * http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/israels-widely-suspected-unmentionables-11191
 * http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/31/15161/nuclear-weapons-lab-employee-fired-after-publishing-scathing-critique-arms-race
 * Agree. The charade is absurd.  It has been confirmed from so many sources, just not the Israeli government. Andynct (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Matter of fact, some jews came next to admitting it (Peres in DER SPIEGEL last week). Wikipedia is so pathetic. --91.60.159.44 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Furthermore: with the yellow color code Israel cannot even be made out on the map. That seems like a detail at first but in the broader picture fits perfectly the Israeli propaganda style. I've made a new map with colors red and yellow switched that works much better (last point being said by a professional graphic designer from a completely neutral way of judging the visual effectivity of this piece of information design). But I dare not change it because my knowledge of wikipedia and wikimedia commons seems to be limited at this point of time. Leave me a note here if you can and want to implement the freshly color coded map. --RLM (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole world knows about the existing israeli nukes, just wikipedia acts like such an ingenue. real sick. Kissinger 05:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zio jew (talk • contribs)

Canada
Canada should be listed a state that formerly had nuclear weapons, or else as a state formerly in a nuclear share agreement. As stated in the Canada and weapons of mass destruction article, Canada had nukes up until the 1984. Brianc26 (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That article is a mess. It confuses former deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons with Canadian possession of nuclear weapons.  Canada never possessed nuclear weapons.  The claims in that article  seem to be based on a single book, which is probably unreliable, biased, or misinterpreted by the editor who cited it.  There could be a mention of Canada under the nuclear sharing section as a country where U.S. nuclear weapons used to be deployed (assuming this is backed up by a reliable source). NPguy (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
Saudi political analyst claims in interview that the Saudis have had nuclear weapons for "a few years now":. Is this something that should be mentioned in the article? Esn (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I assume this is speculation or bluster.  And even if there were any truth to it we should wait for confirmation. NPguy (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of states with nuclear weapons. 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/20141217055823/http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2000_files/no_4/article/6a.htm to http://www.issi.org.pk/journal/2000_files/no_4/article/6a.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine
The recently added text on Ukraine seems too focused on the details of the territorial dispute over Crimea. I think the issue is covered sufficiently by the wikilink without the explanatory notes. The rest is beyond the scope and purpose of this article. I propose a single sentence along the following lines:
 * Despite Russia's subsequent and internationally disputed annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its 1994 decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.[95] NPguy (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Rwendland (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As in remove the two recently added footnotes? Agree with that. Footnote content can be moved appropriate pages if necessary. Baking Soda (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine
The recently added text on Ukraine seems too focused on the details of the territorial dispute over Crimea. I think the issue is covered sufficiently by the wikilink without the explanatory notes. The rest is beyond the scope and purpose of this article. I propose a single sentence along the following lines:
 * Despite Russia's subsequent and internationally disputed annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its 1994 decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.[95] NPguy (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Rwendland (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As in remove the two recently added footnotes? Agree with that. Footnote content can be moved appropriate pages if necessary. Baking Soda (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Canada?
Recently an IP editor has revised to assert that nuclear weapons are deployed in Canada, without providing citations. Is there anything to support this assertion? NPguy (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ask an Israeli, you shill.  126.65.226.77 (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, we need to cite WP:Reliable sources, rather than consult anyone's opinion. And please be WP:CIVIL to other editors, and refrain from personal attacks. Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

counterfactual statements by NPguy on Israel etc. / consensus building
From Archive 3: [...] Here's my suggestion for making more sense of all this: Have the primary map list only NPT nuclear weapon states, non-NPT states (all four have acknowledged or -- in the case of Israel -- assumed nuclear weapons), plus Iran (the only country credibly suspected of pursuing a nuclear weapons capability). [...] NPguy 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The truth is the exact opposite of npguys laughable claims: We know Israel has nukes, and we know Iran never got anywhere in any alleged "program" or never even strived for nukes in any meaningful way. We also know that Mossad produced the notorious "Iranian nuke laptop computer" which the US does not want to retrun to Iran, so Iran can verify the computer is either genuine or concocted by Mossad. But probably, when I download a photo of a nuke, some Israelis will suspect me to "pursue nuclear weapons capability" in doing so. The intellectual level of discussion is really very low here. 77.164.215.219 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is another on from Archive 4: "So how do you define consensus? If no one replies (and no one objects) is that good enough? NPguy (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"
 * Answer: No! You understand? That is not consensus, that is NOTHING. 77.164.215.219 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Let's calm down. A, Israel has nuclear weapons, and B, if the laptop was faked then Israel faked a complete viable nuclear weapon design, the admitted presence of the Russian scientist who developed the technology to the usable point, the test facility, several precise test methods, etc.  Attempting to convince us of A by denying B is nonsensical.  R-265 has a wide range of pit configurations for which the described details will function just fine in a medium yield (tens of Kt) nuclear device.
 * You didn't need to dig this much out of the archives to bring up your point, and ask for some more independent review. I don't pay as much detail attention to the WMD around the world articles as maybe I should nowadays, but you have attention.  I believe I spotted what you suggest we use as consensus phrasing in the middle of all that, but if you could concisely restate it, I would appreciate it.  Thank you.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 6 page archive is rather scattered, so the above summary is useful. Since so far no genuine consensus was reached, I support the "Israel is widely known to have nuclear weapons" phrasing. 49.241.152.42 (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

First sentence "8 states detonated nukes" (meaning: not Israel) is not borne out by source 1 given
= FAS is seemingly being used as a blanket source for all sorts of article statements not supported by. What FAS does say, though, is this:

"Although the Israeli government neither confirms nor denies that it possesses nuclear weapons, it is generally accepted by friend and foe alike that Israel is a nuclear-armed state and has been so for nearly half a century. The basis for this conclusion has been strengthened significantly since our previous estimate in 2002, particularly thanks to new documents obtained by scholars under the US Freedom of Information Act and other openly available sources. [...] We estimate that Israel has a stockpile of approximately 80 nuclear warheads for delivery by two dozen missiles, a couple of squadrons of aircraft, and perhaps a small number of sea-launched cruise missiles."

The src accepted by the article 10+ times has no doubt about the existence of Isr. nukes, so no necessity for a 'consensus' over there! If this is so, several editors committed vandalism and need to be banned as well. 49.241.152.42 (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

article headings: "they're there for a reason"
Which? You prepare to delete entries as censorship with those headers as "justification" ? 213.136.77.237 (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Any such comments may be removed or refactored." not to be found in other, similar templates. Very aggressive! --213.136.77.237 (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, the talk page headers. They're there to avoid other side conversations about other nuclear weapon topics or about the countries here.  That happened a lot in the further back past.  The current discussions about Israel's weapons and our description of it are entirely on topic.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Extend the exclusion of editors on this J. / Zio. / Israel matter for 5 more years
I don't mean to stifle debate - but on this talk page + article page the holcaust and J-Nukes are not treated in the proper manner, read our zionist pamphlets for guidance. I call for a ban of non-legit editors in order to maintain the old way of keeping this 'encyclopedia'. --93.143.146.203 (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Blanket bans like this are not issuable via RfCs and neither necessary nor wise here. Please calm down.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * So now there are two editors demanding censorship when IP editors questioned the neutrality of the article, which does not exist. Another tell-tale post by a "zionist". --14.171.66.81 (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page semi-protected for a week
This has not been acceptable behavior, crowd-of-linked-IP-addresses. As I noted, this page can and will be protected to prevent disruptive IP editing that contains personal attacks and other violations of Wikipedia policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Israel
The wording of the article on Israel is ridiculous Hasbara style. Not a single non-jewish expert assumes that Izzys do not have the bomb. For all practical matters, Izzys do have the bomb and fool no one with their laughable paltry wording of "opacity". if the below is not enough then no one can help the disinformants who wrote the wikipedia entry.

The entry on Izzy nukes amounts to disinformation. wikipedia does not aim at being an encyclopedia any longer. reclassified document ;-) from s.o. in the position to know. --91.60.138.163 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.iiss.org/-/media/Silos/Survival/2013/Survival--Global-Politics-and-Strategy-February-March-2013/55-1-02-Doyle/55-1-02-Doyle.pdf
 * http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=70546
 * http://www.thenation.com/blog/201369/what-about-israels-nuclear-bomb
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/israel-nuclear-weapons-secret-united-states/380237/
 * http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/israels-widely-suspected-unmentionables-11191
 * http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/31/15161/nuclear-weapons-lab-employee-fired-after-publishing-scathing-critique-arms-race
 * Agree. The charade is absurd.  It has been confirmed from so many sources, just not the Israeli government. Andynct (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Matter of fact, some jews came next to admitting it (Peres in DER SPIEGEL last week). Wikipedia is so pathetic. --91.60.159.44 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Furthermore: with the yellow color code Israel cannot even be made out on the map. That seems like a detail at first but in the broader picture fits perfectly the Israeli propaganda style. I've made a new map with colors red and yellow switched that works much better (last point being said by a professional graphic designer from a completely neutral way of judging the visual effectivity of this piece of information design). But I dare not change it because my knowledge of wikipedia and wikimedia commons seems to be limited at this point of time. Leave me a note here if you can and want to implement the freshly color coded map. --RLM (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole world knows about the existing israeli nukes, just wikipedia acts like such an ingenue. real sick. Kissinger 05:02, 21 December 2015 by Zio jew (talk • contribs) '''

—Taken from Archive 6, section 16 "Israel" of 2015. Nothing at all has changed since then. This amounts to a disinformation campaign by the side of wikipedia. 213.152.161.69 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Nothing at all has changed"? Guess why... A certain "party" has imposed a blanket ban on a broad range of articles where there are "special" ban powers to censor anything which relatively new editors could contribute. Yet, formally, they ask everyone to be "welcoming to new users". Yeah! Welcome them with an immediate ban unless they tow the line of ...  you know whose! 94.29.124.238 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

The WP hypocrisy about the existing Israeli nukes boggles the mind. Even the German wikipedia (GER "sharing" U.S. nukes) states clearly and truthfully that Israel is a "de-facto nuclear weapons state". So the English speaking world is being kept in the dark by this online "encyclopedia", so-called? Quite telling! 60.86.245.141 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What changes do you propose, to improve the article? Wikishovel (talk) 08:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously: Those Israeli nuke deniers do not have a reasonable argument. So what is next? Given the double standards on wikipedia when it comes to jewish matters, one might as well argue: "Since Hitler never confirmed nor denied the holocaust, we should consider the holocaust an open question, much like the Israeli nukes." Will all those nuke deniers follow this line? If they apply the same logic to all their thinking, they will have to. 218.46.133.40 (talk) 12:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed at length here already (please see the archive to the right), and the WP:Consensus reached was that the article should be worded that Israel is "widely believed" to have nuclear weapons. I think they have them, but my opinion doesn't matter: we need to WP:Verify what we write here, not just post up what we believe to be true. If you have new information from WP:Reliable sources proving that they have nuclear weapons, please cite them, get consensus for a change, and the article will be amended accordingly. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As s.o. pointed out earlier, the ominous "consensus discussion" is hard to find in the archive, if it even exists. If I apply your method to the holocaust, you would argue: "I believe the holocaust happened, but there is no consensus with David Irving and also no single hard proof, so wikipedia cannot state whether or not the holocaust did happen or not." The aggregate weight of all material on irmep.org amounts to overwhelming evidence positively proving that Isr. has nukes. Non-confirmation by Isr. gov. means nothing at all, it carries no weight whatsoever, they could simply be liars, like so many other governments. 95.90.197.45 (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at this mindboggling statement that supports shovel's denier attitude: From Archive 3 on Isr.:
 * "Israel is still an undeclared nuclear state. Until that officially changes then that's how it is categorized. --Fastfission 02:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"
 * By the same token, wikipedia should declare the holocaust as "widely believed to actually have happened" unless an official statement by Hitler to the contrary is dug up. What a nonsensical methodology! Hypocrisy to the MAX. ! 95.90.197.45 (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have not read a single argument by the nuke deniers that made much sense if any. Did any of those deniers ever bother to write up a dossier and leak it to the CIA? They could make huge money proving CIA be totally wrong on WMD again. Noteworthy, that other languages have long since stopped misleading WP users and make it clear that Israel does have nukes, as we all know anyway. 77.164.215.219 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * When you use Holocaust denial in an argument unrelated to it you lose. There is no evidence beyond hearsay that Israel posses nukes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabian claims nuke posession
Saudi political analyst claims in interview that the Saudis have had nuclear weapons for "a few years now": [8]. Is this something that should be mentioned in the article? Esn (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I assume this is speculation or bluster. And even if there were any truth to it we should wait for confirmation. NPguy (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (taken from latest archive ) Well why the double standards, NPguy? If Israeli bombmakers claim they know nothing you buy it offhand? When there is overwhelming proof that Iraeli nukes exist since 1966 you see "no confirmation" ? If an Israeli official says something it never is "bluster"? You do not seem very encyclopedically minded. 91.231.84.41 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

There are far too many sources now confirming purchase of a nukes from Pakistan. Also the SA military is converting its bombers to be nuke capable, so leaving them out of the club seems to be shenanigans. at best there should be acknowledgment of the SA Nuke program and side deals with Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.72.30 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This clearly is more plausible than the "holow nuke denial" put on display by "Israel". 180.59.170.41 (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any RS saying this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: "Israel is widely believed to have [nukes]" - Challenge of alleged "consensus"
Somewhere on talk archive pages 1 ... 6 there is said to be a "lengthy" discussion resulting in a "consensus" to the effect that the articles wording "widely believed" is proper. Does anyone have a link to that section? I fail to see any reasonable argument that would support such an ambiguous statement at a time when positive proof of Isr. nukes is provided by WP sources (e.g. www.irmep.org).

Wikipedia should also stay clear of any possible zionist / Israeli untruthful propaganda and be neutral and objective instead. The English article should at least be as clear as the German language articles, which refer to Isr. as a "de facto nuclear weapons state". The wording "Israel is widely known to have nuclear bombs" would achieve the same goal.

Failing all that we should apply that same logic to other subject matters as well, which might lead to a rewording of the holocaust article in a similarly ambiguous fashion as this nukes article. 77.164.215.219 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We must not cherrypick the methods of analysis across various subjects. NP-guy and others insisted that WP counterfactually states that there is nothing more than a belief system that considers Israel's nukes as reality. Any zionist shill would do the exact same thing. Where it breaks down, of course, is where those exact same people accept as proof anything that drives up inflated "statistics" about the holocaus. WP is easy to refute by just putting it's standards and methodologies to the test, comparing hypotheses on Israel nukes alongside hypotheses on the holocaus. Surprised? 94.29.124.238 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are going beyond debating the content and are attacking NPguy as a person, and starting to make more generically antisemtic comments. That is not OK.  Please stay focused on nuclear weapons.
 * Also, the ongoing pulling of 10 year old comments out of talk archives is not OK either. Wikipedia standards have shifted and come to be more regular in the intervening time.  Those comments tell a story, but are not useful outside the context of understanding how Wikipedia came to be what it is.
 * You had a good point that the language about Israel needed work. It's been worked on some.  If you're going to try and turn this into an attack on NPguy or Israel or denialism of the holocaust that's going to end  your useful participation here.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My oh my, the antisemitism buzzword came up in a rather predictable fashion. Can you source that? I see no anti-sem. here at all! In fact, I quite like the original idea of having an identical set of instruments of analysis applied to the holo-cause hypothesis as well as the israel-nuke hypothesis.


 * I mean, just PICTURE - for the sake of argument - what would the jewish have to have done for 50 years, if in fact they never HAD nukes! That means, they have set up the biggest lie in history to fool all those scholars and academics - just for a jewish giggle ? I mean, come on ! Give me a plausible line where there are no j-nukes. Would sure be quite an entertaining fantasy !  --118.100.206.205 (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have deliberately avoided responding to this extended personal attack and frequently antisemitic rant. But I do want to make one comment and ask one question about Wikipedia policy.
 * First, the question. When do comments on the talk page cross the line such that they should be deleted?  It strikes me that many of the recent attacks do cross that line, not just as attacks but also for reorganizing the discussion and changing the context of past comments by others.
 * Second, the comment. I do not object to the changed formulation about Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, if that is the consensus now.  But I would like to recall my primary reason for objecting to expressing it that way in the past: Israel is different from the other states listed in that it does not formally acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons.  Also, using "known" in the lede now appears to contradict "believed" in the later section heading.  My suggestion would be to make the two more consistent but include a caveat in both places along the lines of "but not officially confirmed/acknowledged." NPguy (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * please elaborate: where do you see anti-semitism? Can the truth on nukes be anti-semitic? Frankly, I don't expect an answer from s.o. like you.


 * medias res: #1 acknowledgement from Isr. does not make any significant difference at all. Why should it? Another non-argument of yours. Then your "contradiction" argument carries zero weight, as across WP, the "believed" line would contradict even more articles. You just fail to see the whole picture.


 * --14.171.66.81 (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * NPguy, you are fighting a lost battle. All across WP, in various languages other than English, WP trumpets the truth about Israle nuke possession, and of course you know that full well. Yet you run your non-legit Isral advocacy campaign like as if it was 1941.


 * Also, why would George William Herbert see any attack on Isral on this talk page? Just give me the line, please! I mean, even FAS, being quoted 13 times, specifically point out the disingenuous approach taken by those parties with vested interests. We MUST keep up WP neutrality and not turn this into a "jew shtick". --190.163.120.167 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd suggest the compromise 'probable' over believed. However I have reservations in even participating in talk of changes organized so spontaneously by IP users. This usually stinks of a single user with an ax to grind and sock puppetry. That's my 2 cents. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Also the first sentence could contain the qualifier 'confirmed'... Doyna Yar (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I kind of recognize your style of 'discussion', let's call it that - for the sake of argument. It smacks of meating/socking big time. My 2 €uroCents. --95.90.197.45 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I rest my case, I leave this to the hands of 'real' editors to clean up. I have long held that IP editors should be curtailed in wikipedia. You can't come out from your anonymity to play, go away. Doyna Yar (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Oh, and cash your €uroCents in at the Bank of England.... god I need a drink. Later- Doyna Yar (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I made NP's suggested edits. To the IP editors - If the level of civil conversation does not return here, you are collectively disrupting not adding to the conversation, and as an administrator I can protect the page so you will have to create accounts and log in to edit.  This is a second warning after my note above.  I will not make a third warning, if the various antisemitic and personal attacks continue this page will just be protected.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * GeorgeWilliamHerbert, don't bother with "warnings". If censors want to disrupt WP editing by censorship, they always did it with or without reason. You seem to suggest that if doyna accuses s.o. of socking, that is fine, when another one accuses doyna of the same that is disruptive. Very persuasive ;-)


 * As I wrote below, your last edit on NpGuy's behest omits the fact that Israel did not DENY possession of nuclear weapons. This indirectly could be an important indicator that they indeed have nukes. --186.90.79.44 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong evidence of Isr. nukes is the fact that they evidently (source: irmep.org) spent huge amounts of money on their Jericho nuke missiles. If Jerichos were conventional rockets, it would not be in proportion to their low payload and military value, suggesting the true nature of the Jericho as nuclear armed rockets in need of extra testing asf.. 93.107.64.52 (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * NPguy did 5% of the article edits, many of low quality. Consider this:
 * npguy now gives as reason: " "believed" is appropriate since Israel does not acknowledge", when the choice was between:

Other states with  declared nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea) States with undeclared nuclear weapons (Israel)

vs.

Other states with            nuclear weapons (India, Pakistan, North Korea) Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)


 * If npguy's method was correct, then the holocaust must be redeclared as "the holocaust believed to have happened" since no official acknowledgement by the side of Hitler does exist either. WP cannot allow double standards for proof-finding but must adhere to one coherent methodology applied evenly. 93.107.64.52 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Scientific method either works or is a fraud. The so-called holocast research often times is non-permissible hearsay from one jew to another jew. Do they use a different method when it comes to those nukes ? RfC !      --5.15.84.70 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter as source for new numbers for Israel
(from archive #6) It seems strange to change the numbers here based on an offhand comment by former U.S. President Carter when the careful scholarly analyses used elsewhere in this article include different, generally lower numbers. Views? NPguy (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For one, it is hardly surprising that you fail to mention the crucial things: Both Pres. Carter and the Isr. government are in a position to know whether or not there are indeed nukes. Politicians are not always truthful, but given Carter's critical stance on the zionist occupation, many assume that Carter's statement was accurate at the time, including researcher Grant F. Smith. Many scholars will not have had access to secret info, but Carter as POTUS had, which is why his statement carries more weight. 183.86.100.119 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Link please, you saying he said it is not proof he did.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Olmert's admission of nuke possession - in his own words
Mr Olmert let slip during an interview in Germany that Israel did indeed have weapons of mass destruction. He told Germany's Sat.1 channel [2006]:

"Iran, openly, explicitly and publicly, threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel and Russia?"


 * So Olmert sure knows whether or not those nukes exist and he talks about it, as Jimmy Carter did. Draw your own conclusions. 183.86.100.119 (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We can say "Olmert stated that israle is a nucelar nation".Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Widely believed"
(from archive #5 : ) A well-meaning user wanted us to clarify who "widely believes" that Israel has the bomb. It's such a wide list that I really don't see any better way to do it than "widely believed." Saying any specific "believer" isn't really going to cut it — it isn't a belief rooted in one agency, country, or author. I think the section on the Israeli bomb is already pretty good about establishing why basically all informed people on this topic think this is the case, but I thought I ought to just put it out there.

"Widely believed" here really means what it says; it isn't being used as a weasel word. It's just meant to indicate that Israel has never confirmed or denied this, or tested. If someone can convey that artfully in better language, I invite them to, but trying to list out who believes this is not going to be the right solution. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Israeli nukes are pretty much the definition of an 'open secret'. If they don't have 'em it's the biggest bluff in history :) Doyna Yar (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * They got 'em in 1976 and a CIA operative "accidentally" mentioned it during a speech. Shortly after that, Sadat signed the Camp David peace accords. Linuxgal (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are chasing a red herring. Truth is: It is widely known, not widely " believed ". In fact, unlike Mr 98 posits, the section on the Israeli bomb is pretty abysmal in representing facts, which is exactly how the Israeli government likes it. WP seems to have joined the Israeli disinformation campaign for many years now. Time to stop that and make WP an encyclopedia again. 95.90.197.45 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

 * I am an IP editor and hence banned from the article for many months for no reason. Nevertheless, we all know that the newly made phrasing "Isreal has not acknowledged nukes" in the 1st. paragraph omits the fact that I. has not DENIED the nukes either, which - as we know - does make a difference. Why the poor quality again? --118.100.206.205 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

(from archive 6)

Total censorship of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.170 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. All matters jewish are highly politicized and the Israeli government is very interested in keeping the truth about their nukes a secret. In order to achieve that, it is safe to assume that they pay many "Hasbara trolls" to run a misinformation campaign in the media and to do unfair administration in forums etc.. 183.86.100.119 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What strikes me about the J-nukes is how the VELA satellite pickup of the "double blast" (Israel's nuke test near South-Africa) is downplayed on WP. This satellite was a purpose-designed sat to monitor nuke tests. The test was timed & placed such that ordinarily, no sat would cover the area... except a "retired" one. Noteworthy, is it not? --110.168.5.163 (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

definition: "Consensus"
from Archive 4: "So how do you define consensus? If no one replies (and no one objects) is that good enough? NPguy (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)"
 * Answer: No! You understand? That is not consensus, that is NOTHING. 77.164.215.219 (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Npguy 's method is unacceptable. 183.86.100.119 (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * npguy is wrongheaded here. --213.136.77.237 (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude..., where are we here ? NP-guy as WP editor-in-chief , with himself being the ban judge against all potential opposition ? Sounds like "WP as ..."  --193.238.111.66 (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Article's Neutrality questioned
" Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda [is not allowed]. "

A neutral observer would say which countries possess nukes and count in Israel. A propagandist or Isr. advocat would try to downplay the possession issue, claiming there are mere "conflicting beliefs" asf.. To not appear as a propagandist, such editors (NPguy?) should refrain from actually stating that WP is "in line with Isr. gov. parlance" and consider that a good thing. Quite to the contrary. The often quoted FAS source clearly states that this nuke issue is being dealt with disingenuously, and scientists should disbelief gov. statements ("grain of salt"). --1.55.167.183 (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * article edit: add "has not acknowledged" to Israel per NPguy suggestion on talkpage
 * Why is np-guy always omitting the fact that Israel never DENIED possession of nukes either? It is very important! It means, they try to avoid lying, in case those nukes are actually found. --186.90.79.44 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

vandalism by Iphone4 hateparents
the editor "Iphone4 hateparents" should be banned for vandalism immediately. RfC ! --37.18.253.152 (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more. --190.163.120.167 (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please relax. I have restored "known" along with 5 secondary and one primary source. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Other editors were banned from contributing, so why not ban that vandal "Iphone4..." ? I vote: PRO BAN !  --123.1.37.94 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I vote: pro ban, also. --186.90.79.44 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC: proof of meating ?
What is the consensus on Npguy / Georgewilliamherbert meat-socking going on? Look: "I didn't log in over the weekend but saw your comments. 1) Refactored and made the lede and Israel subsections consistent, and with your suggested "has not acknowledged" wording (feel free to tweak if you have improvements). 2) regarding the antisemitism and personal attacks, I am going to semiprotect the talk page if they keep it up. The varied IPs are almost certainly collaborating and you can guess at where from if you look at the list of locations. If I have to semiprotect I'll collapse the hostile conversations under an archive header. The worst individual posts were only somewhat over the line, but the collection is at the point action is justified. I'm warning rather than immediately acting, but... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)"    --112.204.24.173 (talk) 05:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Gotta be a case "meating" !


 * 'you can guess at where from if you look at the list of locations.' --  so which are those locations? mossad HQ in Israel proper ?    --5.15.84.70 (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

take it elsewhere
The IP's may have a point, as this is not the Holocaust page it is not for us to discus it here, this is about nucelar weapons. I suggest they take such concerns to the Holocaust pageSlatersteven (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Guess the IP groupies never heard of ambiguity
I'd like to ask for a consensus to limit IP users/editors to this page and it's talk section as it seems to be an orchestrated attack on the content and it's editors. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Only to a zionist can the truth be an attack. Israel either has nukes or not. There is nothing in between. We all know they have nukes. Saying the obvious is not an attack but a truthful report. We must protect this page from zionist advocates like seemingly the 2 editors above. RfC / R-f-consensus !


 * Beyond that, many of the best contribs on WP are from IP editors. Frustrating those as doyna suggests is a sordid attack on WP democracy.


 * --186.90.79.44 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * since ₪ Doyna ₪ hates IP people so much, I just tweeted this conversation to some more ♥ people, so they may chime in at some point... don't be surprised, eh ? ;-)   --115.84.189.168 (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't be surprised at a ban then.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC : limit non-IP editors on article & talk
I'd like to ask for a consensus to limit non-IP users/editors on this page and it's talk section as it seems to be an orchestrated attack on the content and it's IP-editors by people like Doyna, GWH, npguy etc.. The good people of WP, i.e. the IP editors, are being defamed, what a shame!

Mind you, I maintain a deliberate policy of ambiguity as to whether or not I contributed to the article earlier under a different IP, which is fair enough since using an IP never does implicate a certain personal ID. I neither confirm nor deny that I edited the article / talkpage with a different IP. Just so you know and don't concoct the sock/meat stuff against me. --180.183.136.186 (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can create an account.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen bombs
After some Indians guys that have put here in the English version of Countries with Nuclear weapons, India as a country that possess H Bombs, The Indian source are highly questionable. Western and Specially Americans Believe that India has tested Only a simple nuclear weapon in the Shakti Test. -Mark Hibbs, writes at Nucleonics week ”India May Test Again Because H-Bomb Failed, U.S. Believes,” (26 November 1998) again him talks  “Because H-Bomb Fuel Didn’t Burn, Iyengar Pleads for Second Test,” Nucleonics Week (1 June 2000) -Gregory van der Vink writes, about the supposed Indian H  Bomb “False Accusations, Undetected Tests and Implications for the CTB Treaty,” Arms Control Today (May 1998). -Terry C. Wallace talks only of a" Nuclear Test" “  India and Pakistan Nuclear Tests,”  (September 1998) as well Journals like  The "Washington Post" talk of doubters test or Failed test  .--LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * LuigiPortaro29, The references you post here are about more than 15 years old. There has been talks about India and thermonuclear weapons in the recent past. Here are some recent references from neutral sources:


 * 1) Center for Public Integrity (Washington DC based Non Profit institution). Reference -
 * 2) Foreign Policy in Focus - A US based think-thank. Reference -
 * 3) A research paper from ISIS(a US-based think-thank) -
 * It is very important to note that, in recent times the debate has been on the actual yield of the thermonuclear test not the fact that it India does not have it. Some experts in the West have doubted the Indian yield claim based on what they believe was sub-optimal performance for a thermonuclear weapon. This reference gives some explanation as to why the assessment of the experts was not founded or disputed by Indian scientists. At best based on these doubts, you can claim that India has thermonuclear capability but the max yield of that bomb could be disputed. If I remember correctly, that column states the possession of thermonuclear weapons not what the yield was and there is no world prescribed yield range to fit into this category. One can also argue that the column in that table(which was added recently) does not belong here and thus should be removed since there is another page dedicated to thermonuclear weapons.
 * Important Note : Please refrain from attacks/uncivil language by using the word "Indian guys". We are all on Wikipedia to contribute knowledge so let's try to be civil. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

well my friend, all references that you had cited are equal with the years that I have cited too, in those documents in fact they speak of a "presumption" or " they will have ",  Your resources talk about presumptions, and you're right since here on wikipedia  there no a page that talk about deeper articles about H Bombs, it is very difficult to agree that India have H Bombs(also because doesn't exist an official Comunicate that India have them).Specially I have noted that the statement of Mark Hibbs hasn't changed it and there no a declaration of him or Gregory van der Vink or Terry C. Wallace, etc I noted also that Mark Hibbs is very active in " Arms Control Wonk " this Page of prominent Importance is Founded by Jeffrey Lewis an American expert in nuclear nonproliferation and geopolitics, currently an Adjunct Professor at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (otherwise known as the CNS) at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, and director of the CNS East Asia Nonproliferation Program. Mark Hibbs and others haven't yet declared that India have an H bomb Kinda B61 or RDS-220. well after this discussion, we can agree that India is "Suspected" to have them. well, I didn't wanted to offend if I did I am sorry. some times is good calling us for our Nationality.-- LuigiPortaro29 (talk)22:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion to summarize the discussion, this answer is not binary. Saying either "No" and "Yes" will not be correct since the answer is somewhere in the middle. I propose removing that column since it does not belong here anyways. Thermonuclear weapon article covers this topic adequately. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the column should be removed. Doyna Yar (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with you my Friend! You're right is not be correct since the answer is somewhere in the middle "Yes or Not" there no a good explanation, I suggest also to delete it ! -- LuigiPortaro29 (talk)18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Israle and nukes
To be fair to these IP's it does rather look like they do, and everyone knows it.



The problem is they have never "officially" admitted it. It makes dealing with it here problematic and fraught with potential POV issues.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Israel clearly has nuclear weapons; if there had been any doubt, this was definitively removed thirty years ago by Mordechai Vanunu. But the IPs' attempts to establish this have been undermined by their repeated antisemitic comments, including apparent holocaust denial, gratuitous references to shekels, and use of the term "j-nukes". Any attempt to make this about Jews, rather than about Israel, should be resisted so that we can consider the issue on its own merits. RolandR (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I half agree, I did not think that putting a valid idea badly should invalidate it, but I do think their style undermined their argument (as I said). If it is a known fact Israel has nukes the article should say that.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does. It used to say "widely believed" and now says "widely known" both in the lede and subsection, although we caveat that with the lack of admission / deliberate ambiguity policy.  The IP's underlying point was acknowledged and acted upon.  The ongoing disruption despite having made and had enacted their content point suggests that something beyond just that may have been in play.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The only thing undermined here is the credibility of RolandR. The nowhere to be found alleged anti-semitism is a non starter and does in no way lessen the gravity of the arguments brought forth which prove "Israles" factual possession of nukes. The vandalism performed on this page in order to suppress these facts are further evidence hinting at that very possession. We should resist the vandalism which tries to muddy the water and claims there can can be reasonable doubts about those existing nukes of Israel. --46.100.43.81 (talk) 13:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This IP has clearly not read my comments above. In any case, IPs are precluded from editing this, or any article relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Block revert
Can someone with block revert privileges undo all the recent edits, as they are very odd.Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC) Also then table now seems really mucked up (tried to revert his edit and it has just made things worse).Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The latest edits are based on the most recent Federation of American Scientists estimates (considered the most reliable estimates) which the citation is linked to. Please do not revert to outdated estimates.
 * So according to them India has more nukes then Russia?Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also you need to update the source then, as the claim is sourced to an older addition of the FAS page. At this time the article and the source says different things.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * , We have always used SIPRI as a source in the past and these numbers have more or less agreed with estimates from other independent agencies. I am not sure how FAS gets these number but I am inclined to agree with your edits. The editor making these changes should explain his/her updates. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a vandal/troll who swapped India and Russia nuclear weapon numbers. FAS has always been the primary source for the nuclear weapon numbers and is considered reliable according to many experts. Their estimates are also carefully explained in reports. You can go years back in the history. FAS has recently updated their 2017 estimates. SIPRI more or less aligns with their figures but are slightly outdated.

At this point, how reliable is a source that gives two separate figures for China?Slatersteven (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of states with nuclear weapons. 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://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/10-05-03_Fact_Sheet_US_Nuclear_Transparency__FINAL_w_Date.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef%26f/database/nukearsenals.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910011419/http://www.indianexpress.com/story/356926.html to http://www.indianexpress.com/story/356926.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150429192508/http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html to http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countries/israel/nuke.html

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) 15:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear latency
Should there be a section or mention on nuclear latent states including Australia, Canada, Japan, Germany, and The Netherlands? Doyna Yar (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No. There's a long history of disputes on this article about just that issue.  Better to make that a separate article. NPguy (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the case, there are countries already listed on the Page.--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Italy
As far as I can tell sulatestagiannilannes.blogspot.it is a blog, I do not have to be able to read Italian to see that, thus is is not RS.

notizie.tiscali.it does not seem to say anything other then Italy stores other nations nukes, I can see nothing about the Italian navy or La Spezia (I do not need to be able to read Italian to see a place name, in Italian).Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

All sources are reliable .That's not a spot but a newspaper.Tiscali reports former Italian President speaking,so respect Him.In La Spezia is the Italian Navy arsenal as reported by related article.There are Parliament acts and former Italian President speaking too about italian nuclear military system.There are newspapers news and a book where is reported support for nuclear research for nuclear weapons by main italian people in the sector.The are many other references to set if you like.There are more reliable references for this writing about Italy than for other states that aren't neither officially declared and published as owning nukes in this article.Italy have had a nuclear military propgram and the title is totally right;even the Defence Minister of Italy Luigi Gui in 1969 didn't deny the development of nuclear weapons in Italy and this is the official Italian Parliament Acts that i reported in reference.I never  edit that Italy has or hasn't its own nukes.All is covered by statal secret as former Italian President  Francesco Cossiga declares.Then people can think about italian nuclear reasearch results as they like .Are you prevented towards Italy?Benniejets (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would provide the quote whee anyone mentions La Spezia? Ohh and this ". Today Italy is officially a NATO nuclear weapons sharing state but it's common belief in the country that it stores its own nuclear weapons in La Spezia Italian Navy arsenal." is saying that it is believed they have their own nuclear arsenal. And I did not say Tiscali is a blog (but it is not a newspaper, it is a telecommunications company, a web hoster), I said sulatestagiannilannes.blogspot.it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Tiscali a news site from Sardinia.I will post more but then refrein or you are anti italian.Benniejets (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it, all I can fins is this Tiscali, nothing about it being a news site, just a provider of web portals (I.E,. is does verify stories it just publishes them). Thus it may well fail RS..Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have started a thread at RSN about TISCALI.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Tiscali is a known news company and also telecom company based in Sardinia (Sossiga was from Sardinia).Now all is clean as you asked.Now stop.Time to dinner.Benniejets (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Italy did not have nuclear weapons. This has been discussed in the past and laid to rest.  Please leave it alone. NPguy (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Who are you to be so sure and aggressive towards me?Read reliable sources insted of acting so. Benniejets (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets try this another way.
 * What is the title of this article?
 * Can you provide a quote from any sources that says Italy developed a bomb?Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * @Benniejets- there isn't even a "Italy and Weapons of Mass Destruction" article. Maybe you could start that with something we could all agree on, like Il Duce gassing Ethiopians in 1935. Can you appreciate how annoying it is when someone with a cheer-leading nationalist agenda decides to impose their world view over the objective consensus of editors who have been involved with these articles for years? The back and forth and edit-warring gives me a nosebleed. This is at least the third time I've seen this nonsense on just this page in the past few years, though usually with IP sock puppets. Go away and find credible sources for your suppositions on this and the other pages you've stepped all over, then come back and present those on their relevant talk pages. That's my opinion and what I suggest, unless you want to move on to claim Italy landed a man on the moon or something ;) Doyna Yar (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand Italian well and I can see that the name of La Spezia doesn't appear on the tiscali page. the next time  please  show reliable sources!--AlfaRocket (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

New statistics and states with nuclear programs
As I wrote on 's talk page yesterday:

"I see you reverted be edit on 'List of countries with nuclear weapons'.

First of all, my edits weren't only adding info about states that developed nukes, I also updated stats and you rolled back all edits.

Second of all, if the article is only about states that possess nukes as you claim, then why are countries who used to possess them included? Also, there is no article named "List of countries with nuclear weapons programs", so it's only logical for it to be a section of this article then.

Reinstating my edits now – please do not roll back without explaining why my arguments above are invalid."

Since you keep reverting my edits, I thought I'd post my explanations here and see if I'll get an answer this time. Dank Chicken (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between countries which "were developing" nuclear weapons vs countries which "had developed" nuclear weapons. This page covers the latter context. You cannot justify that since a page does not exist than it should be added here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, neither Belarus, Kazakhstan, nor Ukraine have developed nukes. They just had them shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and then gave them back to Russia. So if that's enough to be mentioned, then actually having extensive nuclear programs are definitely enough to be mentioned. Dank Chicken (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The absence of a "List of countries with nuclear weapons programs" page doesn't prevent you from starting one. And I would imagine the former soviet states were part of the soviet nuclear program. Following your logic on them opens a slippery slope to list any state where nukes were historically deployed, another idea for a separate page. Doyna Yar (talk) 19:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The distinction is actually quite simple: states that possessed nuclear weapons are included here. States that sought to possess them are not. NPguy (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Statistics and force configuration graph
The graph is misleading in that it combines all retired, stockpiled, and deployed weapons that are clearly separated giving much better context in the original FAS table here; https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Inventories2017-2.png The date of the data should also be included in it's description.Doyna Yar (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi I agree with your point that the graph in it's current format does not correctly represent the number of deployed nuclear weapons. But the reason I think keeping a chart is useful for pictorial representation purposes where a reader can look at it and understand the relative sizes of the nuclear arsenals. Perhaps a better edit here would be to update the chart with only the deployed numbers and moves the other numbers (cold storage) down to the table. What do you think about this? Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Chart differentiating retired, stockpiled, and deployed weapons included via Timeline template, just as the one in the source. WisdomTooth3 (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edits. Can you please change one thing at a time and not change the order of images, graphs, table. If you wish to do that, discuss here first. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of states with nuclear weapons. 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/20090102210432/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/ to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/Nuclear/

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) 20:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

list of lost nukes ?
it is here any list of lost nukes/accidents involving nukes ? 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:80C:4E61:B1C4:5056 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No we do not have one at this time in the article.Slatersteven (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)