Template talk:Nuclear weapons

New template
I based this on the "Nuclear weaponry" section in the WMD template, with some rephrasing and re-arrangement (the other one didn't seem to be arranged in any particular order). I opted for a picture of the Fat Man bomb at the top because I thought it summed up a number of the key issues very well, being serious and important and historically relevant without being as sensationalistic as a fireball/mushroom cloud image (which I personally think is an over-used motif, visually speaking). But other thoughts and approaches are appreciated. --Fastfission 21:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

South Africa
South Africa, as a former first-tier nuclear power, should be noted in the template, no? --70.48.240.99 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As South Africa currently is certainly no nuclear weapon state, I would opt to exclude it from the box. The box should represent a quick overview of nuclear weapons states, and South Africa is not one of them. Moreoever, also countries such as Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus possessed nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union fell apart, but gave them up (as independent nations). They would have to be excluded as well.


 * South Africa should not be excluded as they have actually developed nuclear weapons themselves (albeit with help), and may in the future develop more nuclear weapons if politics dictates. Countries such as Belarus and Kazakhstan only inhertited nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, they didn't develop those weapons themselves as states, and currently cannot develop nuclear weapons if they wanted to.Sefog 15:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think they ought to be excluded from the category Nuclear Weapons States, if only because after going to a lot of trouble to surrepitiously develop nuclear weapons, they went to a lot of trouble to divest themselves of them. That is a decision that should be respected and reflected in the list. loupgarous 09:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that South Africa should be included in this template but there should be some recognition that is different than the other states on the list. This was done begining with this | 23 November 2007 edit and ending with this | 24 March 2009 edit. On the left I have included two versions of a portion of the template that differentiate South Africa. The first template uses a symbol\footnote and the second (the version used for 16 months) uses a pair of parentheses. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spacing
This template doesn't seem to end correctly. See User:MrZaius/sandbox/Templates. Using the following code, this template throws off the spacing of other infoboxes that follow immediately afterwards. Ideas on a quick fix? MrZaius talk  07:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Israel
If no one minds, I'm going to change the Israel link from Israel and weapons of mass destruction to the newly created Nuclear weapons and Israel, as this seems to be the precedent. Joshdboz 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think that, in order to keep Wikipedia impartial, Israel should not be included in the first "Nuclear States" box. Israel has not stated that it has nuclear weapons (the other residents of the box have) and so it would perhaps be speculative to suggest otherwise. It could also perhaps simply be italicized or suffixed with "(disputed)". Ezsandler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezsandler (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Israel definitely SHOULD be included as a nuclear state. No serious doubt exists among authorities on nuclear weapons proliferation that Israel joined the nuclear weapons club sometime in the late 1960s.  That they choose "opacity" (their term) in refusing to acknowledge or deny their nuclear weapons status is immaterial; evidence exists ranging from first-hand accounts of former employees at their plutonium production facility at Dimona to detection by Vela and other DSP satellites and radiological studies after one of their tests in the South Atlantic that Israel has nuclear weapons and has tested them.loupgarous (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

States versus Countries
I would like to discuss the term "States" versus "Countries".

A recent revert of an edit of mine (for clarification of detail) by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Night_Gyr has made me question the use of the term states, are Russia, US, France India, Pakistan etc. not countries???

If you were referring to individual states within the United States of America or, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, then I would have left the text as is, however I would like some clarification on this, what does everyone else think? If there is a consensus either way, I will adjust the text accordingly. --Read-write-services 23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * okay, I clarified the meaning by some research, the correct term is Nuclear Weapons States--Read-write-services 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"countries" has a sloppier definition. States is concise, widely-understood and pretty standard. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The new term is better.--Read-write-services 06:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * not to mention that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state (and a Nuclear Weapons State) which encompasses three countries and six counties of another country. Just thought I'd throw THAT in.loupgarous (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

North Korea
Someone just edited the link to the article on North Korea's nuclear weapons to have it say "North Korea does not have nuclear weapons". Before you edit again, please see North Korea and weapons of mass destruction. North Korea has itself stated to have nuclear weapons and there are indications that they indeed have nukes. Stefan Kruithof (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 124.51.199.58 (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC) But it is wrong because South Korea is giving money to North Korea to help its people who are starving to death. But they don't help their people, and instead make nuclear weapons with the money given.

too cluttered
sorry, this is too cluttered and serves no purpose. templates are not substitutes for categories. we don't need separate template links to first strike, second strike, fallout shelter, blast shelter, etc. there needs to be some overarching thinking about the organization or else it just becomes a list of purposeless links. I got rid of the endlessly growing sections, added Civil defense and Nuclear terrorism to the main group, but the other stuff are clearly just subcategories of Civil Defense and subcategories of war strategy. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I notice that a few hours after I went over this, Grapetrau reverted with only "Info highly relevant" as the explanation, which is really not the issue. The question is not relevancy but whether it makes any sense to have an endlessly increasing box for articles that are quite peripheral—articles that are really just sub-topics to bigger issues (a fact clearly indicated by the way they are segregated on the box in the first place!). I have since reverted it and in my comment attempted to make it clear that this should be discussed here. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Rearrange order of states?
The order of the states with nuclear weapons is a little confused. It looks like they are organized by year of the first test by each country. This has problems because South Africa and Israel might or might not have ever conducted a test. If the states are organized by weapon development (as uncertain as that is given the secrecy involved) then Israel might be before India as might South Africa.

Protect?
This template is used on a number of pages and 99% of all edits made to it are vandalism. I don't anticipate needing to update this regularly. Maybe we should protect it? --Mr.98 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just reverted some more of it, I agree with you! Mottenen (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronaldo799, 19 March 2011
Besides the nuclear-armed nations listed in the page, there is Iran. Although Iran is definitely not an universally approved nuclear nation, I thought it would be appropriate to include it because I have found North Korea in the list, when North Korea is also an unapproved nuclear state.

Ronaldo799 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Iran is not a nuclear armed state. Nobody, not even the United States, thinks Iran has developed a nuclear weapon. They are accused of trying to develop one, but that's not the same thing. North Korea on the other hand not only admits to having nuclear weapons but has carried out two nuclear tests. Hut 8.5 16:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.246.82.177, 1 June 2011
Converted the template into the Sidebar opposite, not least to make dots and title more visible.

213.246.82.177 (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. GaneshBhakt (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Woknam66, 11 January 2012
"Anti-nuclear opposition" should be changed to "Nuclear opposition". "Anti-nuclear opposition" is a double-negative, so it basically means "nuclear appreciation". Woknam66 talk James Bond 23:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What's being opposed is clear, so "Opposition" is all that's needed. I've edited the template accordingly, and changed the target from History of the anti-nuclear movement to Anti-nuclear movement. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, as an established editor, you're able and welcome to make changes like this yourself. is mainly for unregistered or newly-registered editors.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 14:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I could have just done it myself, but I was afraid there might have been a discussion in the past that decided to call it "Anti-nuclear opposition". I mainly just wanted to get another person's opinion. Woknam66  talk James Bond 16:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 April 2012
41.220.69.16 (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What change are you requesting? Hut 8.5 19:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * per above. mabdul 17:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016
The moon is made of cheese

104.129.204.80 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Canada and other Nato nuclear sharing states
I've removed Canada from the template which was added last month. Firstly, there was no consensus even discussed to add it. Secondly, Canada was not a nuclear weapons state, it was part of the Nato nuclear weapon sharing program. If we decide Canada is former nuclear state then we need to add Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey to the list of current nuclear states, and then add Canada and Greece to former nuclear states. You can't have it both ways. Kylesenior (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we could reasonably include the nuclear weapons sharing states in a separate section.  Hut 8.5  17:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)