Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Should we also cover states that had active nuclear weapons programs?

I couldn't find a Wikipedia page specifically for states that had active nuclear weapons programs but disbanded them. I think such states belong on this page, and that it would be of interest to readers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This has been a topic of discussion before. The main problem is that it becomes impossible to draw the line. It might be interesting to have an article that covers those cases, but let's not relive the fights over this article. NPguy (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

problems with first sentence

As of 2019-04-23 the first sentence read:

There are eight sovereign states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons.<ref name="nuclearweapons1"/>

I have a problem with this, because it ignores Israel, which by some accounts collaborated with South Africa in testing a nuclear weapon in the Vela Incident.

A simple fix is to reword this first sentence as follows:

Eight sovereign states have publicly announced successful detonation of nuclear weapons.<ref name="nuclearweapons1"/>

I'm implementing this fix. Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Change France as 3rd index in the first board, it seems more logical because this country seems to have more nuclear warheads, and it's the main topic of this page LeandreLeBogossMasqué (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It's currently in chronological order regarding date of first test, except for Israel. One could make the table sortable, but that would seem to require splitting the "Warheads" column into "Deployed" and "Total" and the "Date of first test" into "Date" and "Name" AND putting the notes into three new columns. I think it's better the way it is. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Article: Nuclear launch authority by nation

I am unable to find anywhere on Wikipedia a list of individuals authorized to order the use of nuclear weapons. If such a list detailing the nation, authorized title and individual currently holding said title does not exist then we need that information readily available.

Wikipedia's de facto policy is to delete new articles before editors get a chance to piece everything together, so perhaps we should start it as a section here. --The Vital One (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Undid the reverts by ניב הורון|יניב הורון

I undid the reverts to my edits by User ניב הורון|יניב הורון. He reverted my changes from SIPRI and FAS that utilized 2018 stats vs. the previous version that had 2017 stats for warhead counts/not reflecting latest counts for individual nations/NFU policies, etc.

I am willing to discuss but felt that the edits I made did reflect the current sources and should be made. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

On 2019-07-23T16:11:28 user:129.246.254.12 deleted these comments saying, "removed this section I made since it is OBE". I don't know what "OBE" is, but I think it's useful to have this documentation of rationale for changes. I therefore restored this section. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

David, It means overcome by events. The user in question was banned from Wiki and therefore I felt having this section was just clutter and unnecessary. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

User:129.246.254.12 reportedly "undid the reverts to my edits by User ניב הורון|יניב הורון", then commented on that undo, then tried to delete the comments. User:129.246.254.12 then tried to delete the comments. I reverted that deletion, feeling the comments were appropriate documentation of the history of this page. User:129.246.254.12 then deleted it again. This delete was undone by User:NPguy. I thank NPguy. I still think User:129.246.254.12's original comments were worth retaining. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Updated inventory numbers as of July 2019

FAS has updated inventory numbers as of July 2019 at https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/ (see the table below the two graphs). I was going to update the table but the article is locked until August. I can wait to do this or if a mod wants to use the FAS data to update the table, it would make the article current. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I plan on updating the "Statistics and force configuration" and the "U.S. nuclear weapons in host countries" tables next week with the new FAS data next week when this becomes unlocked. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Updates to the tables have been entered. 129.246.254.12 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Quantity?

Why do we know exactly how many nuclear weapons Israel owns?

Does Israel not support transparency regulations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.108.108 (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

We do not know exactly how many nuclear weapons any country has. Even that question is ambiguous, because it's not completely clear what the word "has" means in this context, as noted in in a review of "Israeli nuclear weapons, 2014" published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In this article the authors "conclude that widespread claims of an Israeli nuclear stockpile of 200 to 400 warheads and 50 to 100 Jericho missiles are exaggerated. In our assessment, ... we estimate that Israel has a stockpile of approximately 80 nuclear warheads ... ." DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, President in 1971, PM later

User:39.40.201.151 just changed "Pakistani President Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promised in 1971" to "Pakistani Prime Minister ...". The Wikipedia article on Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto says he was President from 1971 to 1973 and Prime Minister from 1973 to 1977. I am therefore reverting this change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Turkey

In light of recent events, should we add Turkey to this list, or do only home-grown weapons qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldness (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but does Turkey posses nuclear weapons?Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe this article should be limited to states with "home-grown weapons".

This US has introduced nuclear weapons into other countries besides Turkey. For sure, it has nuclear weapons in Germany. There is an anti-nuclear movement in Germany trying to convince the German government to demand that the US remove its nuclear weapons from Germany.

I've seen reports that the US routinely brings nuclear weapons into its bases in Japan in violation of Japanese law; the US neither confirms nor denies this practice. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC) revised DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree in the cases you cited, but what about cases where a country acquires control of weapons left in its borders by another country (https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-nuclear-bombs-hostage-syria)? I am not sure whether Turkey will succeed in bypassing the launch or arming codes, but they have the weapons now.Ldness (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia on Incirlik Air Base says, "Incirlik Air Base has a U.S. Air Force complement of about five thousand airmen, with several hundred airmen from the Royal Air Force and Turkish Air Force also present, as of late 2002." And the Fox News article cited mentions a New York Times article that says clearly that those nuclear weapons are in the possession of US military still in Turkey.

In Germany, US nuclear weapons are reportedly mounted on German aircraft scheduled to be flown by German pilots. In that case US nuclear weapons are reportedly under the control of Germany. I think Germany would be a more likely candidate than Turkey for this article, though even there, I think we'd need more documentation. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Revised DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about "reportedly," but official NATO policy is that "A core principle of NATO's nuclear posture is that the nuclear-weapon states of the Alliance maintain absolute control and custody of their nuclear weapons." In other words, no, Turkey and Germany don't belong in this article. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The Fox News report includes a link to a New York Times article that says, "Those weapons, one senior official said, were now essentially Erdogan’s hostages. To fly them out of Incirlik would be to mark the de facto end of the Turkish-American alliance. To keep them there, though, is to perpetuate a nuclear vulnerability that should have been eliminated years ago."

My conclusion is that these weapons are on Turkish soil but under the control of the US military.

I've understood from claims by German anti-nuke activists that US nuclear weapons in Germany are under the control of German pilots. However, I may have misunderstood: It could be that current war plans involve US military mounting US nuclear weapons on German aircraft to be flown by German pilots under certain contingencies, but the weapons could still be under US military control, awaiting orders to operationalize such plans. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that this article includes a section on List of states with nuclear weapons#Nuclear weapons sharing, which says that Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey all have US nuclear weapons on their soil. This seems like an appropriate treatment of this issue. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"Air-based", "land-based" and "sea-based" is specious terminology - Problems with "triad"

Absolutely no one bases their nuclear warheads in the air. This article specifies that France and Pakistan have "air-based" nukes. This is utterly bogus. The concept of basing a weapon is a very simple one. And to air-base a nuclear weapon, it would need to be flying around continually, on the ready to be employed. No one does this. No one air-bases nukes. There was one country that did. This was the USA (see Operation Chrome Dome). It happened for a handful of years, but it has been more than half a century since that practice ended.

Of course what is intended by the use of "air-based" in this article is to say that these are nuke warheads which are ready to be delivered by bombers. And these bombers fly through the air. But that is quite different from being "air-based". And of course, France and Pakistan are not the only two countries to have nuclear-armed aircraft on the ready.

So now this goes to the far more general problem in the ubiquitous term "triad". Triad is often used to mean:

- Land-based bombers (which this article erroneously refers to as "air-based"),

- Land-based missiles (as with ICBMs and MRBMs), and

- Submarine-based missiles.

The problem with this definition of "triad" is that it is incomplete. It fails to include entire categories of nuclear weapon basing and delivery systems. There are also:

- Sea-based bombers (launched from aircraft carriers), and

- Surface-based missiles (launched from ships).

"Air-based" is clearly being misused in this article. And then these other terms of "land-based" and "sea-based" have this problem of ambiguity and confused usage. Strategic bombers are land-based weapons platforms. And aircraft carriers have sea-based jets which can deliver nukes by air.

This article would be more coherent if it were to clearly explain the different basing methods:

- Land-based (aircraft/missiles),

- Sea surface-based (aircraft/missiles),

- Sea subsurface-based (missiles),

- Air-based (no longer used),

- Space-based (never used, prohibited by treaty).

And the term "triad" does not divide along the lines of those three basing methods that are used. The inclusive use of "triad" divides the three categories this way:

- Land-based aircraft & sea-based aircraft,

- Land-based missiles (non-aircraft), and

- Sea subsurface-based missiles & sea surface-based missiles.

Now you can clearly see that there is no clean categorization in this blanket term "triad" where most people think of two legs being Air Force (bombers and missiles) and the third leg being Navy (subs). "Triad" is better understood as marketing terminology which was used to oversimplify the actual situation. Here is the oversimplification:

- Air (strategic bombers)

- Land (ICBMs)

- Sea (submarine SLBMs)

Again, this is not a complete picture. And it certainly is not an accurate understanding of the basing of these weapons.

So the question being raised here is whether it is proper for this article to use this ill-defined term "triad" the way it currently does. Five of the eight countries in this table are described with this term "triad", when the actual basing and delivery methods are not at all consistent between these countries. This usage of the word "triad" therefore gives a very inaccurate impression of the basing and delivery methods used by these countries.

It is clear to me that this needs to be fixed. The counter-argument is how ubiquitously this term "triad" is used and understood by the general public, and even top military professionals themselves, along with policy makers. So the real question boils down to this:

Just because everyone else uses sloppy terminology, does that mean that Wikipedia should follow suit? Or does an encyclopedia have the duty to not mirror ignorance, but rather to offer clear and accurate information which sheds light on the ignorance. The purpose of Wikipedia is the latter.

And the word "specious" has been selected in the title of this section because so many people are so comfortable with using this terminology, yet few people are fully aware of how these words fail to fit with describing the actual situation accurately. "Triad" is not a simple division between land/sea/air. And to reiterate the first, and most glaring point, there are a grand total of zero air-based nuclear weapons in the world. This clearly needs to be fixed. -- Tdadamemd19 (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan's nuclear triad

Recently, an Indian editor removed the mention of Pakistan's sea-based Babur III system, citing the fact that it did not count as a nuclear Triad. However:

1. The article they cited said "These triads include the following components", and is not saying that Triads are only those with sea launched ballistic missiles.

2. This article states that "Once this missile is fully developed and tested on-board a submarine, Pakistan will have a nuclear triad, with air, sea and land capabilities." Hence the definition of a 'real' sea based platform is verified.

3. The article never mentioned Pakistan has a triad, just that it is developing a a sea based nuclear weapons platform.

4. Even if we go by their statement of Pakistan having a tactical nuclear triad, it has nothing to do with removing any mention of Babur-III and therefore I do not see how it justifies doing so and hiding important information about the country's arsenal from readers.

So it seems perfectly fine to mention that Pakistan is developing a sea based nuclear system. The Babur-III is to be developed into a submarine launched cruise missile and will be perfectly capable of hitting about half of India with nuclear payloads with its range if loaded into a submarine. To not mention such an important development on purpouse is misleading. I do not want to engage in edit warring with them, so I will see if they are willing to discuss this. If not, I will revert the edit as it would indicate the user is not interested in resolving this through the talk page and has not provided a reasonable counter argument.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello their i hope you are doing good during COVID-19 Pandemic. As i have quoted earlier : Cruise missile from conventional SSK Submarine is not counted as a sea based platform for nuclear triad. Hence Submarine-launched ballistic missile from Nuclear Powered Ballistic Missile submarine are considered as a sea platform for a Nuclear triad and hence what Pakistan has is a tactical cruise missile triad. You can clearly sea the Wiki Page of Nuclear Triad has a clear mention of Submarine Launches Ballistic Missile from Nuclear Powered Ballistic Missile Submarine as a sea based platform not a nuclear capable cruise missile from Conventional SSK Submarine as a launch platform. Even in the case of India many were saying that India must have 4 SSBNs and SLBMs with range of more than 5000km to be counted it in nuclear triad but atleast it had 1 SSBNs and 1 SLBM platform. But in the case of Pakistan there is no SSBN nor a SLBM(Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile). Babur is a nuclear capable Submarine Launched Cruise Missile not a Submarine launched Ballistic missile. Also there is no nuclear submarine which Pakistan has. Let me tell you even North Korea even had Submarine Launched Ballistic missile but they didn't have the nuclear submarine so they were not counted in Nuclear triad. As i have said earlier Pakistan has Tactical Cruise Missile Triad. No offence indeed. Electrofying (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read carefully what i have written above and Also as a Indian I don't have negative sentiments against Pakistan and Pakistanis all i had done was that corrected the information because of the confusion created in Tactical Cruise missile triad Electrofying (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And also please have a look at the Page of Nuclear Triad where it clearly quotes A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles. Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. nuclear-missile-armed submarines and submarine-launched ballistic missile neither of which Pakistan HAS!!! as i said earlier North Korea even had Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile but not the nuclear submarine(SSBNs) so they were not counted in Nuclear Triad. Pakistan what has is a submarine launched cruise missile from a conventional SSK submarine. If this had been the criteria what you told then all the 9 countires would have a nuclear triad today including France,UK,Israel and North Korea.

Also unlike Pakistan North Korea atleast has Submarine-launched ballistic missiles so a mention of sea based platform is their. But not in Nuclear triad as they lack nuclear powered SSBNs

Hi, I am doing fine in the Pandemic, thank you. How are you?

Firstly, this page never said "Pakistan has a Nuclear Triad" but said Pakistan has "Sea based under development" Again, Babur is not yet integrated into a submarine but is planned to be, hence 'sea based under development' seems correct. The Nuclear Triad page right after that as mentioned at the start of this topic does not exclude cruise missiles.

As for North Korea, this page does say that they have sea based delivery methods. However, they do not have air based methods, excluding them from a triad.

France has given up Land Based Nuclear Missiles, excluding them from a Triad Israel is already listed as a suspected triad power since they refuse to say they even have nukes.

UK Does not posess Land based delivery methods.

So my criteria still stands. Pakistan has Land, Air, and is developing Sea based delivery systems. It would be incorrect to ignore the presence of a rapidly developing sea based missile program (as Pakistan has to maintain the balance of power with India, who is a triad power) .

I know not all Indians hate Pakistan, but I've dealt with my fair share of harassment from what I believe are IT Cells who are paid to spread hate, so I have unfortunately developed a cautious approach to South Asian related things.

So, since this discussion is to find a solution here are solutions I propose:

1. Say Pakistan has a 'Tactical' Nuclear Triad, as mentioned by you.

2. Say Pakistan is developing a sea based nuclear delivery method. Because Babur is not yet developed to be delivered via submarine, but is definitely being developed with the end goal of being a submarine launched missile.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

All good here, so i was saying that just in this page the term tactical cruise missile triad shall be used instead of nuclear triad to avoid confusion but only once pakistan navy inducts babur missile. As far the actual nuclear triad is concerned it shall be discussed in the wiki page of the same.

for the time being just keep it land and air based weapons otherwise adding sea based has been tested should create a confusion in the mind of readers that pakistan has tested Submarine-launched ballistic missile launched from a ballistic missile submarine which is not the case as i have quoted earlier. So when the induction of submarine-launched cruise missile babur from Conventional Submarine(SSK) takes place then shall the term tactical cruise missile triad should be used in that box. also explaining this long story in that small box makes no sense hence to keep it simple just let it be land and air based weapons until induction takes place. also the readers can refer the page of Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction page for sea based platform.

Otherwise if you wish you can mention the sea based platform under testing but upon induction the term Tactical Cruise Missile Triad shall be used in place nuclear triad as nuclear triad has some different components which clearly has been mentioned in the Nuclear Triad wiki page. Electrofying (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Canada

Canada should be added to the list of formerly owning nukes in the form of Bomarc missiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABruhRandomUser (talk • contribs) 15:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons may have been deployed in Canada, but Canada did not possess them. NPguy (talk) 16:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Odd as we list RCAF 446 SAM Squadron and 447 SAM Squadron has having them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't that have been under NATO nuclear sharing?Doyna Yar (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Well they were in Canadian colours, but maybe.Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Map Copyright Note

For Anyone's Information, it is legally impossible to release a work into the public domain. ALL original creative work is protected by copyright law regardless the wishes of the creator.

One can freely allow anyone to use a work for which one owns the copyright; but if the heirs or purchasers of the work, or purchasers of the copyright, wish to enforce their rights under law or/and the creator of the work changes his/her mind -- then, that free use is immediately terminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:C300:3950:3DE8:E4AF:4763:E689 (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you post this then in the right venue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Superpower countries have sold nuclear weapons for years. Even nuclear power plants are dangerous. Cannibals are number one on the list of things that could start war. 2001:1970:5B22:6A00:6414:9E:25B8:9D0C (talk) 06:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• DPRK - nuclear 3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC) x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.127.97 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

unexplained deletion of reference to current arms control negotiations

@CentreLeftRight: Can you explain why you deleted the following mention of current arms control negotiations from the end of the section on China:

China’s nuclear buildup consists of massive numbers of recent missiles, most with a number of warheads, together with submarines and bombers in addition to new hypersonic glide automobiles that may ship warheads by means of missile defenses. At the new spherical of nuclear arms talks between the USA and Russia in Vienna on 23 June 2020, the USA desires to broaden arms negotiations to incorporate China’s nuclear arsenal, but China, as promised, was a no-show.

It seems relevant to me. I'm restoring it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Why this is about states with them, not talks about them. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article have a brief section on arms control negotiations that would have link(s) to other article(s) dealing with that topic more extensively? Then this comment should go in that section or in an article referenced in that section. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe if and when they actually do something to the numbers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

@DavidMCEddy: I gave my explanation in the edit summary. If we ignore the fact that there was little effort put in avoiding plagiarism (i.e. the original editor close paraphrased and straight up copied bits from the source, which creates further issues with tone because WaPo is not encyclopedic, it is a news source), the event itself is not significant. The U.S. has had talks with Russia in the past and insisted China come discuss with them, and China has declined every time. China declining once more six days prior from today is not anything significant. It is reasonable to say that the effort being made by the U.S. to persuade China into talks is significant and should be included. I am not opposed to that, but in that case someone has to rewrite the bit so it follows basic rules on this website. I was hoping that that someone would be the original editor, but it is clear to me they just like copying and pasting criticisms of China mentioned in news articles without properly explaining why they're being criticised. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding comment and deleted the addition. It is out of place and not notable in this article. NPguy (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons in Lithuania

After leaving the soviet union, there were from 30 to 160 nuclear weapons in lithuania which were later taken by russia in 1993. I think it should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivusas (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Provide a credible source and add it. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

i have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nivusas (talk • contribs) 08:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2020

I want to add Lithuania to the list. After crash of soviet union, there were about 20-60 nuclear weapons in lithuania. Later in 1993 russia took everything and left from lithuania. Nivusas (talk) 08:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find a good source for this with a quick Google search. Could you point to a WP:RS we could use for it? It can be in Lithuanian. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Interesting note

Its been said that should we ever settle the Moon or Mars, international law does not permit the stationing of WMDs on either. This only applies to those nations that have signed and ratified the Outer Space Treaty so it is possible that smaller nations may choose to install defensive capabilities in the form of missiles, lasers or other methods under the guise of asteroid mitigation. Also possible is the settling of other planets within the Solar System and Russia has "claimed" Venus though it is open to debate whether this is simply to discourage other nations from setting up bases there. Nuclear power in space is a contentious issue and it has been a sticking point in various treaties whether for example an Orion Drive (nuclear pulse propulsion) or nuclear fission reactor powered craft would be permitted. The consensus is that such a technology may be accepted if under international control as part of an asteroid deflection system protecting Earth from a hypothetical 1 mile diameter threatening object. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.129.132 (talk) 18:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Launch Authority

There should be a subsection concerning who has launch/use authority in each nation. Everyone knows the President is the only person with such authority in the USA. Kim Jung Un would be the go to in North Korea. I'm assuming the Prime Minister has such authority in Great Britain. I've heard Russia actually has three people with such authority. The Premier of must have such in China. I'm not certain about France, Pakistan or India.

I don't want to add such a subsection based on guesses, so if anyone has a good source please let me know. --The Vital One (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I found this website to act as a starter reference on the matter and have started a new section. --The Vital One (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A PDF from the same source. --The Vital One (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential sources for India and Pakistan--The Vital One (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Syria and Iran?

@Venezuela3: What evidence do you have that Syria and Iran are "resumed to have nuclear weapons"?

I don't think that's accurate.

If you wish to add a separate category for "States formerly having nuclear weapons/ development programs", that might be a reasonable addition. However, I would want to see it as a different category from "States formerly possessing nuclear weapons".

Accordingly, I've reverted your recent change. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I used the information given on the pages Syria and weapons of mass destruction and Iran and weapons of mass destruction, which you cited. I assume you read the pages if you hyperlinked them? The page for Syria states, verbatim, that "The Syria file at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remains open, amid Syria's failure to respond to the IAEA's questions about the destroyed facility, that the IAEA concluded was "very likely" a nuclear reactor, including the whereabouts of the reactor's nuclear fuel.[7] In January 2015, it was reported that the Syrian government is suspected to be building a nuclear plant in Al-Qusayr, Syria." which refers to this article and a few others in the works cited page. As for the alleged Iran Nuclear Weapons program, I believe it is quite obvious that they are presumed to have nuclear weapons because it is common knowledge that they have signed multiple agreements in order to control their nuclear development programs. I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I wrote, because I wrote "States that are presumed to have nuclear weapons", instead of "resumed to have nuclear weapons". How could you not think it is accurate that a state could be presumed to have nuclear weapons? Any state could be presumed to have nuclear weapons, especially if they have been found in possession of nuclear research programs, which Syria and Iran both have.

Order of acquisition

@Danloud: Starting 2021-05-16T10:41:13‎ you made several changes to the "order of acquisition", claiming that Russia got nuclear weapons before the US, saying "Isn't this obvious?"

What's your evidence for that?

It seems to be pretty obviously counterfactual: Anyone with any knowledge of the history of this issue knows that the US is the only country to have used them, have acquired that capability during World War II and used it against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Any research will also reveal that the Soviet Union (now Russia) first tested a nuclear device in 1949, roughly 4 years later. I'm reverting these edits, claiming vandalism.

Wikipedia provides a very valuable service to people the world over, who want to learn about all kinds of things. It grows by allowing almost anyone to change almost anything. That makes it vulnerable to vandalism that wastes the time of honest, serious editors. We could use your help actually improving the project, not tearing it down. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I think there is a misunderstanding here. When I stated "Isn't this obvious?" on the summary of my first edit, I removed a sentence which redundantly referred to Russia being the successor state of the Soviet Union, which is true, and also world-wide known.

Now, during the time these edits happened, I was not wearing my glasses, and instead of "order of acquisition" I somehow saw "order by numbers" - which is why I said "Russia still possesses the most nuclear weapons in the world." But indeed, in order of acquisition, the United States was the first country to have used nuclear weapons. I hope you understand I had no intentions of vandalising the article, Instead I tried to improve it. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for the revert. Otherwise I probably would have not checked back at my mistakes. Danloud ^(talk) 14:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Danloud: Thanks for the reply and for your support of Wikipedia.

How do you think it should read?

I'm inclined to say the following:

In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), the United Kingdom, France, and China.

In 1949 Russia, as the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, was only one of 15 Republics of the Soviet Union, and their first test was in the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic, NOT Russia.

I plan to make this change. If you think it should be otherwise, let's discuss.

@DavidMCEddy: You are indeed also correct on that matter, the first nuclear test by the Soviet Union was done on Kazakh soil, not Russian; but Russia is the successor state of the Soviet Union, and inherited all of its nuclear weapons. I would say, the sentence you proposed would explain what there is to explain, and is enough. Danloud ^(talk) 17:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Danloud: Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan's alleged nuclear triad

@Saadsuddozai: If you think Pakistan has a nuclear triad, please provide a credible reference to support that. Without that, when you repeatedly change "Land and air-based" to "nuclear triad", you should be expected to be treated as a vandal. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy I have references, I just don’t know how to add them. Please help me out. Thank you. Saadsuddozai (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ha ha, I will love to see these. I imagine from some LARPing nationalist website of no academic or journalistic value? David (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dpaajones: Wikimedia rules admonish us to Wikipedia:Assume good faith, while politely insisting that others cite reliable sources. In my experience, cynical retorts have generally been less effective in producing quality prose in places like Wikipedia. As noted in the Wikipedia article on Reliability of Wikipedia, the best articles tend to incorporate contributions from many collaborators with very different perspectives, who collaborate in an environment of mutual respect. See especially Feng Shi; Misha Teplitskiy; Eamon Duede; James A. Evans (29 November 2017), The Wisdom of Polarized Crowds (PDF), arXiv:1712.06414, doi:10.1038/S41562-019-0541-6, Wikidata Q47248083.

@Saadsuddozai: Please provide here any references you have. If they seem credible, someone will help you add them to the article. If others have questions about their veracity, those concerns will be discussed here. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy Not to be rude but Pakistan already has submarines equipped with cruise missiles that can easily carry nukes, they were in testing phase several years ago, are you going to tell me that they are still in testing phase? It's only a matter of time that it becomes operational assuming it already hasn't. When a nation already possesses land and air capabilities, sea functionality isn't exactly rocket science lol, it's only a matter of time it too happens. (talk)

@DavidMCEddy There is a source on the internet: https://zeenews.india.com/asia/pakistan-completes-nuclear-triad-launches-missile-babur-3-from-submarine_1965794.html (talk)

@DavidMCEddy Also give me a source to how India grew it's arsenals from 130 to 160? Just a week ago I checked and India was showing 130, now it's 160? Might want to check up on that m8. (talk)

Current numbers

On 2022-01-28T16:11:24 User:85.132.225.200 changed numbers deployed for the US and Russia in the "Statistics and force configuration" table. That table cites three "Refs" for those numbers:

• "World Nuclear Forces, SIPRI yearbook 2020". Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. January 2020. Retrieved 18 June 2020., current date: 2020.

• "FAS World Nuclear Forces". Federation of American Scientists. April 2020. Retrieved 18 June 2020., current date 2021-10-07

• "Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance". Arms Control Association. July 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2020. India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT and possess nuclear arsenals., "Last reviewed January 2022".

I am combining these three references into a single one, giving the most recent first, as:

<ref name=:123>{{cite web|url=https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat|title=Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance|publisher=Arms Control Association|date=July 2019|access-date=5 August 2020|quote=India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT and possess nuclear arsenals.}}, Last reviewed January 2022. For other credible sources with slightly different numbers and earlier dates, see {{Cite web|date=April 2020|title=FAS World Nuclear Forces|url=https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/|access-date=18 June 2020|website=Federation of American Scientists}}, current date 2021-10-07, and {{cite web|date=January 2020|title=World Nuclear Forces, SIPRI yearbook 2020|url=https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2020/10|access-date=18 June 2020|website=Stockholm International Peace Research Institute|publisher=Stockholm International Peace Research Institute}}, current date: 2020.</ref> DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Launch authority

On 2022-02-19T01:33:46 User:71.114.80.60 modified the first part of this section to read as follows:

The authority and decision to use nuclear weapons in the United States has not been restricted to a single person or small group of people since the Eisenhower Administration's secret delegations of this authority to numerous military base and area commanders, as discussed in the Doomsday Machine (2017) by Dr. Daniel Ellsberg. This longstanding delegation remains in effect in the U.S., thus greatly increasing the pressure on other nations to follow suit with their own delegations or similar decentralized procedures. It also increases the pressure on other nations to acquire nuclear weapons, and it multiplies the risk of accidental launch, nuclear accidents, and preemptive strikes by threatened nations. Despite this, there appears to have been little or no attempt by any Congress to abolish this delegation or to otherwise address its dangers. The military in the United States of America and France continue to deceive the public in this regard, claiming that they require their respective presidents to approve the use of nuclear weapons. In the US, the Presidential Emergency Satchel is always ostentatiously handled by a nearby aide unless the President is near a command center.

Then 22.5 hours later on 2022-02-20T00:00:39 User:119.242.114.32 undid that revision claiming it was "original research". Before and now it begins:

The decision to use nuclear weapons is always restricted to a single person or small group of people. The United States of America and France require their respective presidents to approve the use of nuclear weapons. In the US, the Presidential Emergency Satchel is always handled by a nearby aide unless the President is near a command center.

I mostly support the revision by User:71.114.80.60 over the reversion for multiple reasons:

1. The claim that, "The decision to use nuclear weapons is always restricted to a single person or small group of people" says more than anyone can possibly know.
2. It is contradicted by several credible claims in Ellsberg (2017) Doomsday Machine. He was a leading nuclear war strategist under US presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Some of these claims are based on his personal experiences under Eisenhower and Kennedy. Others are based on other published sources. The latter includes a quote from a person who had served as a launch control officer for US nuclear missiles in the early 1970s, who said that the highly classified launch codes in the "nuclear football" were all set to "00000000" (p. 62): The generals and admirals were forced to install that security system, but no one followed up to make sure it was actually implemented as ordered, and the generals and admirals were more worried about not being able to respond if attacked than they were about being spooked into believing the US was being attacked when it was a malfunction of (or a hack into) the US nuclear command, control, and communications system. Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry says a hack or malfunction is far more likely than an actual nuclear attack.
3. I'm not familiar with any references that would credibly document the veracity of a claim like this for any of the other nuclear weapon states.

I'm not eager to rewrite this at this moment. However, I would certainly support someone else crafting language that is both more credible, less propaganda, and more consistent with credible references we cite. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Short description

@Thrakkx and Qasim Umar 123: Why shouldn't the {{short description|...}} for this article be something descriptive of the content, like "nuclear-weapon states" or "list of nuclear-weapon states"?

"Wikipedia list article" and "none" seem designed to make it harder for people looking for information in this article to find it.  ??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter to me what the short description is. WP:SDNONE implies that most articles beginning with "List of" don't need a short description, because the title is so descriptive already that a short description won't make it any easier to find the article—it's already super easy. However, I will always replace "Wikipedia list article" with "none" as the short description as the former is utterly useless and only added because some editors think that is the "default" description for list articles. It's not, and a bot was just approved to remove these descriptions. Thrakkx (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Former nuclear nations (from USSR)

Interesting that the article admits Belarus had weapons stationed on its borders (without any implications of ownership), while Ukraine "inherited" the weapons on its soil.

That sentence about Ukraine's nuclear "inheritance," is cited from an English language .org domain. Which is suspect.

There is an explicit rhetorical distinction, that is not historically accurate. The command and control for missiles on Ukraines soil was in Moscow. They were just as much the USSR arsenal on Ukranian soil, as the arsenal in Belarus.

I suggest making the language for Ukraine more neutral (and accurate), as was done for Belarus. 2601:5C4:200:5C40:C527:6BE8:B233:123D (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good points. Edits made. None of the three countries actually controlled the nuclear weapons on their territory. NPguy (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

other article

the other nuclear article suggests nuclear weapons were based in Lithiuana.

should this be updated. 2600:1702:9F0:D140:5CD8:351:872B:E2AB (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What other article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Suriname?

Suriname is currently highlighted in the map. I don't believe that this should be the case. I imagine it's due to a connection to France. Screenmutt (talk) 13:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

No French Guiana is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

China has "0" or "?" deployed

@NPguy and Aman.kumar.goel: FAS says China has "?" nuclear weapons deployed. I cannot conveniently check the SIPRI report, but I'd be skeptical of claiming that China has deployed 0 nuclear weapons. If that's what the SIPRI report says, we could report it in the footnote to the "?" -- and still leave the answer as "?" SIPRI has a well-earned reputation, as does the FAS. If they don't agree on something like this, I think it's best to leave it as "?" or "unknown". I'm therefore changing "0" to "?"

Comments? Thanks for your work in trying to improve the quality of information available to the public. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello @NPguy and DavidMCEddy:, I actually tried to restore an original edit mentioning "??" instead of 0 as both PRC and India are tried powers, operating ballistic missile submarines with ready to fire nuclear missiles. So I would skeptical of mentioning zero for both of these states. I suggest it would be finer to quote other academia and MSM than FAS alone for that case. If we were to quote FAS alone, it would be zero and if we quote any other sources, they would suggest otherwise. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: I'm confused. I believe that any mention of "0" is saying more than we know, unless it comes from the best available documentation and is not contradicted by other sources. I've been aware of FAS for several years, and SIPRI for much longer. As far as I know, both are highly respected, based on a long record of high quality work. I would, for example, rely on Fox News only if I did not have another source. If I had source(s) like FAS and / or SIPRI and Fox News that disagreed, I would base what we put in the article on sources like SIPRI and FAS, then mention in a footnote that Fox News disagreed, but noting that SIPRI and FAS tend to be more reliable sources and experts in this field, while Fox News (or any similar source) may not have the same commitment to fact checking as SIPRI and FAS.

I think it's important to mention a source like Fox News when it disagrees with more credible sources, because otherwise, people who follow Fox News might think we are ignorant. Mentioning, e.g., Fox News (if it said something on this) displays knowledge and an evaluation of that literature. ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Well @DavidMCEddy:, when I'm talking about MSM or other sources, off course I'm not going to pitch anything like Fox News or mere a suggesting outlet but rather favouring to put on an analytical news article or academic source regarding same. I actually I'm searching for scholastic articles for every country for latest years which would considerably improve quality of list. My personal schedule isn't letting me sign in often. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I would point out that the FAS and SIPRI estimates are not independent. Hans Kristensen is an author (the main author?) of both. As for China's number, it helps to read the footnote in the FAS table, quoted below. It appears that "0" is the number considered "fully deployed," while the "?" in the "non-strategic" column is a reference to disagreement about definitions.

Our estimate for the Chinese warhead stockpile is higher than the “low-200s” listed in the Pentagon’s 2020 China report. The reason is that the Pentagon estimate is from late-2019 (when we estimated 290) and only includes “operational” warheads, while our estimate also includes warheads produced for missiles in the process of being fielded. Despite these differences, the estimates show that claims made by some that China might have “many more than 300” or even 1,600-3,000 warheads are baseless. Nonetheless, the Chinese stockpile is increasing and US Strategic Command and part of the Intelligence Community claim that China will “likely double the size of their nuclear stockpile by the end of the decade.” Part of that increase is already well underway and our estimate includes some of it. None of the warheads are thought to be fully deployed but kept in storage under central control. China considers all of its nuclear weapons to be strategic, but the US military calls its medium-and intermediate-range missile non-strategic.

User:NPguy 2022-10-12T20:55:02

Thanks for that clarification. It may be accurate to say that China has 0 deployed by some definition. However, China is an opaque society, and I am skeptical of any claim that they have "deployed" 0 nuclear weapons by any reasonable definition of the term.

If you'd like to add some of the details you just explained to another note for that "?", I would support that. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the thing to do is revert to "0" instead of "?" or look for a reliable source that says something other than zero. I tend to think is plausible that Chinese warheads are not mated to delivery systems and therefore not "deployed," though China is very opaque in this area. I also suspect the FAS/SIPRI estimates may change to take into account changing official estimates, and this may include changes in deployment status. Until that changes, though, I think we should stick with zero. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

How about combining them as "0?"? We have one source that says "0" and another that says "?". You don't like my argument for "?"; I don't like your argument for "0". Let's report them both with "0?" AND cite both sources next to the number.

AND since you apparently have access to the SIPRI report and I don't could you please add a page reference? (We could do that for the FAS citation also, but that's not as critical in my judgment, because that source is freely available.) Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, both sources say 0. One has a "?" in the column for non-strategic weapons, to indicate that it's a question whether China has any. And as I noted they're really the same source, with the same author, Hans Kristensen. And the source with the "?" has a footnote saying "None of the warheads are thought to be fully deployed." So I think it's clear both sources mean to say "0". NPguy (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Table

I suggest a table listing each nuclear weapons state with date of first nuke and date of H-bomb acquisition as well as current stockpile quantities. Just a personal preference for organization and information accessibility. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

New Map

@DavidMCEddy Thanks for the new map, but there's one glitch: The colors on the legend don't match those on the map for India, Pakistan, and North Korea. NPguy (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

South Africa and its Atomic weapons

South Africa still has their Atomic weapons. All they did was dismantle them but they still have all the components. They did not give them up. Please correct the record. 2601:1C2:1400:DB20:39F7:4411:CF49:EB1B (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

List order

Should be the same, So should it be by date of acquisition or alphabetically? What we can't do is mix it up. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Order of states in legend of "Map of nuclear-armed states of the world "?

@Slatersteven: Shouldn't the states in the legend for the "Map of nuclear-armed states of the world" be in chronological order within category, to the extent that it's easy to determine that and alphabetical otherwise?

An anonymous editor changed "Other states with nuclear weapons" to "(Pakistan, India, North Korea)". Then I changed it to chronological within that category, and User:Slatersteven changed it to alphabetical, saying, "The others are alphabetical, why not these?"

I think it's more useful to put them in chronological order, at least for this and the first category, "NPT-designated nuclear weapon states", which would then be (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China).

The "States formerly possessing nuclear weapons" should probably be (South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine), because South Africa dismantled their nuclear weapons in 1989 and Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine transferred theirs to Russia at around the same time in 1991 or shortly thereafter.

"NATO member nuclear weapons sharing states" can probably stay in alphabetical order.

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

That is what I am talking about above. I have no issue with what order they are put in, as long as it is done for every part of it and not just "Other states with nuclear weapons", which is what was done. But do it all (and at once) or not at all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

references replaced by cn?

@Amigao: I've reverted your changes to this article stamped 2023-02-09T17:34:02 because you deleted seemingly good references, replacing one with {{cn}} -- without explanation. Why did you do this? [[User:|DavidMCEddy]] (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:GLOBALSECURITY is not a reliable source. Amigao (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I see the list on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

You'll forgive me for being blunt, but I've long been distressed by the way sourced get tagged as unreliable. I think that the Wikipedia article on every source that is tagged as "unreliable" should include a section explaining that it has been deemed "unreliable" and explaining why it should be considered "unreliable", with citations.

The intent of this designation may be laudable, However, this almost clandestine management turns it into a de-facto almost hidden mechanism that, in my opinion, is corrupting Wikipedia, degrading its quality.

In this case in particular, I do NOT see ONE negative comment in the Wikipedia article on GlobalSecurity.org. Instead, I read, 'GlobalSecurity.org was listed in the War Intelligence category of Forbes' now-defunct "Best of the Web" directory ... cited its "Depth of military information" ... In his 2004 book Plan of Attack, ... Bob Woodward called the website "an invaluable resource on military, intelligence and national security matters".

If it has changed since 2004 and is no longer reliable, that should be documented in the open.

Instead, GlobalSecurity.org and similar sources have been tried and convicted of being unreliable with no notice that anyone considered them unreliable.

This is not a criminal trial, so the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution cannot be invoked. However, I find it blatantly offensive and anti-democratic that those accused of being unreliable are not informed of the charges against them. They are not given an opportunity to present evidence in their defense. If they learn about it at all, they only learn after the decision has been made and the sentence is being imposed.

I find this to be a fundamental attack on free speech, free press, and Wikipedia:Prime objective: If we want to give "every single person on the planet .... free access to the sum of all human knowledge", we should support a more open and vigorous debate about what's reliable and what's not.

If you want to flag every citation to GlobalSecurity.org and other sources as "unreliable", please do so. I'd prefer also that you provide more information than just a vague statement that they've been tried and convicted of being unreliable.

Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but I think the way the "unreliable" designation is being managed is counterproductive, degrading the quality of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar reaction: Global Security is an unreliable source? Who says? Why? The summary on the reliable sources page might reflect the results of a discussion, but it could also reflect a few editors with axes to grind. I'm not saying the conclusion is wrong, but it's surprising and would seem to merit at least a fuller justification. NPguy (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

If you find the justification in the RfC linked at WP:GLOBALSECURITY to be wrong, you should raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Raising it here won't achieve anything. CMD (talk) 06:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

States that could create nuclear weapons should be displayed on the map

those countries that could quickly construct nuclear weapons, called nuclear latent states, should be displayed on the map, there is already an article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_latency 31.94.4.68 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

"Nuclear latency" is already in the "See also" section. That article could perhaps use a map.

This article might benefit from a section on "Nuclear latency and proliferation", but I'm not ready to write such. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Sortable tables

One critical piece of information has been lost in the table: the NPT status of states possessing nuclear weapons. This is more fundamental than CTBT status. Not being adept at tables, I would like to suggest that it, and the CTBT column, list status separately for each county along the lines of "Signed (date)", "Ratified (date)", "Acceded (date)", and "N/A". The DPRK would be more complicated, e.g. "Acceded (1989), announced withdrawal (2003)". NPguy (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Please desist from apparent vandalism

@Prashant12456: Per Wikipedia:How to deal with vandalism#Warning contributors, I am warning you that I consider your most recent contributions to degrade the quality of this article. If you disagree, please discuss changes you feel appropriate on this Talk page. If I find other edits by you that also seem to me to degrade the quality of Wikipedia, I will ask an administrator to block you from further edits.

Wikipedia has become what it is through contributions of 22,610,000 editors, assuming I understand correctly "Template:Registered editors by edit count", when I checked just now. The vast majority have made positive contributions. A few are deliberately working to make it harder for people all over the world to build a better life for themselves and others. Some think they are being funny. Others are deliberately trying to deceive others into doing things contrary to the best interests of all. Your best interest is served by having more people making positive contributions and fewer making negative contributions. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Add Russian nuclear weapons sharing states

Currently this is only Belarus, "Putin also announced in March that 10 Belarusian combat aircraft have been reequipped to carry nuclear weapons." Just something that should probably go in the article. --66.234.79.134 (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

There is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Map needs updating for Belarus, new category indicating former possession, and later sharing. Doyna Yar (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"Formerly possessed nuclear weapons"

"States that formerly possessed nuclear weapons are South Africa (developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT) and the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, whose weapons were transferred to Russia."

Well, my understanding is that Belarus once again possesses nuclear weapons. Should we remove Belarus from this sentence, or should we add a side note regarding Belarus? The current indicates Belarus does not possess nuclear weapons, which is not entirely accurate per previous thread. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Belarus does not possess the nuclear weapons, they are being stationed on its territory by Russia. CMD (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, do we have any idea whether Belarus has access to those weapons, or do they have no access to them at all? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Some updates are needed, at a minimum in the sections on stationing or sharing nuclear weapons. But it's also debatable whether Belarus, Kazakhstan, or Ukraine ever actually possessed the nuclear weapons that were on their territory. NPguy (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Added Belarus to the nuclear weapon sharing section, but kept most of the content in the Formerly possessed section too since they had about 30 years of it being true, and 1990s-2022/3 is still an example of a nuclear power (as part of the USSR) renouncing all nuclear capabilities, even if they now claim to have some level of capability since about July 8.

I made some updates to it, but do please make further changes to the overall format of the <<formerly possessed nuclear weapons>> and <<nuclear weapon sharing>> sections if you see of a way to present all the information more clearly now that Belarus is in much the same category as European NATO Allies. I agree with @NPguy's point about how much sense it makes to put especially Kazakhstan in the same category as South Africa instead of the same category as Canada LbPirate (talk) 05:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Canada and nuclear weapons

@NPguy: Your claim that, 'Canada did not "possess" nuclear weapons' is contradicted by the Wikipedia article on "Canada and weapons of mass destruction" AND the reference cited by user:104.158.191.28:

"Canada and Nuclear Weapons." The Canadian Encyclopedia.

This seems to make Canada essentially equivalent to Ukraine: They had nuclear weapons from a superpower and voluntarily relinquished them.

The Canadian public reacted to the talk about Mutually Assured Destruction with a campaign against "Incineration without representation". That led Canada to insist that the US stop sending nuclear weapons into Canada. That took effect in 1972 for all but "the AIR-2 Genie [which] had a yield of 1.5 kilotons, ... and may not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction given its limited yield", per the Wikipedia article on Canada and weapons of mass destruction, if I understand that Wikipedia article correctly. (That article seems to say contradictory things in different parts of that article. It could use a careful read and rewrite. However, I'm not prepared to take on that task myself.) Canada has reportedly not had those smaller nuclear weapons since 1984.

Are you claiming that this documentation of nuclear weapons in Canada is somehow different from nuclear weapons in Germany and other NATO countries and Ukraine? If so, how?

If you agree we should modify this article, how would you suggest it be done?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Canada is more like NATO nuclear sharing than like former possessor South Africa. Nuclear weapons deployed in Canada were U.S. nuclear weapons that remained under U.S. control. Canada was arguably the first country that consciously decided, after participating in the Manhattan Project during WWII, not to acquire nuclear weapons. It's debatable whether Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine "possessed" nuclear weapons that were deployed on their territory when the Soviet Union broke up, but that situation is ambiguous enough that I don't object to the term in those cases. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine war propaganda

why is Ukraine's commitment to its own law (vis-a-vis non-proliferation), juxtaposed with Russia's annexation of Crimea? Russia and Ukraine (and Poland, too btw) have many issues between eachother. Why talk about Crimea specifically with regard to the possession of nuclear weapons? This page continues to be biased with Russophobia (and I see that the Talk page has also had serious cuts) 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:1C9D:1E06:2504:2695 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The reason it's mentioned is because, according to the article, all three countries received assurances that their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity would be respected. It's not Russophobic to mention that Russia violated their end of this agreement.

Nothing's been "cut" from the talk page, older discussions have been archived; they're still present in the archives. — Czello ^(music) 09:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)