Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction/Archives/2024/June

THE MAN WHO DESIGNED PAKISTAN’S BOMB

Check this article for some related details; http://newsweekpakistan.com/the-man-who-designed-pakistans-bomb/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.46.165 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with Bhutto's statement

Former Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto had publicly said "If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own". This statement was issued by him as State Secretary of State of Pakistan, in 1965, not in 1974 or 1972. Recent studies conducted by International Institute for Strategic Studies (link)and Nuclear Threat Initiatives (NTI) also confirmed this statement's time.

There are no such evidence that he issued this statement in 1974. Instead, the only statement he issued by saying "India's nuclear program is designed to intimidate Pakistan and establish "hegemony in the subcontinent", which was issued shortly after Indian test. So, Instead of putting his statement together in one paragraph, both of these statements should be posted in different paragraphs. Because they are issued in different time, and different places. Any views?

Even, the one "The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now the Hindus have the bomb. Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?", was issued from his jail cell in 1978 in a book he wrote "If I am assassinated", when he was ousted by his own appointed Chief of Army Staff General Zia. There should be concern about it, since this page is focused on neutrality, true facts, figures, and each individual's role in the scientific research delegated by Prime minister Zulfi Bhutto.

Any views? Comments?

The "eat grass" quote is so famous that it needs to be in this article, but the context should be corrected. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction is too long

Pakistan and WMD's introduction is too long and confusing. Instead the the information should be in the new head line such as "nuclear physics in Pakistan". Also, the article's title should be change to "Pakistan and Nuclear weapons". This may sound more professional. Also, about the weapon delivery, somebody has erased the Naval and Nuclear-capabel Aircraft Delivery systems info page. Most of the page is seem to be "copy and paste". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.143.129 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Project-706

The Project-706 was the codename of the nuclear program development program which we all know. But one important thing we need not to forget is that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto orchestrated that project by making Abdul Qadeer Khan as the head of one project which was gas centrifuge and enrichment. The entire nuclear program, including the weapon design and weapon production, was ran by the PAEC head. Mr.Munir Ahmad Khan. It was Munir Ahmad Khan who gave Pakistan the plutonium and trituim capability. Also, about the Project-706, Abdul Qadeer Khan did took over the Project-706's Uranium route (The Kahuta facility only) but it was under the guidance of Munir Ahmad Khan. PAEC Chairman Munir Ahmad Khan was the Head of the committee that was responsible for the construction of Kahuta facility as well as the nuclear weapon production. Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan was only responsible for the Gas-Centrifuge program. That was it!; The entire nuclear program, front and back, the civilian nuclear program and military based nuclear weapon program, was under the hands of Munir Ahmad Khan. So let's not forget that Bhutto delegated the program underMunir Ahmad Khan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and Zahid Ali Akbar not just Zahid Ali Akbar and Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Page Protection

This page is being vandalised on an almost daily basis. I have to keep checking this page to see if it is being vandalised. It's most likely being done by Indians.

This page must be given full protection!!!

Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)noorkhanuk85Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It need not be Indians always. Indians don't have so much animosity against Pakistan as perceived by the media and politicians. Let us get together and improve quality of content and provide the right information. Its not about who wins its about whats right!

24.199.196.180 (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)BRS

No First Strike Policy

Some mention should be made of the historical decision by Pakistan prior to the Mumbai attacks to state openly that they will not use nuclear weapons first unless attacked. A No First Strike policy. I do not know if this has become official but the statement on Indian soil was a landmark in and of itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.246.138 (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Add more Info

you guys had more information instead of the boring atomic agencies and stuff like that...can we show a bit more effort on this article.Tere naam 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Missile Table requires cleanup

The 'status' columns is particularly confusing. Status marked against every missile is different on every line. For example, is Hatf-III "under going production" imply it is not "deployed" like Hatf-IV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adityagupta101 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Disagreement

There is a lack of agreement between the number of nuclear warheads Iran is said to have in this article and in the article List of countries with nuclear weapons.

This is a section for Pakistan's WMDs and there is no mention of Iran having working nuclear weaponsDaiyusha (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb00/nb0025.htm%7Ctitle=Uranium
  • In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Mon Jul 17 15:37:32 2006, 404 Not Found
  • In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Thu Jul 27 00:51:15 2006, 404 Not Found

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote

I can't find (online) any source for the main quote "We will defend our country using any means necessary and build a nuclear capability second to none. We will eat grass for 1000 years, if we have to, but we will get there." - the only time it come up is morrors of wikipedai and a very recnet US spectator article. [3] 160.5.247.8 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

recent developments

plz put facts not opinion (69.225.201.109 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

cruise missiles

No mention of cruise missiles.Pakistan has sucessfully reverse engineered American cruise missiles that accidently dropped into Pakistan.A few sources and we can create this section as it's important.-Vmrgrsergr 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if Pakistan is capable of reverse engineering American missiles on its own, but it certainly can and probably did give such missiles to China to reverse-engineer.Daiyusha (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

NCA / National Command Authority: Links are bad

Article mentions but does not explicitly define "NCA". I assume this is "National Command Authority", but we need to define it explicitly in the article. NCA is a disamb page which does not mention any Pakistani organization likely to be the appropriate meaning here.
National Command Authority links to an article on the National Command Authority of the United States.
-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed!--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Chagai / Chaghai / Chaghi

"Pakistan detonated 5 nuclear devices in the Chagai Hills in the Chaghai district, Balochistan. This operation was named Chagai-I by Pakistan.... the Directorate of Technical Development (DTD) .... carried out the Chaghi tests of May 28, 1998 and the Kharan test of May 30, 1998." -- Are "Chagai", "Chagai", and "Chaghi" the same here? Need to correct typo or regularize spelling? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On 2023-02-08 user:2001:8f8:1335:23e9:bd58:d693:7910:fcee edited a section of the code for this article that was commented out.

The section in question begins:

<!-- BEGIN OF COMMENTED CODE ====================================================== this text was moved from [[Chagai-I]]; plan is to merge here, limit [[WP:FORK|forking]], and clean up both articles

The section that was commented out consists of 1,199 words, 10,581 characters, per LibreOffice.

I don't know how long that section of code has been there, but I suspect it has been there for a few years, part of a project that was abandoned.

Accordingly, I am deleting that section. If someone else needs it, they can revert my deletion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move There is not a consensus for the move among established editors, and a quick Wikipedia search on weapons of mass destruction returns articles under that name for may states including India, Israel and the five members of the UN Security Council. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons The name of the article causes it to appear biased and requires a name that matches the information and shows a neutral point of view.(unsigned)
  • Proposed title should be capitalised Pakistan and nuclear weapons per WP:NAME. I have no opinion otherwise. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The title of the article makes it seem biased. There is also no mention of chemical or biological weapons within this article and Pakistan has no developed biological/chemical weapons. It needs to be changed.--Always Ahead (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I do question the importance of "Pakistan is currently the only predominantly Muslim country with nuclear capabilities" would we put "Israel is currently the only predominantly Jewish country with nuclear capabilities"... I think it would be wiser to put this in the context of one of the Pakistani foreign ministers from the 1980's speech about if Pakistan got a nuclear weapon than the whole Muslim world would... that gives it some importance in the light of proliferation... gren

Wouldnt the title Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent be more apropriate? WMD is such a crap term only used to scare people by american news agencies.

• I agree, the topic should be "Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent". That is the official policy of Pakistan, and so must Wikipedia respect it.

Added some more info to the chart with respect to correct nomenclature, payload, status, alt. names, and range. Source: PakDef.info and Pakistani Defence.com

"Pakistan and its Nuclear Detterent" sounds like there is a pro-Pakistani agenda. Nuclear weapons are aggressive weapons we must not let a national opinion/policy take its own tone in a wikipedia article. the closest safest bet it to use the neutral terms and point of view as used by the United Nations Izivkovi (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "weapons of mass destruction" was not invented by U.S. media as a scare tactic. It is a term used by the UN to describe nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There is no bias in the term. There is bias - in the form of ofuscation - in the proposd title "Pakistan and its Nuclear deterrent." Furthermore, there are discussions elsewhere on the web of Pakistan having a chemical weapons program, though not a biological weapons program. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is keep the title and include sections ofn CW and BW (the latter would say that Pakistan is not believed to have a BW program). NPguy (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Missile table

I just reverted an apparent good faith edit that replaced the previous table of Pakistani missiles with a pre-existing template. The original change had not been explained. To my eyes, the earlier version of the table was more useful as a reference - it contained substantive information rather than just a bunch of links to other articles. If there's a good reason for the change, please explain it here. NPguy (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This table was on about 11 pages here in wiki and on each page the contents (inventory,range,payload) were different. The inventory section is just made up numbers by somebody. On other pages people have pointed this out and since it was a lot of effort changing these numbers on each page so I made a template to make it easier to maintain the missile list. The template has links to the missile's respective pages where a reader can obtain the range,payload info easily. We can leave this table if you like it. Since now it is only this page that has it, so it won't be a lot of problem editing and maintaining it. Just wanted to let you know that there are inaccuracies in this table. Abdali missiles is listed as cancelled, it is very much operational. There is no Tipu missile in service or under development. Tipu was one of the name considered for either Babur or Raad but was discarded. Pakistan may name one future missile Tipu but right now Tipu does not exist. Shaheen-III and Ghauri-III are missing etc.

{Raza0007 | Talk} 09:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I'm surprised I haven't seen the discussion, but I don't focus on missile issues. I do think the deleted table had one advantage over the one that replaced it: readability. Is it possible to update the template so the table contains more information and not just a bunch of links? NPguy (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is possible to update the template with more information but then the template will become unreadable due to too much information. That particular template listed all the missiles in the inventory of Pakistan and I am thinking that it will not be suitable on this page, as it deals only with WMDs. The missile table should list only those missiles that can carry non-conventional payload, so you have a point of keeping this current table. This current table does list most of Pakistan's Nuclear capable missiles and I will correct the mistakes on it then it should be fine. It would not make sense to make another template of this table as it is only going to be used on this one page and the advantage of a template is to make it easier to manage edits when the information is on multiple pages. I will update and improve this current table. Give me 1-2 days. I had replaced this table with the template earlier as I did not want to waste time correcting this table, but I guess I will have to waste some time on it anyway.{Raza0007 | Talk} 07:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have updated and improved the missile table. I have removed the inventory column as the exact inventory is not disclosed by Pakistan nor is estimated by any independent third party. The "other name" column was not needed. These missiles are known by the names listed in the table. The information is not referenced here as a reader can get that on the missiles respective pages. This will keep the table simple. The respective missile pages are under going improvement and are going to be properly referenced in the coming days. Enjoy.{Raza0007 | Talk} 09:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing AQ Khan's crimes

A user recently edited this article to make A.Q. Khan look innocent of the crimes he committed, and otherwise to make Pakistan look innocent and autonomous in its nuclear program. These changes are largely inaccurate (for example, Khan was convicted of stealing URENCO designs), and should be corrected. I'm marking this point because I don't have time to do this now. NPguy (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can u provide a link to edits you are referring to please, I am rather neutral in the whole matter. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Khan was wrongly convicted of stealing URENCO designs. The court later found him not guilty because sufficient proof was not available to convict him of the stealing . i have thoroughly read the article and then have corrected the Anti-Khan Propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhayer171288 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any significant doubt that Khan stole the centrifuge designs from URENCO, nor of any reason to believe he developed them on his own. I am not an expert on the literature in this field, but I wanted to alert others to what was going on. Some view him as a national hero of Pakistan, but they should not be enabled to bias the content of the article. NPguy (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

if you would have read the reference article through which the information is given in the wikipedia page "http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/pakistan/khan.htm" you will find that "his conviction would be later overturned on a technicality". i am asking you would a court let loose a man who stole Nuclear secrets to create a Nuclear Bomb. i think not. if you read this interview of a.q. khan on this matter and if you research a little yourself, you will find like me that most of it is media propaganda just to spice things up. and i am correcting this media propaganda so that the world can have unbiased information. i mean think for a minute Netherlands court freed a person who had the capacity to create a N-Bomb?. if some one leaks Nuclear secrets the thing that happens to them is the same that happens to Mordechai Vanunu. i hope u know who Mordechai Vanunu is?? Zuhayer171288 (talk) 04:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Khan was tried in absentia. He was never in custody and therefore was not "freed." Overturning "on a technicality" generally implies that the conclusion was correct but proper legal procedure was not followed. I stand by the statement that he stole the designs. NPguy (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ofcourse you "stand by the statement that he stole the designs". and with that you must also believe Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). and you must also believe that the US is not is Afghanistan for "OIL and DRUGS" etc. MAN WAKE UP stop believing in the MEDIA PROPAGANDA. i have got no idea whether khan stole something or not. but i know that the "MEDIA" spices things up so that more people watch/read their news. if you are willing to let the media tell you what ever it wants you to hear then GO ON. but if you Know like i do that MEDIA IS being USED TO TELL PEOPLE LIES then it becomes your & my responsibility to tell the people the truth. as i said before i don't know whether khan stole something or not. But the reports are very clear the case was "Overturning on a technicality" and people are not freed on a technicality in Nuclear Secrets related cases. This technicality is not just some small mistake made by the lawyers that ended in khan's release, this technicality is concocted by MEDIA so that the news can be made spicy because the bottom line is that the court ruled in favour of khan & that is explained in the interview of khan (http://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2009-04/artikel-2009-04-interview-khan-english-version.html)" & as always you are always free to correct me...Zuhayer171288 (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing two key points. First, Khan was tried in absentia. He wasn't there for the trial. He was never jailed. He was never released. Second, in an honest justice system, people are freed on technicalities. Do do otherwise is to encourage abuses of the law by the authorities. In addition to stealing Urenco centrifuge designs, Khan ran an international criminal enterprise to traffic in centrifuge technology, spreading it to Libya, Iran, North Korea and who knows where else. It's hard to imagine a single person who has done more to undermine international security by profiting from the spread of sensitive nuclear technology. He has contradicted his own statements so often that I would not trust anything he says. NPguy (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

you seem to be forgetting that both of us are talking.... you dont consider answering my queries and start your writing as if i have not contributed anything. If you have already made up your mind about truth/justice, good/bad, happy/sad things, discussing further with that attitude is not going to lead this discussion anywhere .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuhayer171288 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not a conversation. There is no point in responding to your attacking rant on unrelated topics (Iraq, Afghanistan). NPguy (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comments in number 20 but I think it's abundantly clear that this article is biased - I understand he is a national hero, but this is an Encylopedia. Zuhayer, your comments are ridiculous and clearly biased. It is well known and verified that A.Q. Khan stole designs in '76, and proceeded after the establishment of the nuclear program in Pakistan to sell those designs to North Korea, Iran, and Libya, at least. It is a complicated story but nonetheless this is an encyclopedia, and it should mention all this controversy with relevant citations. This article stinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.134 (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Taliban has nuclear weapons?

"Manmohan Singh had warned US president Barack Obama that Pakistan's nuclear sites in North West Frontier Province areas that are Taliban-al Qaeda strongholds are already partly in the hands of Islamic extremists."[4]. Hence the debates in DC. Should this be included? Biophys (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This a unrealist and bogus statement that Manmohan Singh gave. First of all Nuclear weapons aren't easily to fire. Second of all, Nuclear weapons aren't like Stinger Missiles to be fired in a seconds. It takes time to be activate and lock the target. I am aerospace engineering student, as in my information, nuclear war heads are pretty big and heavy; unlike stinger missiles. They can't be fire off easily. The Indian Prime Minister is surely talking nonsense bcos nuclear weapons aren't easy to developed. There may be mining fields in NWFP, but we all know that Talibans do not promote any kind of scientific education. the primary question is, are talibans nuclear physicist now? And that they (talibans) can seperate isotopes of U-238 into yellow care then convert into UF6? That's dellusional and distort.

That doesn't make sense. Pakistan's nuclear scientists are responisible more than indian nuclear scientists. Pakistani nuclear scientists work in a harsh conditions, thanks to dr. A.Q Khan. Lately, former Indian army chief did confessed that Pakistan's nuclear weapon are safe as well as their mining field. He also confessed that Nuclear weapons are monitored 24/7. In an Jang daily, he also confessed that Pakistan's has expertised in nuclear safety and that Pakistani Nuclear programme is far more advanced that India's. Manmohan Singh is stupid to be releasing that kind of statement or it's just a anti-Pakistan statement to increase resentment toward Pakistan.

Obviously, this is not about production of nuclear weapons by terrorists. This is about firing nuclear weapons by precisely the same personnel who would fire them in the case of war, however on the order from terrorists, who either overrun the facility, or penetrate it through their agents. Are these facilities safe? Obviously, they are not, because US Congress spent billions to keep them safe, but still has no idea how the money are spent, judging from the publication in New York Times.Biophys (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And please do not tell about big and heavy warheads. They have tactical nuclear weapons on the basis of plutonium.Biophys (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, yes, the facilities are safe. Pakistan's SSG Commandos monitored these faciliies 24/7. It's not easy, more like impossible, to transfer sensitive nuclear technology, per say, tactical nuclear weapons to be export to terrorists. Lets not forget that every nuclear weapon is computerized; need a electronic key trigger, and requires a sufficient computer facility to set and lock the targets. Talibans aren't that educated to understand the computer technlogy. This is dellusional that terrorists will get nuclear weapons to kill us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.163.224 (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point here is not whether the nuke facilities are safe or not or if they are monitored 24/7. I am sure that the pakistani government is as much concerned about the safery and handlinf of it's nuclear arsenel as anyone else in the world. The point is more on the line that, the areas in which the nuke facilities are physically located are controlled (partially if not totally) by the Taliban. Ultimately it is humans who are trained to launch the nuke warheads and they can be managed by force as well. Including the Indian primeminister's statement would not have anything to do with propoganda as it was part of many statements issued related to the conditions in the Swat valley and NE frontier provinces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Economist101 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Terrorists 'have attacked Pakistan nuclear sites three times'. Biophys (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alqaida and Talibans have repeatedly tried to target Pakistan's nuclear installation in 2007 and further year. Pakistan's Wah Lab (Nuclear weapon development factory) has been attacked by using a suicide bombers. But Suicide Attack was failed. Pakistani forces intercepted the suicide bomber; the bomber exploded himself in the huge public crowd before the Pakistani Commandos captured him. Also, Pakistan's Jang also claimed that the Pakistan nukes especially missiles are stored in a different compounds so then even if terrorists captured; they still wouldn't have idea how to put things together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.143.129 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cruise missiles

Someone has wrote that the Pakistanian cruise missiles could deal with relative ease with anti missiles systems such as the Patriot (I assume he/she meant the PAC 3 type) and Arrow 2. Well, let me tell you, any kind of cruise missile could easily do it as those systems are specifically built to deal with high altitude, rapid ballistic missiles and no one pretend to use them agains cruise missiles. However, the AWACS system could easily track most kinds of cruise missiles, the SM-6 could intercept them with relative ease and there are a range of means -from UAVs to Lasr weapon which is almost operational that could deal cruise missiles. So, I think that the reference redundant.--Gilisa (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy Deletion

I have deleted the below sentence as it is factually incorrect.

"However, Pakistan, like India and Israel, is not a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and, consequently, not bound by any of its provisions."

India and Israel are not the signatories of NPT along with Pakistan and North Korea.

The statement was factually correct. North Korea is a signatory, having signed, acceded, and subsequently withdrawn. Being a "signatory" means that a country has signed. After acceding (or ratifying), a country becomes a "party" to the treaty. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "cold test" mean?

The articles states that Pakistan made a number of cold tests of nuclear devices. But the phrase "cold test" is never defined. The article should state what it means, or link to some other article that contains an explanation (e.g. do you just pretend that there is a nuclear explosion, or do you try to use cold fusion, or do you perform a test in the winter, etc). 90.232.166.122 (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A cold test is the actual detonation of a complete nuclear bomb except instead of enriched uranium, in the middle of the bomb, you put natural uranium. So it will not go into fission. It will not acquire full power, but it is a complete bomb in all respects. What does it do? It produces a high flux of neutrons when the detonation takes place and one has to have the capability of measuring these neutrons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.134.174 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Dr. A.Q. Khan? Need Section on Proliferation Concerns

Seems pretty ridiculous to me that this article makes no mention of the controversy surrounding the scientist who admitted to selling technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. I don't feel like writing the insert but I'll provide some news links. The section entitled "Security Concerns of the United States" (as if it's purely an American concern) needs to be drawn out and renamed. The bias on this article practically stinks in my opinion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/world/a-tale-of-nuclear-proliferation-how-pakistani-built-his-network.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/world/asia/05pstan.html?ref=abdul_qadeer_khan

The second link is Khan admitting to giving centrifuges to North Korea. Patently absurd that the Pakistani article on WMD makes no mention of nuclear proliferation. This was big news, and it still is as Clinton is now visiting Pakistan with a new aid package and these concerns were brought up directly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/world/asia/20diplo.html?ref=world

anonymous ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.192.134 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a brief mention of A.Q. Khan in the section on the development of nuclear weapons. The main gap is that the section on uranium infrastructure is too short. That section needs to be beefed up and Khan should feature prominently. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@ NPguy - Right. What I meant to say is that there is no mention of the controversy surrounding him. He is certainly mentioned but not anything related to what we are talking about.

Again, I'll reiterate that proliferation concerns and the history of A.Q. Khan is prominent in diplomatic relations even today, and this article is clearly whitewashed. What prompted me to comment is that this article has been in this state for seemingly a long time. Needs to be fixed or there needs to be a warning about bias. ````anonymous

Abdus Salam and Nuclear weapons?

Should we mention Professor Abdus Salam's name in the beginning of the article? I think it would be appropriate so. Abdus Salam was in Pakistan during the midst of Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. As Science advisor to the President (Later Prime minister), he was aware of every inch of the program, there is no way he would have not known. Also, Abdus Salam had brought hundreds of Pakistani physicists and mathematicians to Pakistan who played a integral part in the development of the program. Salam, also had arranged the Multan meeting, and was involved in every inch and every step when this program was created. In other word, Munir Ahmad Khan led the laboratories and nuclear fuel plants, but the original research was supervised under the guidance of Abdus Salam as he was serving as the Science advisor to Prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. So, it would be appropriate to add or even mention Abdus Salam's name in this article, which I already have done so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.4.31 (talk) 06:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to mention Abdus Salam in this article. He was science advisor to Bhutto, but opposed the nuclear weapons program [5]. He was also a professor at Imperial College and Director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy at the time, so he was not spending much of his time in Pakistan [6]. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You should get your facts right before making a claim. Here is Dr Samar Mubarak Mand's admission that Dr Salam was leading the effort to build the bomb from the very outset. Do Tok on ARY News - Dr. Samar Mubarakmand -28-08-2010 - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7gvEDYlDI Watch from 8:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.122.112 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This video is not in English. Is there a transcript? NPguy (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

If Abdus Salam opposed the weapons program then why would he call his students from Italy to Pakistan, to developed the designs of the nuclear weapons? If Salam was an opposition to the nuclear weapons, then why would he arranged and managed the Multan meeting where it was decided to develop the nuclear weapons? If Abdus Salam was against of weapons program, then he surely would've alarmed the international community about the nuclear weapons program. Why wouldn't he break his silence and be quiet for such a long time? Clearly, a science advisory is a prestigious job title, a person (if we imagine the nuclear weapons development period) almost knows every inch of the program. Salam was involved in the program where he had led the Theoretical Physics Group along with his students whom he supervised their Ph.Ds in Great Britain. This all changed when Parliament signed the controversial bill declaring Ahmadi Muslims as non-muslim. He left the country in protest. But, made a short trip to Pakistan when General Zia had awarded him the nation's high civil award. So, don't you think Salam's name should be mention?? Program started in 1972, but Salam left in 1974. The period between 1974 and 72' are considered very early and starting stage of the program. Does that statement makes sense to you?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.4.31 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

What evidence do you have to support the claim that Salam called his students from Italy to Pakistan to work on nuclear weapons design? PAEC had legitimate peaceful programs in addition to supporting the weapons program, and one of the links I cited says stayed or was kept out of the weapons-related activities. There is a lot to theoretical physics that has nothing to do with bombs, including the entire field of theoretical particle physics in which Salam made his career and for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence are provided in the article. True, Salam had peaceful and mystic personality. Salam had prolific career in theoretical physics, and pioneered or/associated with all aspect of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is one of unique field of physics, it is like a big universe that studies everything that exist in nature and beyond nature. It ranges from fundamental physics to advanced nuclear physics. Abdus Salam did not design the weapons, but his students did who studied under him. Salam just had supervised the research of Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) and coordinated the research that was undertaking by the PAEC until 1974. He had motivated scientists from academic university of Pakistan to come to PAEC. With his friend Munir Ahmad Khan, he had done a groundbreaking work in the nuclear development. Still, he, and other PAEC academic scientists, are not given credit for their contribution at all. Since Abdul Qadeer Khan had took everyone's credit and posed himself that he designed and led the entire programme, in spite of his academic discipline. Because the sensitivity of this programme was very important during that time, Salam did not confirmed his role even after his death. Until 1999, when his students such as Riazuddin gave interview to Shahidur Rehman who wrote a long book under various chapters. The author wrote a lot about Abdus Salam's contribution to PAEC from the peaceful development to weapons programme. At some point, he has praised Salam but on the hand, he has written biased work on Abdus Salam. I hope I satisfied you with my discussion.

I don't see any actual evidence in the latest edits that Salam had any direct role in Pakistan's nuclear program. Theoretical physics is not the same as bomb design. The fact that he had students who moved from one to the other does not mean he was part of the program. If he were alive I suspect he would be insulted by any attempt to give him "credit" for Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. NPguy (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical physics is not the same as bomb design, that is true. Abdus Salam did not design and developed the bomb, it was not his role nor he participated. There are no evidence presented that provided the fact that he was involved in the designing of the weapons. Now, I am going to provide you evidence or atleast, you consider them as evidence.

Case-I, During 1971, Abdus Salam was in Pakistan when he saw his country going in a war with an intense rival India. Like others, he witnessed his country ripped apart into two pieces. It was a difficult time for Pakistanis, and everyone was demoralized. So, what Salam did is, he managed a meeting of scientists that he participated and met with Bhutto on 20th January, 1972. The same year, he called his students from ICTP and they formed Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) directly reporting to Salam. Salam led this division but had no role in the development of the first fission weapon. It was kept in secret until many years and TPG scientists were remained silence for many years. All he did was to led the establishment and groundbreaking work of this division. Later when he left, the TPG was led by his students and directly report to Munir Khan. As of today, this division is still active dedicated to carry out research on Astrophysics and plasma space physics.

Case-II, Here are the evidence that listed below. These links will provided Salam's contribution to Pakistan's nuclear energy programme as well as his hidden role in the development of the weapons programme.

• In this photo below, is Salam seen approaching to Bhutto to shake his hand. This is taken in KANUPP-I reactor November 1972. It was issued by the PAEC in 2006.

.

• KANUPP Video— In this vintage video, in which Munir Khan is receiving Bhutto and Salam. As Khan is giving tour to Zulfi Bhutto, Salam is seen in his right and giving assistance to Bhutto.
• See Multan Conference, in page 14, Abdus Salam is seen sitting with Bhutto on his right-side. This is the meeting where Bhutto announced the starting of nuclear programme.

• Salam as PAEC member, in this journal, his pupil student Riazuddin provided details of Salam's contribution in nuclear energy programme.

• See the section The Wah Group: Designers and Manufacturers of Pakistan’s Nuclear Device, provided an evidence that Salam was presented in a meeting chaired by his life long friend Munir Ahmad Khan, when he established the DTD, the directorate that built mechanics of the bomb. Note, the word Bomb was never used.

• And, finally the Long Road to Chagai, the book written by Shahidur Rahman. The author has provided large details of Abdus Salam's contribution to both energy and weapons programme. What I suggest to you, is getting this book online, in order verify the facts in recent edits. They are written in a book under many chapters. I did not make these fact by myself, nor can I. Even the NTI's profile country also mention Salam's presence and involvement in the programme's early years. Here is the ISBN for this book:

Shahidur Rehman, Long Road to Chagai, pp157, ISBN 9698500006.

• At the end, the last sentence what you have wrote, is completely based on what you think, mate. Salam was a very private and quiet man. Salam was Pakistani, a proud one. Despite the calls were made by his friends to accept the British citizenship that was offered by the HM Government, Salam remained a loyal Pakistani until his death. Salam neither would be ashamed or proud of his role in the PAEC's weapons development after he sent hundreds of scientists to gain doctorates in physics and nuclear engineering. Judging from his personality, he would rather be quiet and silence about this matter as he did in his later life. But, when he was bugged out about the programme (such as his opinion on the Chagai-I) and his role in the PAEC, Salam would have re-quote and recalled the words of Professor Hans Bethe.

Just a few months before, the Indo-Pak war had broken out, and for the first time I saw direct confrontation with the India and Pakistan. It was too disturbing. I knew then I had to reverse my earlier position. If I did not work on the bomb, somebody else would — and I had thought if I were around Los Alamos I might still be a force for disarmament. So I agreed to join in developing the programme. It seemed quite logical. But sometimes I wish I were a more consistent idealist. I changed this statement to provide what Salam might have said. The actual statement is read as:

Just a few months before, the Korean war had broken out, and for the first time I saw direct confrontation with the communists. It was too disturbing. The cold war looked as if it were about to get hot. I knew then I had to reverse my earlier position. If I did not work on the bomb, somebody else would — and I had thought if I were around Los Alamos I might still be a force for disarmament. So I agreed to join in developing the H-bomb. It seemed quite logical. But sometimes I wish I were a more consistent idealist.

Professor Hans Bethe, In the Shadow of the Bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. 166. ISBN 9780691049892.

In the end, I am resting my case. Because Salam was a peaceful person and a prolific theoretical physicist. It doesn't mean that he had no sense of how to developed the weapon. Furthermore, even the major and the prime Manhattan project' scientists were theoretical physicist. And they had advocated the disarmament after they had built one. These men did what they had to do. If they wouldn't helped the United States to built one, Hitler would have killed us. This was the same rationale used by Zulfi Bhutto when he asked Salam and other senior academic scientists to built the weapon for their own nation.

As for me, I do not advocate for the nuclear weapons. They are terrible and evil, but because they have history behind it, it is publicly written in many books. The scientists who have built these weapons for their nation should be mentioned their role based on the true facts, not based on what were their opinions and stands on weapons.

None of this is evidence that Salam actually worked on nuclear weapons development. The one possible exception is the book by Mr. Rehman, which you cite several times in the article. I am not going to buy the book online to verify that it supports the claims you are making. I would appreciate it if you could find and post a single direct quote from that book that says that Salam worked on Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Using Google books, I found a number of references to Salam, none of which had anything to do with weapons work.

I am extremely skeptical of the assertion that Salam had any role in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. It is an extraordinary claim, demanding clear evidence, which has not been provided. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

He had no role, and it has been said over and over. He made contributions in the energy programme. That's what the links are saying. That's what the recent are pointing out. I don't know what else you are looking for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.105.21 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is Dr Samar Mubarak Mand's admission that Dr Salam was leading the effort to build the bomb from the very outset. Do Tok on ARY News - Dr. Samar Mubarakmand -28-08-2010 - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE7gvEDYlDI Watch from 8:42. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.122.112 (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The article was recently edited extensively to assert and insinuate that Salam had a major role in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. If this is false, those edits should be reverted or extensively cut back. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

foreign assistance

indians keep putting in foreign assistance however when anyone puts a foreign assistance section in the india and WMD article, they keep deleting it. Do something about it please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

partnerships

In the North Korea and weapons of mass destruction article it states that N.Korea had exchange partnerships with Pakistan. perhaps we should mention that Pakistan exchanged nuclear technology with missile technology.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

cruise missiles

No mention of cruise missiles reverse engineered from American tomahawk missiles accidentally dropped into Pakistan. Should be added.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan's nuclear weapons program – Per WP:UCN --Relisted. Red Slash 09:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the move is twofold, the usage of WMDs in the title is not neutral, and is usually associated with rogue states, the other reason is that Pakistan has developed Nukes only, and not "weapons of mass destruction", WMD is a buzz word which covers all manner of chemical weapons as well. A quick look on GBooks shows the majority of sources call it what it is, a nuclear weapons program. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA, specifically consistency with other members of Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nuclear weapons are the quintessential WMD. NPguy (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I think an article split would help if this move is not carried out. Red Slash 09:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this move per consistency with Category:Weapons of mass destruction by country, as pointed out by BDD, but I have a feeling something does need doing to the whole set. I am not a fan of naming articles "A and B" - such titles fail WP:PRECISE because they're just a conjunction of topics, similar to Tom Cruise and apples, or Brazil and brazil nuts, without telling us why those things might be connected. Interestingly as well, we have an article Nuclear weapons and the United States which is apparently phrased the other way round. Is that because of alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 January 2014‎
• Oppose But would moving all such pages to "WMDs of X" for all countries X work? Hcobb (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Amakuru is correct that WP:AND is usually a word to avoid in titles, but the nuance of these topics is such that the more vague "and" titles are helpful. Weapons of mass destruction of Poland, for example, would be a bad title because, at least based on our article, Poland has never had WMDs. The actual title Poland and weapons of mass destruction describes Poland's overall relationship with WMDs. And while this is getting pretty pedantic, "Weapons of mass destruction of Poland" could also refer to weapons specifically designed for the mass destruction of Poland. Not a likely misunderstanding, I grant you, but clarity is important. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

China's assistance on lead

The sentence about China's assistance for the nuclear program should be mentioned in the lead as a summary of the foreign assistance section since MOS:INTRO requires leads to be a brief summary of the whole article. The sentence is also cited by a reliable source. I.Bhardwaj (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2007/may-2007/bhutto-was-father-of-pakistani-bomb/?locale=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113203148/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Lankan-Muslims-in-Dubai-supplied-Nmaterials-to-Pak-A-Q-Khan/514870/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517101729/http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp to http://www.missilethreat.com/cruise/id.144/cruise_detail.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120112210540/http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=180186

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20140810150255/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-252241-A-historic-day
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510025046/http://india.nydailynews.com:80/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack to http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145342/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-278025-Unsung-heroes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150627145333/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-279343-Unsung-heroes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108072529/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/chronology_1990.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712233956/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=2006%5C02%5C28%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\02\28\story_28-2-2006_pg7_24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222163116/http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2 to http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96657&Itemid=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008/11/25/story_25-11-2008_pg3_2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction. 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://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/b749661854b09cc8d1ff03a5afdbe27c/pakistan-expanding-nuclear-arsenal-to-deter-us-attack
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120604034533/http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml to http://ipripak.org/papers/india-pakistan.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721120736/http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/world/11-pakistan-enhances-second-strike-n-capability--us-report--il--12
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5Cstory_28-2-2006_pg7_24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

British English

This article was recently edited to change U.S. to US throughout. This is supposedly the British English standard. I have two questions. (1) Why use this standard for the name of the United States? (2) How do I know that this is the British standard? Where can I find that? NPguy (talk) 01:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Any search engine should get you the results, outside of America nobody uses full stops in acronyms something that should also be obvious from using a search engine. MilborneOne (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Did China conduct a nuclear test for Pakistan in 1980?

As of 2020-03-28, the section of this article on Alleged foreign co-operation says, "The former US officials have also disclosed that China had allegedly transferred technology to Pakistan and conducting putative test for it in 1980.<ref>China tested N-weapons for Pak: US insider [[The Times of India]] 6 September 2008</ref>

Does that Times of India article exist? I looked and could not find it.

Even if it exists, is it credible? Unless it cites another publication that seems credible, I think that sentence should probably be deleted, and the rest of that section rewritten so it makes sense without that sentence. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

growing size and largest yield?

@John Kamar: You need citations for your edit to the infobox changing "Largest yield test" from "25–40 ,,," to "65 kt in 1998 (PAEC claim)"

My review of these references:

• Ref. [1]: I cannot find "yield" nor "24", "40", nor "65" in this reference. I deleted that reference from this item.

• The second and third note cite different yield numbers.
• The fourth says, "The Pakistan Government authorities puts up the yield range from 20-~40kt".

CONCLUSION: The numbers "25–40" seem adequately documented. The change to 65 kd is not. I therefore reverted the change to 65 back to 25-40.

You also need citations for changing "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles from "150-160" to "170". The current references similarly support the earlier numbers, not your change. I therefore reverted that as well.

Your claim that "And according to Global Fire Power report Pakistan is swiftly growing their nuclear asserts and by year 2025 they can become world's third largest nuclear arsenal" needs an explicit reference. If it's there, I've missed it. Given the questions I have about the other changes, I'm reverting this one also without further research. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Indian customs detaining a Chinese vessel

@NPguy: Why do you say the actions of Indian customs to detain a Chinese vessel with "dual use" equipment is not notable?

I see two issues here:

1. Detaining a foreign vessel like this seems highly irregular, bordering on an act of war.
2. Attempts by a nuclear weapon state like Pakistan trying to obtain such "dual use" equipment seems like it's highly relevant to a discussion like this about its WMD program.

I've spent much of the past week revising the Wikipedia article on Richard Barlow (Intelligence analyst) and adding a section on "Violations of the NPT" to the Wikipedia article on "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". A major concern that has surfaced in my recent research on nuclear proliferation is assistance the US provided to the Pakistani nuclear-weapons program in the 1980s. Barlow and Robert Gallucci have both said that Pakistan would not have nuclear weapons today if the US had not illegally exported many items like this, in violation of US and international law, with the active encouragement of high-ranking US government officials. Moreover, those technology transfers were essential in allowing Pakistan to build “the world's largest atomic black market", without which North Korea would not have nuclear weapons today, and Iran would not have a substantive nuclear-weapons program.

I plan to revert your deletion of that edit.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DavidMCEddy, unless we want to make a page specifically for Pakistan and proliferation/counterproliferation this is the most appropriate place to put such information. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Interdictions like this are not that uncommon. Trying to piece together bits of evidence like this into a coherent narrative amounts to WP:OR original research. NPguy (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is piecing anything together, there is also only one source so it literally can’t be WP:SYNTH. Interdictions like this are not uncommon, but what about that means they shouldn’t be covered if reliable sources cover them? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The question is whether this information in itself is significant enough to put in this article. It's a single data point, like the aluminum tubes in Iraq, that is not necessarily of any significance to the subject of the article. NPguy (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Seventh or eighth?

@Horse Eye Jack: The Wikipedia "List of states with nuclear weapons" lists 9 countries. Israel is number seven if you accept the 1979 Vela incident as being a nuclear weapons test conducted jointly by Israel and South Africa, which seems the be the prevailing expert opinion. There is also documentation that they collaborated in France's first test in 1960.

Whether you accept Israel as conducting a first test with South Africa in 1979 or France in 1960, Pakistan can still be classified as the eighth nation to conduce a "first test" -- unless you also count South Africa separate from Israel, which doesn't seem reasonable, especially since South Africa destroyed their nuclear weapons in the transition to majority rule.

Accordingly, I am reverting your change: I believe that the standard narrative list Pakistan as number eight and North Korea as number none. If you think differently, please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@NPguy: What sources do you have for claiming that Pakistan "became the seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapon"? See the above. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The description says Pakistan was eighth to test, which presumes the Vela incident was a test. That is a disputed conjecture. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@NPguy: What sources do you have for claiming that Pakistan "became the seventh country in the world to successfully develop and test nuclear weapon"? See the above. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The description says Pakistan was eighth to test, which presumes the Vela incident was a test. That is a disputed conjecture. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@NPguy: Yes, the claim that the Vela incident was a test of a nuclear weapon is a disputed conjecture, as is the claim that it was not.

This is not a US criminal court where the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a unanimous decision of a jury. This is more like a civil judgment, where the decision is based on the preponderance of the evidence in the opinion of a majority of a jury.

Permit me to suggest further that we are not talking about a relatively trivial matter like a so-called "free trade" agreement: The threat of nuclear war is the only global catastrophic risk that I believe has a high probability of ending civilization. As noted in Wikiversity:Time to the extinction of civilization, Daniel Ellsberg and other leading figures have said that as long as the world maintains large nuclear arsenals, it is only a matter of time before there is a nuclear war. "Beard and Holt (2019) at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge estimated a 0.6 percent chance of a nuclear war in the next year. As noted in the section on this below, that is roughly equivalent to estimates of 21 and 30 percent of a nuclear war in the next 40 or 60 years, respectively."

In addition to estimating the probability of a nuclear war based on the published literature, I have modeled nuclear proliferation. It stretches credibility to suggest that nuclear proliferation has ended: It is much more likely to continue until something makes it effectively impossible for anyone to make more nuclear weapons for a very long time. This in turn implies that the threat of nuclear war is increasing over time, which suggests that the estimates of the probability of a nuclear war given in Wikiversity:Time to the extinction of civilization are probability conservative. Ellsberg claims that a nuclear war will almost certainly be followed by a nuclear winter lasting years during which 98 percent of humanity will starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner. Prominent climatologists suggest that a "minor" nuclear war between India and Pakistan would likely produce a "nuclear autumn" during which a quarter of humanity will most likely starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner.

Please excuse: This background is not directly relevant to the current question. It is offered to explain the reason I'm concerned about this. For more on my concern about this, see Wikiversity:Time to nuclear Armageddon, which is a video and companion narrative of a presentation I made at the the 2019 Joint Statistical Meetings. If you care about the future of civilization, I humbly beseech thee to give more consideration to the alternatives. (By the way, my recent "Wikiversity:Confirmation bias and conflict" is a discussion of human psychology and political corruption, which summarizes an important part of my worldview, developed over the past quarter century of research in a broad range of public policy questions. Comments welcomed.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Peak stockpile = 150-160 warheads?

On 2020-07-19T13:53:22‎ and again 2020-07-21T20:05:04‎ user:192.164.14.51 changed the "Peak stockpile" and "Current stockpile" both from 160 to 200. On 2020-07-19, I checked the reference and saw a number 160, so I reverted the change. Today, when I checked, the SIPRI website did not offer me the same summary that I remember from a couple of days ago, and it is pushing me to subscribe. Nevertheless, they allowed me to look at part of their report. I found that they reported 150-160 warheads for Pakistan, not just a single number. I didn't find them giving different numbers for "Peak" vs. "Current stockpile". However, they did say, "Pakistan’s nuclear weapon arsenal is likely to continue to expand over the next decade". I think it's unlikely that Pakistan's "Current stockpile" is less than their "Peak", so I made the two numbers the same. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is a source deprecated?

@Thepharoah17: On 2020-08-09T18:22:39 you deleted the following:

Ghosh, Palash (4 April 2012). "India Joins Nuclear Submarine Community; Pakistan Alarmed". International Business Times. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013. Retrieved 13 August 2013.

You wrote, "Deprecated source".

Why is this source deprecated? I can't find the remaining source. It seems to have disappeared from the web. Anyone familiar with the politics between India and Pakistan should know that nothing published in India about Pakistan should be accepted at face value. However, it still seems useful to know that Indians seem to have indicated concern about the threat of escalation of the India-Pakistan arms race.

I'm reverting your deletion. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

We will eat grass

An editor recently deleted a purported quote of Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto "We will eat grass," etc. Though the whole quote may not be genuine, at least part of is famous and genuine and should be highlighted somewhere in this article. I did a little digging found several references but none with enough specificity to cite. Can someone find a proper citation and put the quote in proper context in this article? NPguy (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

need ref. for 2021 estimate

@Arishakayani: Can you please provide a complete reference for your updating the numbers of warheads in Pakistan's "Peak" and "Current" stockpiles?

I cannot fine "(2021 estimate)". Even with that, I don't think it's appropriate to simply delete the reference to SIPRI -- <ref name="Stockpile2">{{cite web|title=Global nuclear weapons|url=https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2021/10|website=sipri|publisher=SIPRI|access-date=18 July 2021}}</ref>. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is a highly respected source for information like this. They should be cited in this article.

If you have another source that you like better, I suggest you include that source in the same <ref name="Stockpile2" definition, e.g., <ref name="Stockpile2">{{cite ...}}. This source gives numbers that seem to be more current than those in {{cite web|title=Global nuclear weapons|url=https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2021/10|website=sipri|publisher=SIPRI|access-date=18 July 2021}}</ref>.

I look forward to seeing your addition of a complete citation. In the meantime, I am reverting your edit.

Thanks for your efforts to make the "sum of all human knowledge" more freely available. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that claims Pakistan tested a true thermonuclear weapon?

There is no foreign source available that claims Pakistan detonated a staged thermonuclear or fusion weapon. Disputed and doubtful claims should not be stated here. Anupom.001 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Its complicated subject because Pakistan had tested a boosted-fission devices using HEU and Pu-239. Boosted fission are type-of-fusion devices but they are not really fusion unlike Castle Bravo or Ivy Mike. It is well understood that since Pakistan has knowledge of boosted fission technicals and are able-- its their policy not to test given the smaller area they are in. User talk:PeerBaba (talk) 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Worst page

This is by-far the worst page the wikipedia has published. It is more written with conspiracy theories and rumors than actually what it is. The page is also politicized, and it is also based on rumors rather than fact. This page needs major overhaul and clean-up. User talk:PeerBaba (talk) 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Is there any specific claim made in this article that is not adequately supported by a credible reference or is contradicted by some other reference you believe is credible?

If yes, please mention it here or modify the text so you think it is better.

Realize, however, that Wikipedia pages represent a consensus of the different editors who have tried to make this article better. FYI, I just found 204 notes and multiple other references. "View History" > "Page statistics" reports over 1,000 edits by 361 editors.

If you make major changes that contradict source(s) that others find credible, you can expect such changes to be reverted. In such situations, it's best to discuss your concerns here, describing the deficiencies you perceive and how you think they would best be improved. DavidMCEddy (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Everything in this article is based on POV (for example-- in plutonium section, A.Q. Khan telling politicians something that he believes it not true). Russian estimates on how many people are working in the program (intelligence assessments are just assessments-- they are not based on true proposition but mere facts which we know can be false. Iraq war?), or that Israeli intelligence operations to sabotage the program. If such is true, then it should be added in foreign relations between Pakistan and Israel (headlines such as "conflict of interest"), not in this page. If you look at the pages of India, UK, US, Russia, and others, the information given is related only to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), not what others think or politically incorrect statements. The introduction also vilify M.A. Khan's role in favor of A.Q. Khan. A lot has been written based on POV and biased opinions by western and Indian sources.

Thats why this page needs major overhaul, it needs major reconstruction. Delivery mechanism should be re-written because most are based on U.S. expert of what "they think".

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:France and weapons of mass destruction which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)