Talk:Nuclear proliferation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page may need updating for recent developments in Iraq and North Korea, but I'm only familiar with the headlines, not the details... -- Catherine 04:44 Feb 25, 2003 (UTC)

Whoa...! Did you say recent? It has no mention of Pakistani nuclear tests... conducted in 1998! (Sigh) I guess I'll try to find time to fix it... I think that's an embarrassment. OK, done a quick fix. Andrewa 16:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Nuciar Proliberation

If Mr. Bush spells it so, you should perhaps create a redirect to this page with these words ;) Because Mr. Bush has always right - if you tell sth. other he will bomb you nuciar :)

Please cite a source for this usage. --WikiSlasher 15:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually he pronounces it like nukear not nuciar. Here's the source from CNN. Nuciar proliberation gives no Google hits. Media Matters also cites this, apparently it was made at a House's dinner or something.

"Plus this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Here it comes. Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation.

BUSH: Nukear proliberation (ph).

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WHITFIELD: President Bush sharing the stage and laughs with someone bearing his likeness at last night's White House Correspondents Dinner. Mr. Bush on Mr. Bush, later on CNN SUNDAY." --JForget 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

From the village pump:

[edit] Pakistan Nuclear Scandal

Given how big a deal this seems when I read the news articles about it, maybe we should have an article on it? See current events. --Dante Alighieri 18:39, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We already have an article on Nuclear proliferation with a section about Pakistan that needs to be updated. See also Abdul Qadeer Khan for a related article. -- ChrisO 11:58, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)


Well then, someone should update the nuclear proliferation article. ;) As for the article on AQK, it seemed a bit sparse on current information regarding the issue. Anyone know a good source for more data? I was browsing google news but didn't really come up with that much useful info. --Dante Alighieri 16:31, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

More on the US policy towards Israel's weapons could be done as well, though it would have to be done carefully to insure NPOV (as I remember it, it's a "don't ask, don't tell" nuclear policy). As for North Korea and Pakistan, it wouldn't be that hard to at least integrate the headlines into it (as such) though there isn't a lot of distance or certainty on those. It might also be worth expanding into the proliferation histories of countries like Brazil, Argentina, Sweden, Switzerland, many of the former Soviet states, etc., which are interesting. --Fastfission 09:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WMD

I've added the Template:WMD box-table to the country section of the article. This box adds lots of relevant links in a compact, and pleasant looking, way; so I think is useful. But arguably it's a bit off-topic, so I'm not completely certain this is a good idea. Any views?

I first tried it in the See also section, but it was too big to fit there nicely. - Rwendland 12:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPT

With a bit of restructuring/tidying/updating work, including making a better fit with NPT (there's some duplication) and perhaps related articles, this would be approaching featured quality I think. Rd232 08:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran

Considering that we have quite a large article in Iran's nuclear program, I am surprised to see no mention of Iran in this article. Certainly some discussion of it is merited here. Simesa 11:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree but who will have the time to write it / type it up? Jsw663 10:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Competing article

Has anyone compared this article to the text in the new article Nuclear power phase-out? In that article I annotated this article as the "Main", but that might get edited out. Simesa 00:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • My understanding of it was that the other article is about nuclear power, while this one is primarily about nuclear weapons. They are of course related topics but somewhat different. --Fastfission 15:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map inaccuracies

Please adjust the map to reflect the correct territory of the highlighted nations: Alaska for the US; Corsica for France and Sakhalin Island for the Russian Federation.

There's a new map from List of countries with nuclear weapons which I think is a bit better, but if there is anything I missed please let me know. Thanks. --Fastfission 15:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
(Sigh) Well, for a start, Australia has never had a nuclear weapons program. The claim seems to stem from a film Fortress Australia made by Peter Butt. There's no evidence to back it up; All he found was documents in the Australian Government archives which showed that some politicians wanted to develop a bomb at various stages. There was never any work done on one. Andrewa 14:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What about Yugoslavia on the map? Serbia and Montenegro are marked, but since a year ago they are two different states. I suggest to mark the whole ex-Yugoslavia since the nuclear research was done prior to breakup, and today all the 6 republics are legal successor states of Yugoslavia. Honovic 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] From nation to nation

Recently "from nation to nation" was removed from the definition:

Nuclear proliferation is the spread from nation to nation of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.

leaving:

Nuclear proliferation is the spread of nuclear technology, including nuclear power plants but especially nuclear weapons.

I can see what you are getting at, but this is too simplistic. When company B starts manufacturing nuclear power plants, using technology transfer from company A (from the same nation), by this new definition this is "nuclear proliferation". This isn't "nuclear proliferation" in its commonly understood sense. Somehow "nation" must remain in the definition. I think this change should be reverted unless someone can draft a better change.

If fact I'm not sure nuclear power plants should be in the definition. By the old definition the IAEA is a "nuclear prolifererator" when it helps a new nation develop a nuclear power station according to its charter. Or when one nation sells the first nuclear power station to another nation (making both the U.S. and the former-USSR large-scale proliferators). -- Rwendland 19:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't think this includes nuclear power plants. It is usually weapons. As for nation to nation... I don't think it is necessary for it to "come from another nation" to be proliferation. When France got the bomb, it was proliferation (the weapons were "proliferating") though they did so wholly independently from other countries. --Fastfission 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I re-wrote the intro a bit, based on this consideration as well as noting that it automatically assumes that people know why this is a bad/good thing. Let me know what you think. --Fastfission 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes

This article is currently sprawling and duplicates a lot of content from other articles. My recommendation is to cut down the individual country reports — make the Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. bits just small summaries along the lines of their entries on List of countries with nuclear weapons and just link to pages with the details. That should free up a lot of space and make it much more readable (and not force us to update three different articles whenever something changes in the news). This page also seems to have a lot of entries which it doesn't need, like a short history of the Indian nuclear program. While that is certainly a form of proliferation, it's a subject better covered on a page of its own.

Another option in this regard is to write a short "History" section which incorporates some of these countries and links to their relevant pages, looking at them as examples of proliferation or anti-proliferation efforts and how they affected proliferation as a whole.

At the moment the page is unreadable and looks more like a compendium of articles than an encyclopedia article itself. I suggest splitting off into separate articles that which doesn't already have a separate article, at the very least. --Fastfission 02:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Coincidently I raised your first point 3 weeks ago in Talk:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty#Per country discussion in this article, but there has been no response there. I think we need to come up with a broader plan on where per-country proliferation is discussed, to reduce duplication.

I noted per country discussion of proliferation issues is duplicated in many articles:

I'm not that familiar with wikipedia processes, but perhaps a Wikipedia:WikiProject should be setup to address this cross-article duplication in the prolifereration area, and clearly agree what the focus of each article should be? This would give some "authority" to policing efforts to trim, and then keep the articles properly focused. Or perhaps that is excessive? -- Rwendland 08:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Nuclear Energy Partnership

In February, 2006, a new U.S. initiative, the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership was announced - it would be an international effort to reprocess fuel in a manner making proliferation infeasible, while making nuclear power available to developing countries. Would someone like to blend GNEP into this article? Simesa 20:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Propaganda

I have just removed the following from the Pakistan section:

", its defeat by India in all three wars that they have fought one of which led to the independence of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh."

Pakistan lost all three wars with India? Is Wiki written by J. R. R. Tolkien?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-Pakistan_Wars

Keep an eye open for BS.

Thanks

[edit] Additional protocol

I updated the signatories to the Additional Protocol, addeda section on limitations to safeguards in the Additional Protocol, and added an external link to a fuller discussion of such
KonaScout 14:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Should the map of armed nuclear nations have North Korea added as a nation with recognized nuclear weapons.

Sign your comments. And Yes, it should. CarolinianJeff 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India's peaceful use commitment on CIRUS

Fundamental metric tensor recently changed the statement that the United States and Canada supplied the CIRUS research reactor to India subject to the "stipulation" that it be used only for peaceful purposes. The new version says that it was only an "understanding" but the United States and Canada, implying that India made no peaceful use commitment. I don't think this is correct. I believe the United States and Canada both insisted on a peaceful use commitment and India agreed. Thus, when India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974, it claimed that it was a "peaceful" nuclear explosion. This also led nuclear exporters, in the Nuclear Suppliers Guidelines, to call for the condition of no "nuclear explosive" use as well as the standard peaceful use commitment. Rather than just revert, I'd like to undtand the reason for the change. NPguy 01:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US and Weapons Sharing

The line about "some countries consider US/NATO weapons sharing to be a violation of Articles I and II." Which countries? Where is the evidence for this? This is thrown out there without a single citation. This seems pretty clearly to be propaganda.

Article 1 of the NPT; Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly.. Quoted at [1] Imc 12:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
It's quite a big thing at the 5-yearly NPT review conferences, with the non-aligned state group regularly raising the issue e.g. in 2005 "Nuclear-weapon States ... must refrain from nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements."[2] It also lead to a Proposed US Senate Amendment to the NATO Expansion statute.[3] Rwendland 18:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear Apartheid

I removed the latest addition on nuclear apartheid, because it doesn't belong where it was - as an argument for proliferation. Iran claims that it is not seeking nuclear weapons, so this should not be seen as an argument for proliferation. It seems to belong in the article on Iran's nuclear program page, as an element of Iran's position. I think the argument doesn't stand up to the facts, but it has been effective in getting developing countries to line up behind Iran. NPguy 03:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll move it there then if you think that's the more appropriate location. Lothar of the Hill People 03:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US and UK

I corrected two errors in the new section on nuclear weapons cooperation between the United States and the UK. First, warheads are not transferred under the U.S.-UK agreement (and neither of the cited references supports this claim). Second, such transfer would not violate the NPT. The NPT bans transfers only by nuclear-weapon states to non-nuclear-weapon states. It does not bar transfers among nuclear-weapon states.NPguy 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you'll find a NWS cannot transfer complete weapons to another NWS: Article 1 NPT "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or ...". The US has supplied the UK with nuclear weapon designs and components, and exchanged fissile material with the UK (though not complete weapons) - I'll dig out the refs and add this to the section. Rwendland 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I should have relied on the Treaty text instead of my faulty memory. I'd be interested in what you come up with. I think transfers of material go both ways - U.S. to UK and vice versa - and I'm not aware of transfers of weapons components. NPguy 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits re Atoms for Peace and A.Q. Khan

I'm concerned about two recent edits that rely on a single article from Asia Times. One extracts a lists of counries where A.Q. Khan went on a shopping spree for duel-use equipment to support Pakistan's enrichment program. The other relies on a quote from Homi Sethna about how Atoms for Peace helped many countries get weapons. I don't think either point is wrong, but I also don't think they represent the big picture. For example, the weapons program that benefited most directly from Atoms for Peace was India's. Canada and the United States helped supply the CIRUS reactor based on a peaceful use pledge from India. India used CIRUS to produce the plutonium for its first, supposedly "peaceful" nuclear explosions. Similarly, the A.Q. Khan saga should focus not on the list of countries but on how Khan evaded exporrt controls by importing dual-use equipment and technology. When export controls were strengthened, Khan set up his own supply network.

There are some relatively comprehensive secondary sources (e.g. ISIS, Monterey, NTI) online that would provide a stronger and more representative basis for making these points that the single, narrowly focused article. NPguy (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup needed

The list of countries has several duplications. Pakistan is listed twice, as is North Korea. There's also some discussion of cooperation between the two. My recommendation is to delete the entire second section on each country. However, there are some facts in the second section that are not in the first, which might be worth keeping in some form. What do others think? NPguy (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)