![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
It says in this article that Japan is banned by its Constitution from having nukes. Isn't there a 50-year limit on that, which has expired?
Reading the Japanese newspapers (in Japanese language only), they seem to regard it as a matter of course that Japan has nukes. They certainly have the delivery method. An IAEA report said that it would take Japan 2 weeks to build a functioning nuclear device if they started from scratch. - Richardcavell 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no time limit or any particular mention of nukes. Rmhermen 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
While updating the table to values given in http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm, I wondered if non-deployed weapons should be counted in these totals? It seems obvious to me that only deployed weapons ought to be counted. It is mainly the US and Russian totals that are affected, as it would appear that around half of the Russian ones are undeployed/unserviceable/awaiting dismantling etc. Thoughts? Guinnog 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Gramatically, would this section be better named =States formerly conducting nuclear programs=? Does one possess a program? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Some comments about the map:
Another thing: I recently bought the French magazine "Science et Vie" where they put a similar map but with Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chili, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Slovakia and Turkey as States which could acquire the atomic bomb if they wanted. CG 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reread the article:
Is it really appropriate to have Iran listed in the same category of States as Israel and North Korea?
Iran is not even in the same league as those two powers with respect to possessing, much less deploying Nuclear Weapons. Also, the claims as to Iran's intents vis-a-vis their Nuclear Programme are nothing more than "he said, she said" and are not backed by any real facts.
As it stands now, Iran is guilty of "not proving their innocence".
I would question the intents of whoever decided to put Iran in this category.
The section about Iran needs serious updating, since it doesn't talk about the actual events. CG 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the yellow areas of the map. The caption reads Israel and Iran for yellow, yet the map shows several other areas in the same region highlighted in yellow. Can someone explain the discrepancy, or otherwise shed light on what the accurate (or a more accurate) list of yellow colored nations should be? Thanks. Thoreaulylazy 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the situation in Iran has recently changed, note this news item: http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=372791&lng=1
Why was my edit of Venezuela removed? I provided tons of sources, including news regarding Venezuela's nuclear program, and yet it was removed, and I don't see a clarification of why here.
I've recently semi-protected this page due to the repetitive vandalism by an anonymous user. Feel free to discuss it here. CG 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the reference numbers. For example, in the section about Romania there is a link ({{ref|Romania}}) to endnote 28, but 28 is actually something else. The correct endnote number should be 24. This numbering process seems to be done automatically, but somehow is wrong? Do other people see the same wrong behavior? -- Mihai 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
on the 22nd of sept 1979 both israel & s.africa jointly tested a small device of less than 15 kilotons upon prince edward's island. South africa would go on to renounce nuclear weapons under a post aparthied gov't thus making it eligible for inclusion into the category of former weapon state and state that tested. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons without any doubt; thank you Mr. Vannu. North Korea has nuclear weapons, primary reason the U.S. does not threaten to liberate it's people anymore. I'll make the appropriate changes in ~week, if no one has any objections.
fact:israel is a nuclear weapon state. It has not been making enough plutonium to make 100-200 devices(depending on the sources) for the last ~30 years just to have a SuperFund site.
fact: the earth doesn't have natural gamma ray bursters that corespond to the taletell seismic footprint of a nuclear detonation , therefore the 'vela' recoreded a nuclear test on a s. afriican island. Therefore s. africa either was hit with an atomic or participated in the test of one.
fact: when a state that is suspected of giving nuclear weapons know-how to others says they have the bomb, reasonable people do not have to wait around for b00m-b00m and the flash.
I find it hard to believe that the scandinavian countries... (i.e., Norway/Sweden) are incapable of producing Nuclear weapons in a few years. The people there are very science oreitned, after all, thats where the Nobel prizes are held. 70.153.65.90 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The table lists North Korea as having 0-7 nuclear weapons, citing North Korea's nuclear program, 2005. However, in reading this source, I did not see 0-7 anywhere, nor even 7. Here are the two parts of the article which most stood out to me as indications of number of nuclear weapons: "In the early 1990s, the CIA concluded that North Korea had effectively joined the nuclear club by building one or possibly two weapons from plutonium it produced before 1992... A reasonable estimate of the number of assembled North Korean nuclear weapons is up to 10." I read this as 2-10, or possibly 0-10 because of a lack of hard evidence. Whence the "0-7" figure?
If there's a good source for that, we should link to both (but the figure can stay 0-7). If there's no reference for this, I'd suggest changing the table to match the actual content of the reference.
I dont know why someone keeps changing it to 1974. India's OFFICIAL test was in 1998. Every country listed on the page performed unofficial test way before the suggested dates. India is no different. I understand Indian people here feel the need to show their superiority over Pakistan. but please keep it correct, for Wiki's sake.
" A nuclear weapons state, it carried out tests in the late 1990s in defiance of world opinion. However, India is still tackling huge social, economic and environmental problems." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm
We need someone elses opinion in this. Try to make sure people agree with you before editing something. From memory, Pakistans first tests were performed in Balochistan in the late 70s. (ProtoType). India's 1974 tests were a completely different thing. Please do some research.
What are the requirements for a country to be on the "nuclear capable' list? I find it quite strange that such small country as Lithuania is considered nuclear capable only because it has nuclear plant in operation. Is that enough to make nuclear bomb despite lithuania rather limited resources? Why then aren't other bigger and more developed nuclear plant operating countries like Spain or Argentina on the list?
It is a quite stupid map, Belgium has more nuclear power plants as The Netherlands and it is not seen as capable of developing nuclear missles. For me, that map is just nonsense.
In light of the fact that N. Korea sucessfully tested it's first nuclear bomb (late Sunday, 8 Oct 2006 USA date) this page needs updating by somebody who can do it well. Thank You!
The USGS information disappears in a month so here are two raw screenshots that may be cropped and edited by documenters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTest.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTestMap.png
Should the North Korean nuclear information change now that they've tested a nuclear bomb?
During Francoist regime, Spain had plans for developing a nuclear weapons program. In 1951 they made the Junta de Energía Nuclear. In 1966, within the Palomares' incident some rests of the bombs were studied by spanish scientists. In 1968, Spain built the first military plutonium-based (military purpose only) nuclear reactor Coral-1. In 1971 studies were made to test the first bomb in Western Sahara. (Note: Spain has the second largest natural source of uranium of Europe). Spain continues producing secretly plutonium until 1981.
Of course Spain ratifies TNP in 1987.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
It says in this article that Japan is banned by its Constitution from having nukes. Isn't there a 50-year limit on that, which has expired?
Reading the Japanese newspapers (in Japanese language only), they seem to regard it as a matter of course that Japan has nukes. They certainly have the delivery method. An IAEA report said that it would take Japan 2 weeks to build a functioning nuclear device if they started from scratch. - Richardcavell 12:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no time limit or any particular mention of nukes. Rmhermen 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
While updating the table to values given in http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukearsenals.cfm, I wondered if non-deployed weapons should be counted in these totals? It seems obvious to me that only deployed weapons ought to be counted. It is mainly the US and Russian totals that are affected, as it would appear that around half of the Russian ones are undeployed/unserviceable/awaiting dismantling etc. Thoughts? Guinnog 15:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Gramatically, would this section be better named =States formerly conducting nuclear programs=? Does one possess a program? -- Ian ≡ talk 13:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Some comments about the map:
Another thing: I recently bought the French magazine "Science et Vie" where they put a similar map but with Algeria, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Chili, Spain, Finland, Hungary, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Slovakia and Turkey as States which could acquire the atomic bomb if they wanted. CG 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I've reread the article:
Is it really appropriate to have Iran listed in the same category of States as Israel and North Korea?
Iran is not even in the same league as those two powers with respect to possessing, much less deploying Nuclear Weapons. Also, the claims as to Iran's intents vis-a-vis their Nuclear Programme are nothing more than "he said, she said" and are not backed by any real facts.
As it stands now, Iran is guilty of "not proving their innocence".
I would question the intents of whoever decided to put Iran in this category.
The section about Iran needs serious updating, since it doesn't talk about the actual events. CG 15:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have a question regarding the yellow areas of the map. The caption reads Israel and Iran for yellow, yet the map shows several other areas in the same region highlighted in yellow. Can someone explain the discrepancy, or otherwise shed light on what the accurate (or a more accurate) list of yellow colored nations should be? Thanks. Thoreaulylazy 18:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the situation in Iran has recently changed, note this news item: http://euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&article=372791&lng=1
Why was my edit of Venezuela removed? I provided tons of sources, including news regarding Venezuela's nuclear program, and yet it was removed, and I don't see a clarification of why here.
I've recently semi-protected this page due to the repetitive vandalism by an anonymous user. Feel free to discuss it here. CG 11:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem with the reference numbers. For example, in the section about Romania there is a link ({{ref|Romania}}) to endnote 28, but 28 is actually something else. The correct endnote number should be 24. This numbering process seems to be done automatically, but somehow is wrong? Do other people see the same wrong behavior? -- Mihai 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
on the 22nd of sept 1979 both israel & s.africa jointly tested a small device of less than 15 kilotons upon prince edward's island. South africa would go on to renounce nuclear weapons under a post aparthied gov't thus making it eligible for inclusion into the category of former weapon state and state that tested. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons without any doubt; thank you Mr. Vannu. North Korea has nuclear weapons, primary reason the U.S. does not threaten to liberate it's people anymore. I'll make the appropriate changes in ~week, if no one has any objections.
fact:israel is a nuclear weapon state. It has not been making enough plutonium to make 100-200 devices(depending on the sources) for the last ~30 years just to have a SuperFund site.
fact: the earth doesn't have natural gamma ray bursters that corespond to the taletell seismic footprint of a nuclear detonation , therefore the 'vela' recoreded a nuclear test on a s. afriican island. Therefore s. africa either was hit with an atomic or participated in the test of one.
fact: when a state that is suspected of giving nuclear weapons know-how to others says they have the bomb, reasonable people do not have to wait around for b00m-b00m and the flash.
I find it hard to believe that the scandinavian countries... (i.e., Norway/Sweden) are incapable of producing Nuclear weapons in a few years. The people there are very science oreitned, after all, thats where the Nobel prizes are held. 70.153.65.90 06:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
The table lists North Korea as having 0-7 nuclear weapons, citing North Korea's nuclear program, 2005. However, in reading this source, I did not see 0-7 anywhere, nor even 7. Here are the two parts of the article which most stood out to me as indications of number of nuclear weapons: "In the early 1990s, the CIA concluded that North Korea had effectively joined the nuclear club by building one or possibly two weapons from plutonium it produced before 1992... A reasonable estimate of the number of assembled North Korean nuclear weapons is up to 10." I read this as 2-10, or possibly 0-10 because of a lack of hard evidence. Whence the "0-7" figure?
If there's a good source for that, we should link to both (but the figure can stay 0-7). If there's no reference for this, I'd suggest changing the table to match the actual content of the reference.
I dont know why someone keeps changing it to 1974. India's OFFICIAL test was in 1998. Every country listed on the page performed unofficial test way before the suggested dates. India is no different. I understand Indian people here feel the need to show their superiority over Pakistan. but please keep it correct, for Wiki's sake.
" A nuclear weapons state, it carried out tests in the late 1990s in defiance of world opinion. However, India is still tackling huge social, economic and environmental problems." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/country_profiles/1154019.stm
We need someone elses opinion in this. Try to make sure people agree with you before editing something. From memory, Pakistans first tests were performed in Balochistan in the late 70s. (ProtoType). India's 1974 tests were a completely different thing. Please do some research.
What are the requirements for a country to be on the "nuclear capable' list? I find it quite strange that such small country as Lithuania is considered nuclear capable only because it has nuclear plant in operation. Is that enough to make nuclear bomb despite lithuania rather limited resources? Why then aren't other bigger and more developed nuclear plant operating countries like Spain or Argentina on the list?
It is a quite stupid map, Belgium has more nuclear power plants as The Netherlands and it is not seen as capable of developing nuclear missles. For me, that map is just nonsense.
In light of the fact that N. Korea sucessfully tested it's first nuclear bomb (late Sunday, 8 Oct 2006 USA date) this page needs updating by somebody who can do it well. Thank You!
The USGS information disappears in a month so here are two raw screenshots that may be cropped and edited by documenters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTest.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NKorea1stTestMap.png
Should the North Korean nuclear information change now that they've tested a nuclear bomb?
During Francoist regime, Spain had plans for developing a nuclear weapons program. In 1951 they made the Junta de Energía Nuclear. In 1966, within the Palomares' incident some rests of the bombs were studied by spanish scientists. In 1968, Spain built the first military plutonium-based (military purpose only) nuclear reactor Coral-1. In 1971 studies were made to test the first bomb in Western Sahara. (Note: Spain has the second largest natural source of uranium of Europe). Spain continues producing secretly plutonium until 1981.
Of course Spain ratifies TNP in 1987.