Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

THE MAN WHO DESIGNED PAKISTAN’S BOMB[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 under Munir Ahmad Khan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, and Zahid Ali Akbar not just Zahid Ali Akbar and Abdul Qadeer Khan.

Page Protection[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Disagreement[edit]

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.

Dead link[edit]

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!


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

Quote[edit]

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. [1] 160.5.247.8 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

recent developments[edit]

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

cruise missiles[edit]

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)


NCA / National Command Authority: Links are bad[edit]

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[edit]

"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)

Requested Move[edit]

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)



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 [1] 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,[2] though not a biological weapons program.[3] 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)

Missile table[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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"[4]. 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

Taliban has nuclear weapons?[edit]

"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."[2]. 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 (talkcontribs) 18:34, 15 July 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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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 [3]. 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 [4]. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (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.
  • 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)
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 destructionPakistan'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)

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[edit]

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)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).