Talk:Nuclear sharing

Cold War Start‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War 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.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

NATO (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject NATO, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NATOWikipedia:WikiProject NATOTemplate:WikiProject NATONATO articles

Misc

Rem text:

(The United Kingdom also received U.S. tactical nuclear weapons ... mainly deployed in Germany,) despite being a nuclear weapon state with its own weapons.

Is there any evidence that Germany is a nuclear weapon state? They are not listed as such under the NNPT to which they are a a party. Andrewa 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentance didn't (intend to) imply Germany was a NWS, controlling these weapons. U.S. nuclear weapons controlled by U.S. militrary, on UK missiles, just deployed on German soil. UK taking U.S. weapons despite being a NWS with its own weapons, which is a bit odd. Rwendland 23:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit my comments. If you wish to provide a different (bigger or whatever) quote, provide it by all means, but where the quote is part of a signed block of text, by editing it you are putting words into my mouth.

But I do now see what you were saying, and you're right, the sentence does mean that the UK, not Germany, was the NWS. And it's a peculiar arrangement all right! I still think the phrasing was confusing. Would you like to have a go at a better version, or shall I?

The UK deploying US-owned weapons in Germany...! What a crazily insensitive thing to do. Andrewa 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about extending your quote. I didn't view it as changing your words, and was intended to be helpful. I'll know better next time. If you want to rephrase the sentence please do.

The extent to which UK used US nuclear weapons seems little known in the UK, and reflects the low level of "independence" in UK nuclear weapons. When I have more time I'd like to record it in Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom. If interested take a look at "NATO stockpile" in this National Archive doc or this Regimental recollection of Lance missile deployment in Germany. Rwendland 02:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me the remarkable thing about the UK nuclear program is how little information was passed back to the British, considering that the UK had given all of their technology to the USA as part of the war effort! The fortunes of war. But agree that compared to France (France got the bomb, but don't you grieve, 'cause they're on our side - I believe - Tom Lehrer), the UK had major help.

I've restored a rephrased version of your point re UK being a NWS. Andrewa 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

President of Republic of Italy declared that Italy has nukes built in UK and France in its own basis.RAI NEWS 24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.60.116.238 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the text France is a member of NATO

It isn't , and hasn't been since the early 60's ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.254.104 (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 but returned to full membership on April 4, 2009. Doyna Yar (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter and Thor missiles

Under what agreement were the PGM-19 Jupiter and PGM-17 Thor shared? The articles show UK, Turkish, and Italian units operating these missiles rather than US units.79.177.200.244 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]