Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons

Delivery mechanisms in table

I don't know why this was added and I don't really care. However since the delivery means of states with nuclear weapons has evolved over the decades with some gaining new capabilities and others condensing their delivery options I'd suggest changing it to 'Current delivery mechanisms' or just delete the column as it beckons a section discussing how this delivery has changed since the dawn of the atomic age. I'm not sure that belongs in this particular article. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless a source can be provided and the delivery mechanisms for each country is accurate and complete, then it doesn't belong in the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability on how material in Wikipedia should be backed up clearly by reliable sources (I.e, an online news website is not a reliable source when discussing nuclear delivery mechanisms!). Also, the details as presented by Avaya1 are still incorrect, for example India only maintains a land-based nuclear arsenal, while China also maintains a purely land-based arsenal but has a suspected limited nuclear triad (with SSBNs and nuclear capable bombers) according to the yearly publications of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Antiochus the Great (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1, Your edits are incorrect. Pakistan, for example, does not maintain strategic sea-based nuclear weapons. At best, it has merely tested sea-based nuclear weapons. You need to either find a better source or not edit at all. Israel is incorrect too, as it does not have a suspected nuclear triad, it has merely tested a sea-based tactical nuke delivery. A good source detailing each countries nuclear arsenals are the yearly "military Balance" publications from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Antiochus, this was a typo while I was editing (I intended air-based). Please wait about twenty minutes, until I have finished adding the sources - instead of reverting half way through the edits. Most of these sources are extremely thorough (and if you find a more detailed source, feel free to add it). The original table did contain mistakes, for which I apologise. But we have multiple reliable sources stating that Israel has a suspected nuclear triad (and the sea-based capability is not suspected to be a tactical nuclear weapon, which Israel likely does not possess). I have also now found multiple reliable sources stating that China has what is commonly understood as the definition of a nuclear triad. Avaya1 (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan doesn't maintain an active air-launched nuclear strike capability either. While the Pakistan Air Force has experimented with delivery mechanisms, and it operates two squadrons if nuclear capable aircraft (F-16/Mirage 5), it still does not maintain a permanent air-launched strike capability and thus far is only involved in the experimental and technical side of Pakistan Strategic arsenal. Therefore, I do not feel that speculative or experimental nuclear capabilities should be mention in this article. I think that only fully active and confirmed delivery mechanisms should be mentioned. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for Israel, it has experimented with sea-based nuclear tipped cruise missiles, but it does not maintain a permanent sea based nuclear arsenal. At present, Israel only has a fully-fledged land and air-launched nuclear capability. Speculation on a nuclear triad should not be mentioned, as experimental sea-based weapons does not equate to a permanent capability. Antiochus the Great (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

According to many reliable sources, Israel maintains a suspected sea-based nuclear weapons capability. This is generally reported as the suspected 'raison d'être' of the Dolphin submarines (and the reason for a lot of policies such as banning dual-citizens from serving on them). It is suspected (by the sources) to be a permanent sea based capability, not an experiment (as with everything to do with Israel's program - we can only use the word suspected). E.g. [[1]]

For Pakistan, it makes sense to add that, if we can find detailed sources explaining this fact.Avaya1 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it's obviously staying, UK should include '(with former air-based forces)'.Doyna Yar (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1, I suspect that spiegel.de would be a far less authoritative source than the IISS. Furthermore, a Nuclear triad in its traditional sense (with regards to a sea-based arsenal) consists of SLBMs, not the mere nuclear tipped cruise missiles that Israel has experimented with. Suspicion that Israel has a nuclear triad based on experiments with nuclear tipped cruise missiles is misleading. I would rather we stick to confirmed delivery mechanisms that are backed up by reliable sources.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a suspected deployment (but the entire nuclear weapons program is suspected - nothing is confirmed, and yet we included it with that proviso). The mention of the 'suspected' sea-based deployment is supported by a lot of reliable sources, (we are not relying on Der Spiegel). For example, The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's Bargain with the Bomb, by Avner Cohen, (Columbia University Press 2013), page 83 - states "The new sea-based strategic arm is presumed to have a second-strike nuclear component". This is book published by Columbia University Press. [There are also articles on Janes (although that is not accessible on the internet).]

Whether submarine-launched cruise missiles fulfil the definition of a nuclear triad is another issue. But the reliable sources say 'nuclear triad', so from the point of view of Wikipedia:Verifiability it passes. In the Avner Cohen book above, it says: [Israel] is "restructuring its nuclear forces into a triad form." (page 84). If you prefer, there is space in the table to write 'suspected sea, land and air-based forces' instead of 'nuclear triad'. Avaya1 (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I added an extra column, single sourced from the IISS. This is a good compromise and offers the reader alternate reliable sources in addition to the ones you provided. The IISS only provides details of strategic forces where evidence suggests that the delivery method is credible and in current/active operation. This, I feel, is worth having in the table. Antiochus the Great (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your reasoning for using one source for all estimates, when we have a variety of more scholarly and detailed sources available to us. There is no Wikipedia guideline for choosing a single source for an article, especially to the exclusion of academic texts printed by university presses.Avaya1 (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, it makes no sense to privilege one source with a separate column (just because you happen to prefer that source), over all the other reliable sources, published in the academic literature. To do so is POV. Our job as editors is to reprint the information provided by the reliable sources (and there are many academic sources on this subject), in a neutral way. Avaya1 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking about the IISS source? I don't understand. Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have dozens of reliable sources there, published in university presses. Why are you prioritizing a single sources, when we have multiple sources? The edits don't make any sense. For example, adding a separate column for IISS, when we have multiple sources, with a range of information. And why do you keep adding 80 to Israel's suspected nuclear warheads, when there are dozens of reliable sources, reporting a wide range of different suspected estimates. Avaya1 (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The IISS is a very reliable and authoritative source on military matters. They publish annual reports compiled by professionals for professionals - this information absolutely belongs on Wikipedia. Having two separate columns gives equal weight to all reliable sources, including university presses etc, it does not favor one over the other. As for Israel's nuclear weapons, I think it is best that the column primarily used the citation from the 'Federation of American Scientists', as this avoids WP:SYN and promotes consistency instead. However, I added a note to Israel mentioning that other reliable sources estimate as many as 60 to 400 weapons may be in service. I see no problem with this. Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, all the citations (I have added), are reliable and authoritative sources, some of them arguably more authoritative than the IISS source. The IISS source certainly belongs on Wikipedia, but not ahead of the other sources, which is what adding a separate column for it indicates. There is no SYN here, since we are simply reporting what is contained in the sources. As for the suspected Israel estimates, Avner Cohen's book contains a table of estimates. As per WP:RS, we should report on the range of estimates, rather than cherry picking one estimate and reporting that. There is no justification for cherry picking one source - between equally reliable sources - except POV. Avaya1 (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, both of our sources are reliable and both belong on the article. There is nothing wrong with two columns, especially if different reliable sources contradict one another - because it is not our place to determine which one is more accurate or more correct than the other. In fact, many articles do the same, for example see Israeli Air Force#Aircraft. they use three different columns for the three different reliable sources that give figures for in service aircraft. I absolutely disagree with your accusations of POV and would like for you to withdraw that statement please. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Avaya1, I am not going to edit war and we are both on the verge of breaking the 3RR. Lets both settle down and talk this out, perhaps we should invite the opinions of others too? Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the two columns can't be reasonably combined using all the sourcing. IE India; Land-based[13], and probable air-launched[14]. Or Israel; Land-based and air-launched[21], Suspected nuclear triad[22]. I still think the column(s) inclusion opens up a discussion in the article about delivery mechanisms and their development. Then there's the whole Land/Air/Sea umbrella terms in dissection covering pad, road, rail, silo/cruise missile, gravity bomb/cruise missile, and SLBM which I don't even want to go there. Also since tactical warheads have their own delivery mechanisms, like torpedoes, etc. it might make some sense to label the column 'Current Strategic Delivery Mechanisms' or something like that. Doyna Yar (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging the two columns into one does sound like a good idea. I think it would look better too. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Antiochus the Great, there's a sample of some different estimates on The Worst-Kept Secret: Israel's bargain with the Bomb (Columbia University Press, 2010), Table 1, page xxvii. It's accessible through google books. There's a wide range of estimates, so we should include a range our the table. There's not going to be anything more reliable than such a range, which is likely to include whatever the real number is (of which numerous reliable sources are making different claims).Avaya1 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel

The wording of the article on Israel is ridiculous Hasbara style. Not a single non-jewish expert assumes that Izzys do not have the bomb. For all practical matters, Izzys do have the bomb and fool no one with their laughable paltry wording of "opacity". if the below is not enough then no one can help the disinformants who wrote the wikipedia entry.

The entry on Izzy nukes amounts to disinformation. wikipedia does not aim at being an encyclopedia any longer. reclassified document ;-) from s.o. in the position to know.

• http://www.iiss.org/-/media/Silos/Survival/2013/Survival--Global-Politics-and-Strategy-February-March-2013/55-1-02-Doyle/55-1-02-Doyle.pdf
• http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=70546
• http://www.thenation.com/blog/201369/what-about-israels-nuclear-bomb
• http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/israel-nuclear-weapons-secret-united-states/380237/
• http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/israels-widely-suspected-unmentionables-11191
• http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/07/31/15161/nuclear-weapons-lab-employee-fired-after-publishing-scathing-critique-arms-race

--91.60.138.163 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The charade is absurd. It has been confirmed from so many sources, just not the Israeli government. Andynct (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Matter of fact, some jews came next to admitting it (Peres in DER SPIEGEL last week). Wikipedia is so pathetic. --91.60.159.44 (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. Furthermore: with the yellow color code Israel cannot even be made out on the map. That seems like a detail at first but in the broader picture fits perfectly the Israeli propaganda style. I've made a new map with colors red and yellow switched that works much better (last point being said by a professional graphic designer from a completely neutral way of judging the visual effectivity of this piece of information design). But I dare not change it because my knowledge of wikipedia and wikimedia commons seems to be limited at this point of time. Leave me a note here if you can and want to implement the freshly color coded map. --RLM (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Paranuclear / Nuclear Latency / Threshold Nuclear state

I have always heard this referred to as "Threshold state" or "Threshold weapons program" rather than latent or paranuclear. Is there a reference in the usual literature for the other terms?... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

How about this? I think latency is fairly common in the scholarly literature. "Threshold" is used more in the policy arena, without definition. NPguy (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll let you guys decide what to call it. I'm more interested in seeing the page discuss the existence of such threshold states. There are states on the threshold possibly looking to cross it[2] and those on the threshold looking to back away from it.[3] 76.103.93.154 (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Other states believed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)

Total censorship of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.192.170 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)