Talk:Brazilian Navy Nuclear Program

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Earth605 talk 04:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that by 2008, 16,500 military and civilian personnel had participated in the Brazilian Navy Nuclear Program?

• Source: Durovni (2008), p. 15.

• • ALT1: ... that the technological development of the Brazilian Navy Nuclear Program has spilled over into civilian sectors? Source: Silva & Moura (2016), p. 624., David (2024), p. 141., Martins (2014), p. 141.
  • ALT2: ... that the Brazilian Navy Nuclear Program attempted to hide their research, but their facilities became public knowledge even before they opened? Source:
    • On attempting to hide: Chaves (2014), p. 104.
    • On becoming public knowledge in Oct '86: SBPC (1986), p. 1759.
    • On Aramar's opening in '88: Corrêa (2009), p. 135-136.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cocoa production in the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Created by Torimem (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 56 past nominations.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nominated 6 days after creation and long enough. Article is sufficiently sourced. Passed Earwig, only picks up source titles. All hooks mentioned in article and are all verified (with Google Translate). I think ALT2 is the best. PizzaKing13 (¡Hablame!) 🍕👑 08:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Role of Admiral Bento Costa Lima

I don't have the time to do this, but recommend adding a section about Admiral Bento Costa Lima's role in lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding Brazil's nuclear submarine program. When he led that program, he instituted a program of openness and diplomatic outreach designed to ease suspicions about it. I'm not sure where to find good sources on that, though I believe IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has spoken publicly about Brazil's engagement with the IAEA. NPguy (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy: thank you for your knowledgeable input on this topic. I wrote the original Lusophone version of this page and have proposed it for FA status, so I'd be grateful for further opinions on its overall neutrality and truthfulness.

I'll take a look into Costa Lima. So far it seems he only directed the program after the DGDTNM's creation i.e. less than a decade ago, when it was already ostensibly open to the public, unlike the paranoid 80s. So by lifting veil of secrecy, do you mean transparency in opening technical details to the IAEA?

I need some clarification on the supposed INFCIRC/153 "loophole". I've relied on Sá (2016), which states:

Brazil is the first non-nuclear weapon state to test the long-discussed “loophole” in the Non-Proliferation Treaty (INFCIRC/153, Article 14) that allows non-nuclear weapon states to remove nuclear materials from International Atomic Energy (IAEA) safeguards for nonexplosive military nuclear activities such as naval propulsion (p. 3).

In the NPT model agreement (INFCIRC/153), Article 14, the “Non-Application of Safeguards to Nuclear Materials to Be Used in Non-Peaceful Use,” allows a state to withdraw nuclear material from safeguards for use in a “non-proscribed military activity” such as naval propulsion.

Worth noting the Brazilian Navy hosts translations of INFCIRC 153 and 540, which I've linked to in a footnote in the original. Thanks in advance, Serraria (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It's important to note that Brazil's safeguards agreement differs from the INFCIRC/153 standard in this key provision. INFCIRC/435 is a quadripartite safeguards agreement with Argentina and the bilateral safeguards organization ABACC as parties. In place of the "non-application" of safeguards in paragraph 14, article 13 of the quadripartite safeguards agreement provides for "special procedures" for the application of safeguards. The reason is that INFCIRC/153 safeguards cover only peaceful nuclear activities. Most of the world considers naval nuclear propulsion a non-peaceful nuclear activity. Since Brazil's constitution and the Treaty of Tlatelolco prohibit military uses of nuclear energy, Brazil labels nuclear propulsion as a peaceful activity.

Semantics aside, operationally paragraph 14 of INFCIRC/153 and article 13 of INFCIRC/435 are more or less the same. Both require the state and the IAEA to make and "arrangement" to ensure that nuclear material will not be diverted to nuclear explosives.

Another technical point: the "loophole" in the NPT is the more general point that Article III.1 of the NPT requires states to accept safeguards on all nuclear material on all nuclear material in the state (in its territory or under its jurisdiction or control even outside its territory). It prohibits the use of nuclear material for nuclear explosives, but does not require safeguards on nuclear material in military activities that are not prohibited. The safeguards obligation is met through a separate agreement with the IAEA, for which INFCIRC/153 is the standard. So paragraph 14 is better described as a "loophole" in standard NPT safeguards agreements.

Admiral Costa Lima engaged more openly not just with the IAEA but bilaterally with other countries. NPguy (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The INFCIRC question is a lot clearer now, thanks. I've found a new source and added a new footnote bridging Sá (2015) with what you wrote, tell me if I got it right. Serraria (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me. NPguy (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Article name and description

There has been a bit of an edit war on the short description and title of the article. Rather than continue that, I suggest discussion here. If the Brazilian nuclear navy program is entirely focused on nuclear-powered submarines, shouldn't the title of the article be adjusted to reflect that e.g. "Brazilian nuclear submarine program"? NPguy (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy: the nuclear submarine program proper is covered by Submarine Development Program and Brazilian submarine Álvaro Alberto. As explained in this article, the Programa Nuclear da Marinha and PROSUB are two separate entities. The nuclear program proper is not a naval engineering program (aside from the Labgene mockup) and the submarine program proper does not produce nuclear fuel. Serraria (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

My concern with omitting the short description is that it is unclear from the article name that, as it stands now, 1) the nuclear program is specifically centered around naval propulsion rather than nuclear weaponry, and 2) that it is for the propulsion of submarines, not surface vessels such as cruisers and aircraft carriers - I'm less concerned on the second point, as it is not as immediately important to me when skimming search results. Changing the article title would narrow its focus, but this could create problems if the Brazilian navy later moves in a different or additional direction and might not fully reflect the extensive history of the program. Adding a short description provides this additional context (its entire purpose) without restricting the article and can easily be updated if the program changes in the future. I am certainly open to suggestions for the specific wording of the short desc, but I feel it does need to be there. Zaqatha (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The original Lusophone version simply used the official name (Programa Nuclear da Marinha). Presumably this is why the translator used uppercase for this version's title. Then "Brazilian" was added because a word for word translation would be too vague (e.g. Brazilian Submarine Force Command). Now that we're no longer bound to official names, we could just as easily use lowercase ("nuclear program"). "Nuclear program" need not imply nuclear weapons (see Nuclear program of Egypt), but if there's room for misunderstanding, it wouldn't hurt to add a short description or change the title. For the latter option, "Brazilian nuclear submarine propulsion program" or "Brazilian nuclear propulsion program", verbose as they are, would be accurate. The one option that shouldn't be taken is "Brazilian nuclear submarine program", as I have shown. Serraria (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think the current title is the best one and it should not be changed, since the article is about the Navy's nuclear program in particular, not Brazil's in general. Isn't the whole point of the article to showcase the Navy's nuclear activities (which are not confined to just propulsion, per article) after all? Any other title would not highlight this fact and then the article body would be out of step with the title due to a mere technicality in the program's scope. Adding a short description here is the simple way of solving the issue (even though it is already mentioned in the lead section that the program is not about nuclear weapons). Per WP:SDESC: "The short description of a Wikipedia page is a brief phrase intended to complement and clarify the page title, particularly in contexts where this is seen in isolation from the page itself. Taken together, the title and short description concisely explain the subject of the page". Torimem (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I was not aware of those other two articles, and the explanation about the relationship between them is confusing. PROSUB appears to be NOT about nuclear submarines but submarines more generally. The naval nuclear program described in this article is about submarine propulsion, so it would be more useful to make that clear in the title than in the short description (which as far as I can tell no one reads). Would "Brazil's naval nuclear propulsion program" work? Naval nuclear propulsion is a well-known term that is self-explanatory. NPguy (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It would but it's verbose. Keeping this title and adding a short description could achieve the same results. As for the distinction, PROSUB's crown jewel is the production of a nuclear submarine, the conventional submarines in the contract are not its ultimate priority. If any article could be renamed "Brazilian nuclear submarine program", it's PROSUB. All of the nuclear submarine's naval engineers are assigned to it. PROSUB and the PNM each have their own departments in the Navy, the COGESN for the former and CTMSP for the latter, both of which are unified under a higher directorate, the DGDNTM. Administratively it would be completely accurate to name this article after the CTMSP, but that would be a nondescript, confusing title. Hence giving this a translation of the official name or something like what you suggested. Serraria (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand all those bureaucratic complexities. It seems to me the most useful thing would be to have one article on Brazil's naval nuclear propulsion program that brings them together with a coherent explanation of the various elements of the program and how they are related. If this article is meant to be just about CTMSP then the title is misleading. And that title definitely would not fit the PROSUB article since it's broader than nuclear. And by the way, the title of that article is also not very good. At a minimum it needs to say "Brazil" or Brazilian" somewhere. NPguy (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point on the title, maybe "Submarine Development Program (Brazil)", to keep the official title.

There's nothing misleading as far as the CTMSP is concerned, the CTMSP is the entity created to organize the nuclear program, they are one and the same (entity-purpose). A merger is out of the question, the updated PROSUB article on the Portuguese-language wiki stands at 129,970 bytes. I've written/rewritten both and made sure they have clearly defined scopes which do not overlap much. This article has very little on the strategic implications of a nuclear submarine and the other article (in its updated version) has very little on the IAEA and proliferation concerns, merely providing a brief summary and linking to the relevant section in this article. Serraria (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

For a Brazilian audience, organizing these articles on an administrative basis probably makes sense. But for an outside audience, those administrative lines are of less interest and hard to understand. Simply recreating the Portuguese language articles in English is not the best way to explain things. I think it would be useful to have one concise article on Brazil's naval nuclear propulsion program that brings those threads together and links to the existing articles. Alternatively, this article could be broadened to cover those issues. An article artificially limited to CTMSP is not that useful to outsiders. NPguy (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed merger (?) with PROSUB

@NPguy: the split between this article and PROSUB is not a purely administrative division but a consistent and thought-out separation of technical, political and strategic information and controversies. Simply put, this article is about the fuel cycle and prototype reactor, not the nuclear submarine itself. The other article extensively covers the following topics only briefly presented here:

• Technical distinctions between diesel-electric and nuclear submarine propulsion and the ensuing interest in nuclear propulsion;
• The 1970s to early 21st century renewal of naval strategic thought, potential enemies and operational focus (sea control to sea denial);
• Licenced production of Type 209 submarines as a first step towards a future nuclear submarine;
• Failed attempts to design a conventional submarine as an intermediary step:
• The state of the 2000s fleet;
• Discarded negotiations for Type 214 production;
• The Brazilian Navy's decision to reject AIP technology in its conventional submarines;
• Brazilian-French military relations in the 2000s;
• Technical data on the Riachuelo-class submarines and Álvaro Alberto;
• The construction of a new naval base and shipyard in Itaguaí and expected benefits to the local and broader economy;
• Training of naval engineers in France;
• PROSUB's budget, late 2000s optimism and mid-2010s crisis;
• Cost-benefit controversies;
• The inability of just one single nuclear submarine to make a difference;
• Official propaganda tying the nuclear submarine to the defense of offshore resources;
• Independent sources doubting official explanations and proposing unstated reasons such as power projection and prestige;
• The lack of a clear enemy;
• Corruption investigations on the Itaguaí shipyard;
• The FBI's espionage investigation.

A bit of this is further covered in the updated Portuguese versions of Madeira Island Submarine Base and Brazilian Submarine Force Command - all of this adds up to a four-page series on naval/nuclear policy. Those two received chunks of the original content in the PROSUB article, which means there's even more new content in that page than the page history might suggest.

Inversely, the PROSUB article has little to say on:

• The nuclear fuel cyle;
• Underhanded methods to acquire sensitive technology in the 80s;
• Secrecy and information leaks;
• Technology transfer to the civilian sector;
• Anti-nuclear and anti-military sentiment in the 80s and 90s;
• Environmental concerns;
• Proliferation concenrs.

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, all topics listed are worth including as they are discussed on secondary sources and potentially relevant to a global audience. As there's a distinction to be made and too much content to cram into a single page, splitting the topic already is the concise solution. Serraria (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

So why not change the title of the article to Brazilian Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program, and leave the short description blank? NPguy (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion besides "it's verbose". But for that option it should use sentence case ("Brazilian naval nuclear propulsion program") to avoid implying it's an official name. Serraria (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree -- it's not as catchy as the current title, but it is clear and avoids potential confusion. And adding one word clarifies the scope does not make it "verbose." NPguy (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)