Talk:Nuclear sharing

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, though like current NATO sharing US techs were on hand to arm the weapons.79.177.200.244 (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Italy has its own nuke.The silent atomic power

Italy developed in late '60s in CAMEN structure close Pisa its nukes as officially declared in the Italian Parliament by the Deputy Giuseppe Niccolai to the Minister of the Defence Luigi Gui.Niccolai was deputy since 1968 and since 1970 was in the Military Affairs Commission of the Italian Parlianment.Italy in fact since 1971 began to develope even IRBM missiles that could be launched from mobile blocks from frigates or destroyers.Alfa missile has a range of 1600 km with a warhead of 1 Mt.Other launchers that could be used as ICBM were later developed.Many secrets of state are still on this affair about italian military. http://sulatestagiannilannes.blogspot.com/2012/08/nucleare-militare-un-segreto-italiano.html Glc72 (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The source you cite is a blog. Without a more reliable one, this content could not be accepted. I marked the section as needing quotation for now. --EH101 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Poland denies talks

http://www.stripes.com/news/europe/poland-denies-considering-request-for-nuclear-weapons-1.382342

Leaving a note in case it's added. Hcobb (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Just thought I'd add that back in 9/14 I posted this from Spacedaily, which was promptly deleted; On September 24, 2014 in response to Russian aggressions in Ukraine, former Polish president Lech Walesa stated "We should borrow, lease nuclear weapons and show Putin that if a Russian soldier poses one foot on our land uninvited, we will attack. Just to be clear," suggesting Poland should attain a nuclear deterrent. So if the government isn't officially considering it, the idea is definitely part of the wider conversation inside Poland. Doyna Yar (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No JDAM(N)s without 1st strike stealth fighters to carry them. They're buying the wrong aircraft.

http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/23/polish-air-force-new-fighters-f35/

Hcobb (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II procurement page suggests a purchase of 48 by 2017. Besides, their current F-16s can carry the B61. Doyna Yar (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

References

Turkey

If I understand correctly http://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/us-moves-nuclear-weapons-from-turkey-to-romania/ Turkey should no longer be on the list, and Romania should be added instead. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

No, that's just disinformation. NPguy (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Your source for that? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Russia’s Nuclear Paranoia Fuels Its Nuclear Propaganda by Jeffrey Lewis, Foreign Policy. NPguy (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Content added by User:Benniejets

The content about Italy added by User:Benniejets is poorly written and poorly sourced, it should be re-written in good English and sourced correctly or removed. Theroadislong (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040603144659/http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/chapter1.html to http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/jupiter/chapter1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120506162710/http://www.stormingmedia.us/15/1575/A157573.html to http://www.stormingmedia.us/15/1575/A157573.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213030211/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb to http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105200406/http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm to http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear sharing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714205353/http://poniforum.csis.org/blog/no-price-is-right-why-the-bbc-is-incorrect-about-a-saudi-arabia-p to http://poniforum.csis.org/blog/no-price-is-right-why-the-bbc-is-incorrect-about-a-saudi-arabia-p

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Weapon list issues

Firstly there are no references at all in the section. Second the 'former' section lists weapons as shared with states that I've never heard of being involved in nuclear sharing with the US. I think there might be some confusion between 'shared' and 'forward deployed' by the United States on allied territories.Doyna Yar (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doyna Yar: You are correct. That sections needs to go. Just FYI, this page has seen some POV pushing from a sock for quit some time. It might be better to have a look at other sections in the page and see what it unsourced or content inflation. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Lemmy guess- Benniejets again?! Some people just can't take a hint. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doyna Yar: Yep. Mastercard13273 (talk · contribs) was the latest sock I reported to WP:SPI. This and some related pages like the Italian nuclear weapons program need to be combed through to check if content has been correctly sourced or not. (not to say that these are the only pages which have been disrupted). Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've lost count as to how many times Benniejets has trampled thru pages. Isn't this a year or more now? There's got to be a better solution to this.Doyna Yar (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@Doyna Yar: Yeah it has been more than a year. One option that I am aware of is to create a WP:LTA case. I have done this in the past for other editors. But this won't solve the fundamental issue which is to report their accounts/edits when they appear (and they will). Their jingoistic POV editing is fine with some editors in the usual area they edit (and an area I don't watch) and thus these accounts are allowed to flourish. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, too bad there isn't a bot that would monitor for similar edits and raise alerts way before regular editors put it together. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. There are some bots which detect vandalism but none which detect POV pushing. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's February and there are still no references in this section? Delete.Doyna Yar (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

It's September and there are still no references in this section! Delete.Doyna Yar (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Citations are needed throughout.

It's July 2023, 5 years... nothing? Are you kidding me?! Delete.Doyna Yar (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

First sentence

"Nuclear sharing is a concept in NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, which involves member countries without nuclear weapons of their own in the planning for the use of nuclear weapons by NATO."

That does not make sense to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: That sentence is factually incorrect and was probably added by BennieJets who has always insisted (without WP:RS) that under Nuclear sharing NATO countries have full access to nuclear weapons and have the power to deploy them. On the contrary, it is the forward deployment of nuclear weapons by the US Armed Forces and at all times the weapons are under USAF control and so are the launch codes. At no moment in time do the member countries have possession of these weapons or any control over launching them. That sentence indicates the exact opposite of what is true. Here is a small reference . I also had NATO's official stance on this which exactly states that but cannot find that reference right now. If you look through the talk page discussions here or the Italian Nuclear Weapons page, you will probably find it. I will look around and see if I can post it. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80. Please do modify the lead then. I'd be grateful. Many thanks for the thoughtful reply. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Will do once I can string together some WP:RS. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Your map doesn't include Liechtenstein :(

How are people supposed to know if Liechtenstein has Nuclear Weapons or not :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:8601:2A20:B4A0:F7F6:D0AD:D0AD (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Map show Israel being a nuclear power?

It's a bit ambiguous what map on top means. Stardude82 (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

How is that ambiguous? Israel is a nuclear weapons state. Kylesenior (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Not the Israelis.172.89.78.72 (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So what? The Israelis say it's not so and we ignore the mountains of corroborating evidence? Kylesenior (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Engineering in the 21st Century - Section 003

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2024 and 3 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TeamPreventNuclearWar (article contribs). Peer reviewers: TeamPreventNuclearWar.

— Assignment last updated by TeamPreventNuclearWar (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hidden new section on types

@Doeze added a section on types of sharing that introduces terminology and categories that are unfamiliar to me and, from a quick scan, do not appear to be used explicitly in the cited sources. The section contains some interesting information, but I don't think the current presentation works. Let's discuss further. NPguy (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to discuss the table at the start that was added; it is clearly mixing up actual sharing arrangements with deployment of weapons on another nation's soil. The UK for example (to my knowledge) never shared its weapons with other nations but did deploy them overseas. The same with the US and Japan (and I suspect also Morocco, Spain, and Philippines). Kylesenior (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I agree it would be worth adding that to the table. But I think more broadly this page should include "nuclear stationing" as a bolded phrase in the lead probably. They are very related concepts in terms of power projection, political backlash, and can reasonably be considered as a spectrum of enhancing military alliance from deployment, to enlisting host military assets, to effectively turning over control of the weapons.

I understand the focus of the article currently is modern NATO and Russian sharing, which falls into the middle category. But the article also mentions Soviet deployments, which had no actual sharing arrangement. This is a good source on that: https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cold-war/Warsaw-Pact.pdf. Doeze (talk) 11:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am happy to change the presentation however is necessary. Which categories appear uncited? The substantive and non-substantive categories are taken directly from the East Asia source. I don't think more than three categories are relevant, although there is a distinction between widely publicised nuclear stationing and the instances where only a few top host government officials are aware. I can also understand it might be excessive to explain how each category treats the host country's deployment planning, mission planning, training, usage, and effective control, but I think the distinction between the last two is very important. Doeze (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the categories and most of the terminology in the "Types" section are not supported by the cited sources. Plus I think PALs are a technology for maintaining control, not a type of control. As far as I know, U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe have always been under U.S. control, even if the technology used in the early years was not sufficient to guarantee that control would be maintained. There were concepts of collective control under discussion in the mid-1960s (MLF and ANF), but both were ultimately rejected. NPguy (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

You're right PALs are a control technology and US weapons were nominally controlled (except Project E afaik). But the first source argues insufficient technology under the Eisenhower administration was intentional, to hand over effective control, for its deterrent effect. Conversely afaik PAL usage would continue on the MLF i.e. it was not a genuine discussion of collective control. Similarly, Russian PALs make discussion of current Belarusian collective control or dual decisions less meaningful.

The first source establishes this substantive vs non-substantive sharing. The current article lead describes the modern state of non-substantive sharing. As @Kylesenior mentioned, deployment of weapons sans inter-military cooperation is a separate category, not sharing, but as I have said I think it is important, similar in effect, and this is the right page for it currently. Doeze (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If you believe this is the best page for it, you need to rewrite those sections to make it extremely clear it is not nuclear sharing.

But, it's not hard to make a new Wikipedia page for overseas nuclear weapons deployments, which would simply avoid the issue entirely. Kylesenior (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It will take me some time to digest all the new edits. I would not want to use terms like "substantive" and "non-substantive," which are not terms of art and whose meaning is not obvious. It's better to talk about elements of sharing, such as basing, planning, shared operational control and transfer of control, the latter two being contrary to the NPT. NPguy (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

"Sharing" other WMD

Doeze added a section on sharing other WMD. This seems like a good topic for a WP article, but also seems out of place in this one. Also, nuclear sharing covers a continuum from simple basing to joint operations and even transfer, none of which applies in this section. But happy to discuss. NPguy (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy I agree it would be better as a section linking to a larger article. However it is closely linked to the primary concept of the article, fighting or deterring a full-scale conflict with NATO in Europe. As there isn't currently a better article for it or a consensus on this article's scope, I will temporarily reinstate it. Doeze (talk) 08:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Doeze: I don't think that's a good solution. The text is clearly out of place in this article. I don't think parking it here while you hunt for another place is appropriate. NPguy (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy I would agree it would be inappropriate if the section was entirely unrelated to nuclear weapons. But I believe the section currently makes clear that chemical weapons were an intermediary step in the escalation to shared nuclear weapon attacks in Europe. As the page currently discusses no other trigger methods e.g. conventional Soviet tank attack, I would say it is an appropriate starting point. Doeze (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't buy it. The only supporting source is the Rand study that explicitly dismisses the idea of CW use escalating to nuclear. And more generally an article on "nuclear sharing" has to have boundaries. It's not about every related topic, and in particular doesn't need to delve into what would trigger nuclear escalation. That can be left to another article, perhaps the one on deterrence theory. NPguy (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@NPguy I understand the problem with bringing in every topic that could trigger escalation. But it is relevant to mention the only other weapons of last resort stored at US bases in Europe in the event of this singular hypothetical conflict.

It also is not relevant that the RAND study dismisses the probability of escalation. What matters is that the study documents that the probability existed and was considered by various parties. Doeze (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. This a series of weak links of logic that it is not really relevant. Chemical weapons are not nuclear and are not particularly associated with nuclear escalation. At a minimum this section gives undue weight to a topic of marginal relevance. NPguy (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2025 (UTC)