Talk:Nuclear proliferation

Name of this article might need changing

The term "Nuclear proliferation" should appear in the first sentence and be bolded, according to convention. But that exact phrase does not seem to appear at all, right now. So possibly, this article will need renaming. Should it be "Nuclear weapons proliferation"? Or "Nuclear weapons non-proliferation"? Just for example. At any rate, keep in mind that we'll need a bolded title appearing at the top of the article and matching the article name at some point in the near future. Pat Palmer (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2023 (CDT)

P S - It's an interesting and useful article! I look forward to seeing how it develops. Pat Palmer (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2023 (CDT)

I've added two sentences to the lead. Do we need an exact phrase match on the title? I agree we need further development, addressing the questions raised in the parent article, Nuclear power reconsidered. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2023 (CDT)

Israel

Not mentioned here, though it seems to be generally accepted they have nuclear weapons (or at least components that could be slotted together at 40 minutes notice!). Peter Jackson (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2023 (CDT)

I have added Israel to the table. We may need some reliable sources on this. David MacQuigg (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2023 (CDT)

More to non-proliferation than inspections

We need some additional sections on what is being done with nations that have NOT signed the NPT, and are NOT agreeing to the IAEA non-proliferation guidelines. Has the Nuclear Suppliers Group been successful in controlling exports of nuclear technology and materials? Do the failures (India and Pakistan) have any implications as to what reactor designs we should support or oppose? Have there been any proposals on incentives for countries that comply with IAEA guidelines, so we don't have to rely only on export controls and sanctions? David MacQuigg (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2023 (CDT)