Talk:Italian nuclear weapons program

Other examples of Italian capabilities

an unknown here have deleted sources that I added. without a real motive and knowing nothing about ICBM . the Alfa Rocket is not the Only example that Italy has or have prove it, Vega rocket technology derives from Alfa rocket , as well the re-entry tech it is very Important for the final Operation of a launch of a Missile. Italy have this prove it in 2015 with the Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle . in the Japanese nuclear weapon program -"De facto nuclear state"- there similar examples of re-entry demostration like OREX and HOPE-X. We all know that the Global System is used for atomic rockets, and it is an advantage that Italy have a ground operations centre of the Galileo (satellite navigation) project and possibly can use it, obvious this is unknown. but Italy has this leadership in Galileo that is why I Have added Galileo as an example.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:LuigiPortaro29 I know about ICBM systems and i think that what you wrote is good for the article the Least of the Great Powers.What you describe is done when the NPT was already signed.Even Vega could be used as a perfect ICBM.95.249.69.24 (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 I have noted here that is impossible expand the page. users don't understand that Personal POV are irrelevant. there one or two here that always like to put an eye, but they put the eye only for block or delete instead to collaborate! Even in the face of evidence ... they do not accept the addition of some more information. They just try to destroy something they do not like.AlfaRocket (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A too wide page isn't trustble.95.249.69.24 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

for the unknown- Well my dear, I respect your Personal Point of view, I think it is not nice to delete source in a destruptive way as you did. IF YOU SEE better I have added this  : "The country in more recent years" it is obvious after too many years of the NPT .is as a species of continuation but for lack of better source I cant put in the section " Current situation". the source talk clear about Italian capabilities. there examples like this in the Japanese Page already above I have explain it better. there several Pages of Nuclear programms that talk of re-entry tech , and reentry in the " Italian nuclear weapons capabilities section". I dont know why I should Put it in the section " Least of the great power". when this section is the main Italian page for talk about this missiles.this is not the case! for your Pov I think you dont like at all the source that I added, or I'm wrong?, why Japanese Page or others pages should keep this information and why Italian page no?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

User:LuigiPortaro29Act as you like.What you posted is better in the other article.Anyway it's always possible that a state decides to leave the treaty,so the ICBM like the nuclear sector knowledge are main.And Italy has both.95.249.69.24 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Problems with this Article

This article is supposed to be about the Italian nuclear weapons program, but there is virtually no information relevant to the question of whether and how Italy attempted to produce nuclear weapons. A clearer, more concise summary of the relevant context is here and more detail is here. The only indication here (or in the links above) of a military nuclear energy program is the name of a nuclear research center (CAMEN). The main value of an article like this would be to outline the history of that center. If such information is available, it would be the essential core that would make this article a valuable reference on its stated subject. Absent that, much much of the material in this article is context looking for content. NPguy (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This article talk of Italian nuclear Programs, include also the " nuclear programs of NATO". since the Italian Air force use this weapons and train with this weapons too. Italy have Nuclear sharing "program". these article is a sintesis of Italian "programs", of Italy ( Alfa,Camen, (new examples of this technologies as in other similar Pages as in the Japanese page)). Yes would be good too add more information, but here nobody wants / like to expand this Page.AlfaRocket (talk) 10:17, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking... since you have put an eye here, I pressume that you want to give a hand, Please Can you help us to expand this Page? Can you look for more information? You are welcome to add more information of Camen! greetings.AlfaRocket (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem with the focus on NATO nuclear weapons is the implication that these are Italian nuclear weapons. They aren't. They are (or at least in 1975 they were considered) the alternative to Italian nuclear weapons. I would add something on CAMEN if I knew anything or could find good sources online. It appears that it left a very light footprint and may not have accomplished much before it was shut down. NPguy (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I will be clear with you friend! when I saw your message here on Talk page saying : Problems with this Article , I was thinking... omg what is happened now, ( Because is not the first time that persons come here only for block or destroy things that they dont like). but then when I started reading at the content of your message I have see that wasnt all grave as in your comment above wants to show. I think that your POV or problem is about the Nuclear sharing Program of Italy and the image of the F35, right?. Honestly I will be frank, I cant find a defect in the Article , maybe there errors of ortography, But I find the Article good for Wikipedia users, The Article talks of Italian Nuclear sharing program, already also Repubblica cite this [1]. the cite talk about Italy will have these bombs B 61-12 in their aircraft. this programs reentry with the nuclear program term. the page talks as well of the Italian project of the 70s. You know.. Italian History of nuclear capabilities of Italy is thanks to the US, Italy and the US have always had an special relation starting with PGM-19 Jupiter ,UGM-27 Polaris and with the actual B61 nuclear bomb, that is why that Italian nuclear program talk more of sharing. it is true that the nukes that Host Italy are " Made in the USA", but now I wanna say you a thing, if we follow this rule, then all the missiles made in USA that use other countries then are American and not British, Japanese, etc ( is an example). According to the international terms of sale of war material, as you Know belongs to the country that produce the weapon , the country that produce the weapon have the last word for the use the weapon. it is obvious that Italy, UK, etc can use it Because they are very close to the US. I Know also that Italy pay also for the manutention of these Bombs in the Italian soil. there several materials of papers that talk that Italy is now a nuclear country because the Italian aircrafts train with these Bombs and as well they train how to put it into targets as well Italy can use it in case of a war. there examples like this here or this. that is why Italian page of nuclear weapons program talks of Sharing too and more than other pages of other countries cause for the relationship between the US and Italy.AlfaRocket (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

If any other editors are paying attention, I'd be interested in their take. Mine continues to be that the article has the wrong emphasis and is missing its essential core. Maybe that can't be avoided if there's no good information available on CAMEN, but it is disappointing. I would much prefer for the article as a whole to match the lead paragraph. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

After explaining that you're wrong. I'm afraid that your point of view is just something you want ,ignoring that the Italian nuclear weapons program are largely more sharing programs . new sources of CAMEN will be welcome, but as you know there no much about it. there three points that I want to show you one more time.

• as I explained you above, there no Problems with this Article as you want it to show. (I've explained you why, citing you the history of Italian nuclear programs). already there other pages like in the British page that talk of "sharing nuclear program" like this Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom.
• If you delete or block something about Italian nuclear program every once Since you do not like it , such as how you did (here) and say (here)..... then tell me where should we spell these things out?
• all the article is good, it would be better if there was more information about CAMEN but there are no, so the article itself is good because they are talking about Italian nuclear programs. as well English vocabulary cant be wrong with the term nuclear program.AlfaRocket (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Italy is not an Italian nuclear weapons program. Italy does not possess or have control over nuclear weapons. That said, NATO nuclear policy is relevant to this article. It just shouldn't be the core of the article. NPguy (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

AlfaRocket after all the evidence that you showed it, I'm sure there no problems with the Article. Italy Have no control of these Bombs?, of course that the Bombs are American!, But Italy can use it in time of war as Matthew Evangelista explain ([2]) as well Italy train with these Bombs ([3]). there several examples of this sharing programs in others pages. if Italy has more "nuclear weapons sharing programs than other countries" is not our problem. we are showing source who support the Italian Page, instead he has only POV's , it seems that this guy have serious problems of evaluation.Ivankazz (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Seems like sock puppetry going on here, given the similarly broken English. NPguy (talk) 03:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@AlfaRocket

    You see that instead of Objectivity here reigns rancour.
    You see that instead of Objectivity here reigns personal attacks and  false accusations. 
    instead of work together with good harmony  as always I hope and I'm in favor. it seems that harmony here it is very difficult!.Ivankazz (talk) 06:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I wonder how a person does say things only if my English is incorrect and associating it with another user, and not focusing in the sources that we are talking about. Yes I really help with google translator, but I think my english is not so bad,... here are many Italian editors who help with google ( this is not a secret)! I think this is not a serious thing, the serious things are other!

ok guys instead of talking things that do not focus anything, let's focus on this topic. already user NPguy has tell me that him will look for more information about CAMEN and I thank you for this!.AlfaRocket (talk) 20:33, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevant lines meant to pad the article

Hi LuigiPortaro29, Please look at my edits carefully and do not engage in an edit war. I have removed two lines and merged a paragraph. Here they are paraphrased "Yugoslavia was abandoning its own nuclear program; Switzerland would soon do the same.". Can you please explain to me their relevance here in the Alfa rocket section and why should they not be removed? Secondly, please look at this article in an objective manner and do not get emotional about it. Paraphrasing you from my talk page: "You are the only one having problems with this article". I am here to improve the article and add sources where the information is false. I am helping improve it and provide the facts since there has been quite some POV pushing. Please discuss edits here before reverting. You seem to have done quite a few questionable reverts in the last hour including removal of a reliable reference. The very fact that you are not looking at the diffs indicates that there is blind reverting. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you! I will delete Yugoslavia and Switzerland from Alfa explanation. Have a nice day!.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 09:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Please be careful when you revert edits. You are wasting your and other editors time in essentially meaningless talk discussions. Please evaluate what is being edited and if you are not sure open an discussion. This is not the first time I am warning you about this behavior. Adamgerber80 (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Please take good faith with my edits, I have reverted the sentence before you added the source.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Please give me examples of other articles which delve into the space program on the nuclear weapons page? That information has no relevance on the nuclear weapons page then a single line. As I keep saying, much of this is to pad the article and artificially increase it's length. I have already remove a bunch of duplicate information. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

well I thank you again for your edits, and Please can you ignoring " the blocked one". well already there examples like this like in the Page of Japan. look here : Japanese nuclear weapon program. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Sorry I do not see it. Can you be specific which points you are referring to in the article? To me the article is very specific and talks only about Japanese nuclear development unlike this article which talks about other programs which already have their own page. Another important point is that it seems you/other editors are fixated with the length of the article which has caused this undue padding. Let's only add directly relevant content not the ones which are orthogonality related. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No problem my dear, you can see it here Japanese nuclear weapon program, down in the bottom page " De facto nuclear state", Here there a little explanation of the re-entry technologies and also the rockets produced by Japan. in a nutshell, this example would also concern Italy because the Vega rocket comes from the Alfa rocket. Italy also has the technology of re-entry as you can see by source. in short, "how to produce an intercontinental rocket".LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 That has a context to it. In that article it is the other way around where they talk about Japanese space technology and how it gives them the capability to create or use them as ballistic missiles. It is not specified that as a by-product of the their nuclear program. I think it makes sens to include that content in the Alfa(rocket) article but I don't see any relation to the nuclear weapons program except this vague explanation. Lastly, do not mass revert, please cherry pick and revert content. I have also removed duplicated content. Please be very careful this the last time I am warning you of reverting randomly without checking what is being edited. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You see? I was right when I have said you about the same examples in the Japanese Page!, Yes maybe I need to create a new section or maybe fix the sentence.. Can you kindly Help me to fix the sentence?.LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

LuigiPortaro29 Moving discussion below. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Alfa Rocket Section duplicate of Alfa (rocket)

The Alfa rocket section here is an exact duplicate of Alfa (rocket). We should either merge the article with this article or insert a condensed summary of the other article here with a link to the page. This is per Wikipedia policy and avoid duplicate content. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you think you dear? what would be the best?. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 approaches. First we keep this section as it is and delete the Alfa article since they are exact copies of each other given the single source. The other option is have 1-2 sentences about the Alfa rocket in this article (about it's actual connection with the nuclear program and not the whole thing). In addition, we link off the main article here. I like the second approach here because Alfa(rocket) is not very relevant here nor is the mention of the space program. It makes sense to include that in the Japanese page because it is relevant there (it proves their capability to use it/manufacture ballistic missiles which they currently do not possess because of post WWII treaties). I do not see any relevance of their mention here but they can be mentioned in the Alfa(rocket) article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

oh.. I Like it!, ok make that, I agree with you , number two sounds better! feel free to delete one pic of Alfa, I don't know... I like more the image with colour.. what do you think about?. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Italian nuclear weapons program/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm picking this one up. Review will follow soon. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

Background

• Italian physicists, like Enrico Fermi had been at the forefront of the development of the nuclear fission and the creation of the first nuclear weapon.

  That's not what the source says. Fermi assembled a group known as the Via Panisperna boys. They were at the forefront of nuclear physics in the 1930s, but the team broke up in 1938. Ettore Majorana died, and Fermi, Bruno Pontecorvo, Emilio Segrè and Franco Rasetti emigrated to the North America. This left only Oscar D'Agostino and Edoardo Amaldi in Italy. In the US, Fermi was involved in the development of the first nuclear reactors, and he and Segrè worked at the Los Alamos Laboratory. I can supply more sources if you want them.

  • That would be great. I have amended this. Hopefully it puts the point more clearly now.
• Fermi and others repudiated nuclear weapons after atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

  This is not in the source, and is not true. Fermi continued work on nuclear weapons, particularly the Super. He opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb, but worked on it when it was approved.

  • Removed. I don't think this is relevant as it concerns the US programme. Please tell me if I should put something back in.

• Italy had no better access to the technology than any other country at the end of World War II

  Obviously, the US nuclear weapons already, and after that came the main countries involved in the Manhattan Project like the UK and Canada, and the ones with active wartime projects like the USSR and Germany. Suggest deleting this sentence.

  • Removed.
• However, Italy was quick to realise

  Although you haven't listed Antonio Varsori, "Italy and the Western Defence 1948-55: The Elusive Ally", as a source, it's the essay before Nuti's in Securing Peace in Europe, 1945–62, and it makes it clear that this was hardly the case. Suggest deleting this phrase.

  • Removed and reworded the rest of the sentence. Hopefully that is clearer now.
• The Italian Army was particularly keen to acquire nuclear weapons, seeing them primarily in a tactical role

  Finally, a sentence that is correct. However, I suggest that this be expanded to explain to the reader why this was the case: that the Army was confronted with defending mountain passes, which would channel any Warsaw Pact advance, and therefore made ideal targets for nuclear weapons.

  • Done.
• Starting with the second paragraph, we're not in background any more. Insert a new heading here.
  • Done.
• Italy started hosting nuclear weapons under NATO's nuclear sharing policy. As the very next sentence makes clear, this is incorrect. The Honest John and Corporal missiles belonged to two US Army battalions deployed to Italy, although they came under Italian command. (We don't italicize the names.) Consider adding additional details about this and how they were intended to be used from the source, as this would be of great interest to the reader.
  • Done.
• fn 5 needs publisher and access date.
  • Removed as it was not relevant to the time.
• The US was unable to supply the Europeans with nuclear technology due to the McMahon Act. Consider adding this.
  • I have clarified this. Italy was banned from developing nuclear weapons in the Paris Peace Treaties.
• Pressure was made on the United States -> "Pressure was applied on the United States".
  • Done.
• On 26 March 1959, agreement was made -> "On 26 March 1959, an agreement was signed"
  • Done.
• Link dual key, 36th Air Brigade (Italy)
  • Done. Dual key redirects to a page that does not mention the Italian situation. I understand from the literature that the Italians saw doppio chiave as something different to the US.
    • Not surprising. You could add a bit to the article about this. I described the how the dual Key system worked in the Project Emily article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
• Suggest moving the last paragraph of multilateral force up here to complete the story. Again, more details could be added from the source.
  • Good idea. I have also adjusted the lead in the following paragraph so that it hopefully flows a bit better.

More to come... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you simongraham (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I've made a series of additional changes, including tightening some prose, moving a reference into the correct position in alphabetical order, removing fixed widths on images (MOS:IMGSIZE), and adding a little bit at the bottom about the F-35 and B-61. Revert anything you disagree with. The sources are excellent! (Although I should mention that I am currently arguing the case that the Encyclopedia Astronautica is a reliable source at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1.) If you want to take the article to A-class or FAC, it will need to be expanded by drawing more heavily on them. The strength of the article is the way that it demonstrates how Italy's policies differed from the UK, Germany and France. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

article missing a point

There should be a note stressing that control of the nuclear weapons remains in U.S. hands - arming codes are kept secret, and U.S. forces are stationed at all weapons depots for security. I find it strange that the ex-president of Italy would state that the Cold War plan was to bomb Budapest and Prague - whatever strategic assets or rail/highway junctions were there would be offset by the slaughter of so many occupied non-Russian civilians. Is there any more details in the Source that could be added to clarify this? While the use of small battlefield weapons were an NATO option for halting a massive charge of Soviet forces 'in the field' (using weapons in the 2K-5K range) the strategic goal would be to hit Soviet targets within the USSR, not their helpless Warsaw pact states under the boot of the Russian bear ... 104.169.24.168 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)