Talk:AMAD Project

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

I request that the removed sourced information from the article be restored: Project Amad (or AMAD Plan) is a covert and allegedly ongoing Iranian scientific project intended to develop a functioning nuclear warhead. On 30 April 2018, the project was claimed to have been revealed by Israel. The project and its details were however previously known (as far back as 2005) by the IAEA as is shown in the IAEA's 2015 Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme. RedSparrow1 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:drg2010 I note the Wikipedia article AMAD Project has no Edit tab. Why is this? Some of the English is appalling like "went on" instead of continued! —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

POV issues

The POV tag was removed by Icewhiz. He's also restored my other edit. No wonder! Anyway, as for the tag and the use of "alleged" :

• "Netanyahu alleged that Iran for years operated a secret project known as Amad..." CNN
• "... Iranian documents relating to something called Protect Amad" The Independent.
• "...relating to Project Amad. The project, he said, had had the explicit... " BBC.

That's why the article should be tagged, unless the issues are resolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• The existence of project Amad is confirmed by non-Israeli sources - e.g. [1] dating back to 2015. The alleged contents of the project (pending evaluation of the documents) is possibly still a "said" situation.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  We have a policy of WP:CLAIM also there are plenty of other sources--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a policy, but a guideline (check the difference). The 'guideline' allows using the word. "...alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." Btw, I've provided random sources for the "allegation". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I have neutralized all this and I suggest the removal of the 'pov tag'. Of course, feel free to modify or improve my text. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Allegedly

There is some dispute over whether the claims about "AMAD" should be qualified as "alleged". The proof that "alleged" is required is that the only source is a 2011 IAEA report that attributes the information to unnamed "Member States" and calls it "alleged" 28 times. If the IAEA is careful enough to called it "alleged", we should be too. Zero^talk 11:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero: Thanks for the source, I've already provided some more sources in the above section. I used "alleged" but they kept on reverting me.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The source that I used and other sourses doesn't use this word--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you ignore those numerous sources saying alleged. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed in the current version.

The former version generated problems because it was written as if all this was "new" whereas this programme was stopped 15 years ago, according to IAEA. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Tag as stub

Why is this three line article mega protected? Anyway, please tag it {{stub}} as this article meets the definition. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

International reactions

Should we add a section with international reactions?

RedSparrow1 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No per WP:NOTNEWS this article is about the project not Israeli PM speech.--Shrike (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the topic is only relevant because Netanyahou exhumed this, I think that a moderate number of reactions can be relevant too. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Could you please clarify what you mean by "coatracky material ? If Trump's reaction is worth mentioning, the ones of the other Presidents deserve the same treatment. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Pluto2012. To get familiar with coatracky materials you may see wp:coatrack. As for the materials removed; Trump's comment were a reaction to the recent Israel allegations and hence is directly related, while the others' were not related to AMAD Project. You can take those removed sentences to JCPOA article. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You write that Trump's reaction is acceptable because "Trump's comment were a reaction to the recent Israel allegations". It is cleary written in the source that they also reaction to these allegations : Iran nuclear deal: UK backs deal despite US and Israel accusations.

(And by the way: wp:coatrack is (just) an essay and in the current case it does not comply with WP:NPoV.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a "reactions" section except from official Iranian sources. Leave Trump's comment, if he chooses to end the "Iran Deal" based on Netanyahu's unsubstantiated accusations about a 15 year old terminated program, it's a big deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag redux

Now that the article is fleshed out with legitimate sources, and Netanyahu's claims relegated to an "accusations" section, I'd say it's safe to remove the orange NPOV tag. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong person linked

The link to Jeffrey Lewis is wrong, it goes to a comic book artist instead of the academic nuclear scientist, but the page is protected so I can't edit it 24.183.4.235 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done NPguy (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

clarity not clarify

Awkward phrase: "provided more clarify about"

The trove "provided more clarity". And all mimsy were the borogroves. Spencer7593 (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done thanks. Zero^talk 10:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The Science is Severely Lacking; Highly likely this is a Hoax

Hello, new here. I took a look at the design as presented.

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/neutron-source-irans-uranium-deuteride-neutron-initiator-1

The shockwave driver looks valid. The flying plate looks wrong, the target of the plate looks wrong. But the most glaring thing is the UD3 neutron source. It wouldn't work unless implosion was near perfect and given that both the flying plate and the target are wrong and will result in RT instabilities that will prevent symmetrical compression, then simply; the UD3 neutron source won't work.

It seems the Iranians were exploring UD3 as a heat released deuterium storage device for a PF setup. Basic undergraduate plasma physics until they replaced it with TiD2. From a cancer reduction perspective: good call.

https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/farsi-and-english-versions-of-document-on-neutron-initiator/

There has been some attempt to link a China -> Pakistan -> Iran path by claiming that China used UD3 neutron initiators on Project 596. Which it then transferred to Pakistan and then onward to Iran. But this seems ludicrous on the face; China's first atomic, Project 596, used an air-cored MK 2 powered impulse Betatron design transferred by the Soviet Union in the late 1950's.

Pavlovskiy A. I. and Dr. "Report AN (Academy of Sciences) SSSR," 160, No. I, 68 (1965).

Sakharov A. D. and Dr. "Report AN (Academy of Sciences) SSSR,"' 165, No. 1, 65 (1965).

John Wilson Lewis & Xue Litai (China Builds the Bomb, Stanford University Press, 1988), the China Institute of Atomic Energy (CIAE, near Beijing) constructed its first betatron in the late 1950s with Soviet technical assistance.

And Pakistan used neutron tubes from second generation Chinese designs that they started making in country at the Khan Research Laboratories (KRL).

So UD3? It seems like probably someone lacking an elementary background in nuclear physics made this up. I'm going to have to assume that the entire Amad Project is an elaborate hoax.

I looked up Iranian scientific papers from the 1990's, they had access to both neutron tubes and compact betatrons as well as polonium and beryllium, all of which would have been superior options. UD3 makes no scientific nor engineering sense.

This article seems to gloss over the fake science to maintain credibility of the original hoax.

ThukDe (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi ThukDe and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your analysis of the design. However, our own thinking and understanding is called WP:Original research and is not allowed to be published. Instead, what you need is WP:reliable sources that say that the science is severely lacking.

You say that our article seems to gloss over the fake science to maintain credibility of the original hoax; however, in the lead (introduction) we twice use the word "alleged" and add "Iran denied".

So, in the light of this, how would you like to change this article? What would you like to add or remove? Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2025 (UTC)