Attorney Dov Weisglass, who was an aide to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, told al-Montior about an April 2004 letter from GW Bush about Israel’s nuclear weapons program:

Netanyahu was a senior member of the Sharon government at the time (2005), and according to Weisglass, he was well aware of the deal with then-US President George Bush regarding the evacuation of Gaza and northern Samaria. The US quid pro quo included letters from Bush, received in April 2004, recognizing established Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank, committing continued US support for Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear program and pledging to maintain Israel’s qualitative weaponry edge against its enemies.

Not new, but Fars News includes part of its text:

“Iran is not after a nuclear bomb. Why would Iran want a nuclear bomb? Moreover, when an atomic bomb is detonated, it does not just kill enemies. Rather, it kills innocent people as well, and this goes against Islamic beliefs and the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran. An atomic bomb does not discriminate between good and bad people, and it is not something that the Islamic Republic would use,” a part of the fatwa said.

The Islamic Republic is relying on something that is not affected by bombs, foreign invasions and other such things. Such things only strengthen what the Islamic republic is relying on. The Islamic republic is relying on the people,” it added.

For those wishing to conduct some tests involving high explosives, this LANL publication has you covered.

Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recently commented on former PM Vajpayee’s post-1998 tests diplomacy:

Within a space of two years after the tests, we had engaged all the major countries of the world, had actually brought them around. When you had the visit of a president (Bill) Clinton, PM (John) Howard, PM (Yoshiro) Mori, visit of president (Jacques) Chirac. It was actually the post-test diplomacy, which I think anybody who is in the field of diplomacy, should look at and seek to draw lessons,” he said.

GAO published this report in 1963. It’s titled Manned Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program of the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense.

The UN has one here.

Not sure if this is new, but the 2022 State Dept compliance report contains a definition of a BW program:

The United States’ definition of a state biological warfare (BW) program is a leadership-approved effort intended to acquire, develop, modify, produce, or retain biological warfare agents for use or potential use as a weapon. A biological warfare program would probably include one or more of the following:

Researching, acquiring, developing, modifying, producing, retaining, or testing BW agents and/or BW agent dispersal devices for use as a weapon;

Facilities producing or intended to produce BW agents and/or BW agent dispersal devices for use as a weapon;

Training, doctrine, or plans for use of BW agents as a weapon; and,

Use or attempted use of a BW agent as a weapon.

Here’s a December 2022 DAE response to a parliamentary question concerning “the problems faced by the country’s nuclear power programme in terms of
achieving the desired efficiency:”

The problem faced by the country’s nuclear power programme in earlier period
was due to the technology denial and international embargo regime that
persisted from 1974 to 2008 and the constraints of availability of financial
resources. The programme then had to depend solely on budgetary support
and also the challenges posed by set of people primarily opposing nuclear
power. However the earlier constraints have now been overcome and the
nuclear power programme is poised for rapid expansion.

A 1995 North Korean statement issued when the ICJ was considering its advisory opinion on the legality if nuclear weapons use:

Here’s a 1995 statement from India when the ICJ was considering its advisory opinion on the legality if nuclear weapons use.