Nuclear weapon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering articles
"Iran currently stands accused by the United Nations of attempting to develop nuclear capabilities, though its government claims that its acknowledged nuclear activities, such as uranium enrichment, are for peaceful purposes."
The sentence cited is weak in several ways. Iran was not "accused by the United Nations of attempting to develop nuclear capabilities." Rather, it was found by the IAEA to have violated its NPT safeguards agreement, tantamount to a violation of the NPT itself, over an extended period (18 years) by secretly pursuing enrichment and reprocessing technologies, the very capabilities that are most critical to the production of nuclear weapons. So Iran was not "accused," but was essentially found guilty; it was not by the UN but the IAEA; and it was not for "attempting to develop nuclear capabilities" - a vague charge that would be difficult to define much less prove - but rather of failing to declare the most sensitive nuclear activities, as it was required to do under the NPT.
In a sense the international community recognizes Iran's right to peaceful nuclear activities, but Iran's safeguards violations while pursuing the most sensitive elements of the nuclear fuel cycle raised questions about the peaceful nature of its program. As a result, the UN Security Council has decided that Iran must, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, suspend those activities. The Council did not merely "ask" Iran to do this; under its auuthority to maintain international peace and security the Council can demand action, and that is what it did in this case. By defying the Security Council, Iran has compounded its violation of the NPT with a violation of the UN Charter. NPguy02:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People inside the fireball
Who was the person who got closest to an actual nuclear weapon explosion ever and survived it? What was the distance? 800 metes, 100 meters, next blast door? Was he inside the fireball (inside a bunker of course)? 195.70.32.13612:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to a specific person or asking whether there were such people? Likely the people closest to a nuclear blast to ever survive it were the Hibakusha. I know of no experiments done in which live humans were actually placed anywhere near a blast radius, though there have been experiments using animals and dummies. --Fastfission19:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear weapons cover a huge size range. Obviously you could survive much closer to a small one. The Davy Crockett (nuclear device)W54 warhead had a selectable yield as low as 10 tons. At that setting you could probably survive (though injured) in open air 400 or 500 meters away from ground zero. If you were shielded behind a bunker or underground, you might survive 20 meters away. Many W54 warheads were detonated in tests, but I don't know if human or animal tests were done. Joema06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One should consider the different scalability of bomb effects. Smaller bombs will have a lethal radioactive emission field larger than the lethal blast radius, while for large bombs the effects are the other way around. Armoured vehicals provide good protection but will be vulnerable at high over pressures and high neutron fluxes.--ManInStone11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ewlyahoocom quoted an entry on the Super page. (An entry that was adjusted by you, Fastfission.) Two days later, he deleted that entry from the Super page, with no hint of explanation. Evidently, "From" shifted in meaning -- at first it seemed to mean "quoted from" -- and then it seemed to mean "ripped out of".
On the Super page (a disambiguation page), I've added back a version of that entry:
The concept of the hydrogen bomb was called the "Super" or "Superbomb" when it was first conceived of during the design work on the original atomic bomb.
Do you think The Atomic Cafe might have any nfo on that? I remember those soldiers running towards the blast, that's it though.
Strategic weapons
From Nuclear strategy section: "Note that weapons which are designed to threaten large populations or to generally deter attacks are known as "strategic" weapons." Good point, but is this the right definition? What about strategic bombing during WW2 on infrastructure (factories, oil)? Encyclopædia Britannica defines strategic weapons system as: "any weapons system designed to strike an enemy at the source of his military, economic, or political power" (britannica.com). Is Nuclear weapons the only type of strategic weapons? Maby someone could create an article on strategic weapons? Zarniwoot01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the key aspect there is the "economic", which means "civilian" (see strategic bombing). And the threat of strategic weapons, as such, is much more than "tactical" and thus they play a far greater role in nuclear strategy per se. But we could clarify that, yes. --Fastfission02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is a difference between stratigic bombing and stratigic nuclear weapons(not). The simple difference that stratigic bombing is that designed to cripple the enemy amd reduce their abbility to fight while stratigic nuclear weapons are those that are intended to produce casualties to an unacceptable degree, that in that the enemy would not risk them being used against them. I think that from the start of the cold war, both sides hoped that no ICBMs would ever be fired (unless their nations tactical nukes had first decimated their enemies ability to fire their stratigic weapons first :P)Pissedpat07:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with second paragraph
The primary purpose of this article is to discuss what a nuclear weapon is, how it was developed, and how it works. Therefore this sentence placed in the second paragraph seems out of place:
The use of the weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of at least 120,000 individuals (mostly civilians) and about twice that number over time, was and remains controversial — critics charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war. (See Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion.)
Neither Encarta NOR Britannica have verbiage like that in their articles on nuclear weapons. Why? Because the primary purpose of an article is to describe the topic, not to pass judgment on it. Whether people find it controversial is not relevant to describing the topic. That's why neither Encarta nor Britannica, nor other encyclopedias do this, and certainly not in the second paragraph.
Encarta has a sidebar on the morality of using nuclear weapons against Japan, but it is merely a link, without the POV verbiage that this Wikipedia article has.
All Wikipedia writers should take note of this and learn a lesson from how other encyclopedias handle topics involving controversy. Always remember -- the primary purpose of an encyclopedia article is to merely describe the topic, not pass judgment on it. An encyclopedia is essentially a more elaborate dictionary. It is not a forum for pro/con debate, however minor. If there's a controversial aspect to a topic, it should be included in another article, WITHOUT a summary of that in the 1st article. Any such link should be well down in the article body, NOT in the second paragraph.
By contrast the Wikepedia article Bombing of Tokyo in World War II is about an ACTION, not about a technical device. It therefore is more appropriate in that article to include some information on the pros/cons of the action, since that is the topic. However even that article initially focuses on describing the topic, reserving the pro/con coverage until toward the end.
Note that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Yet that article doesn't include POV verbiage in its second paragraph. Why? Because that action, however brutal, is less politicized today. But whether a topic is politicized should have no effect on an encyclopedia article's factual description or article structure. Joema13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're objecting to -- the fact that it notes that their usage has been controversial and quickly glossing over the controversial issues? What exactly do you find POV about it? You surely cannot deny that much of what people associate with nuclear weapons is the debate over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, whatever one thinks about their uniqueness or not. This paragraph was the result of many edits by people who thought that a discussion of the "device" was dehumanizing to the effects of the device, especially the two times they were actually used in combat. I personally think it is very concise, succinct, and NPOV. It states the two major positions very clearly and fairly and then shunts off to another article for further discussion. --Fastfission14:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You described the problem: many people associate with nuclear weapons the debate over Hiroshima, thus it was included in the Wikipedia article. That is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia article -- rather it is to describe the topic. That is why neither Encarta nor Britannica have similar statements in their articles on the same subject.
You also describe another problem: the current wording was a result of compromise with people wanting to inject their personal feelings into an article which should factually describe the topic, and nothing more.
The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't to state opposing state points of view in a crossfire-style fashion, however abbreviated. It is to describe the topic. That is why Encarta and Britannica do it that way. Joema05:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Fastfission; the current version is concise yet appropriate, and is likely to give users who search for this topic the information they are looking for, or point them in the right direction. What Encarta and Britannica do is not necessarily relevant for a mature Wikipedia article; I would consider the lack of discussion in those sources a shortcoming compared to this article. They don't have the benefit of continual user feedback to identify the important missing elements. The article describes important positions without advocating them; while the topic is a magnet for emotion and personal feelings, that doesn't mean the issues aren't important enough to be in the article. They are part of the topic, broadly construed.--ragesoss06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a gross problem or a factual error. It just seems putting it the 2nd paragraph is out of place for a reference work. This is obvious from comparing to other Wikipedia articles, as well as common sense:
The Wikipedia Automobile article doesn't say in the 2nd paragraph: "Automobiles have killed 30 million people. Some people feel that's an unjustified loss of life. Others feel it's an accepted cost of the benefit provided". No, it describes what cars are and how they work.
Even the V-2 rocket article doesn't say things like that. It doesn't say in the 2nd paragraph: "The V-2 killed many innocent civilians in World War II. Critics say this was unjustified. Others say it was a warranted wartime action." No, it describes what the V-2 is and how it works.
Re Encarta, Britannica, etc not including it, that's not due to lack of discussion. They get plenty of feedback, just not real time. I'm sure lots of people with strong feelings have requested they add similar statements on many different controversial issues. But the editors don't do it because they have a more scholarly, unbiased perspective. They understand the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide information on the topic, not include pro/con positions of politicized viewpoints. Joema14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a carbon-copy of Britannica. Should WP users desire this, they may purchase a copy of another encyclopedia on CD. WP covers many subjects not found in other encyclopedias, and often in greater depth; this is a -strength- and not a weakness. CRW 213.86.59.9217:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
H-bomb
Shouldn't there be a separate article on the H-bomb? This article hardly has anything about the difference between a fission bomb and an H-bomb, and the redirects from H-bomb, hydrogen bomb, and thermonuclear weapon might lead readers to think all nuclear weapons are pretty much the same.--ragesoss20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to split it, the intro should at least give an overview that mention the different types of nuclear weapons, so people who were redirected don't get the impression that all are synonymous.--ragesoss01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put in (the A-bomb) and (the H-bomb) in the appropriate slots in the intro. That paragraph is a well written one and I hate to tamper any more than necessary with it. --DV8 2XL02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That helps a lot. It still leaves out other terms that also redirect here: thermonuclear weapon, Hydrogen bomb, atomic bomb, atom bomb. But I agree, the intro paragraph is nice, and I don't want to ruin it.--ragesoss03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should put that sort of stuff in the types of nuclear weapons section, not in the intro though. "A-bombs" is really just an abbreviation for "atomic bombs" which is really just a word meaning "fission bombs" and so forth. I'm happy with listing all of them early on in the page, but putting them in the first sentence looks very amateurish to me. Calling nuclear weapons "the bomb" as a whole looks very, very silly, even though when people say "the bomb" they often are referring to the threat of nuclear weapons. I just don't think it works very well that way. --Fastfission02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this, but really we have an entire article for Teller-Ulam design and History of the Teller-Ulam design (I think they should be merged together like they originally were, but anyway that's neither here nor there). In effect we already have a separate article on the H-bomb though not under that name. The question I suppse is whether H-bomb should go here or there; I think in most cases people want a more general overview of nuclear weapons rather than a subject-specific approach, but that's just my guess. --Fastfission02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Teller-Ulam design page is impressive, and I think either H-bomb, etc., should redirect there with a see also for nuclear weapon at the top, or the nuclear weapon should have a prominent see also in the design section linking to Teller-Ulam article, instead of just the in-text link. The title of that article is not going to mean anything to many people; if someone knows an H-bomb and an A-bomb are different but doesn't know why, they have to follow a convoluted path to get the details they want. May the Wiki be with you--ragesoss03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think having a general article on nuclear weapons is a good idea, and I don't think the path to specific information is convoluted at all. I also think that all of the the Bomb/the A-bomb/the H-bomb stuff in the opening paragraph reads really badly, and it should either be moved to the Types of Nuclear Weapons section or a new paragraph should be written detailing some of the other names that nuclear weapons go by. TomTheHand13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Timely discussion (for me)! I was in the States last week and visited the Nevada Test Site museum in Las Vegas yesterday for a couple of hours before flying out. I left wondering what the distinctions were among h-bomb, a-bomb, and thermonuclear bomb. Your article answered my question to just the level I wanted, so thank you. Just one thing: there's a nice schematic illustration of fission bombs, but since that's only half the picture, it would complete the picture if you added the illustration for fusion bomb that's used on the Teller page. Just a suggestion from a user. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if I make a small grammatical correction while I'm in the neighbourhood. - Kkken13:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad it was of help! Yeah, I've thought about creating a picture that showed all three types at once -- it might be a good idea. --Fastfission14:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's really too bad you decided not to give Fission and Fusion weapons their own separate sections. This article on Nuclear Weapons is excellent but when a user types in specifically "Hydrogen Bomb" that's probably what they're interested in. There's so much information specific to H-bombs it would easily occupy it's own article. Perhaps you have a certain idea of who your audience is, i.e., most people who consult an encyclopedia don't know the difference between the two types of bombs and "what they really want to know is what nuclear weapons are." I think you are either underestimating your audience or deliberately designing this section around some pop culture ideal. No, Wikipedia is not meant to be Physical Review Letters but neither should it be Popular Mechanics.
I would never have guessed that the information I was interested in could be found primarily in the Teller-Ulam article--and scattered around in other places--without coming here and reading this discussion first.
This is not a criticism of the Nuclear Weapons page--it's excellent--but it *is* a criticism of the decision to redirect searches from "Hydrogen Bomb," "Fusion Bomb," et al, as well as the puzzling stubbornness here to create an article specifically for hydrogen bombs.
Hmm, well, that's a legitimate criticism. It might be worth being a little more clear about the differences and where one might find the details, as well as things which contextually related the different weapons to different contexts (i.e., h-bombs are what people are talking about when they refer to the arsenals of the major nuclear powers, but when talking about proliferation it is usually in reference to fission weapons). --Fastfission21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is a good decision to redirect hydrogen bomb, fusion bomb, etc here, because I think the majority of readers simply want to know generally what a nuclear weapon is. However I also agree that it's difficult to find specific, detailed information if that is what the reader is looking for. In my opinion, the redirects should continue as they are but we should make an effort to improve accessibility of detailed articles.
Here's a thought: what if we had a page that listed the articles on nuclear weapons and gave a two sentence summary of what each article covered? Then at the beginning of nuclear weapon, we could have a notice that says "This article briefly summarizes many topics related to nuclear weapons. For a listing of detailed articles on various aspects of nuclear weapons, click here." and then link to the listing.
Right now a reader who is looking for the main article on the design of modern thermonuclear weapons would start here, read the Types of nuclear weapons section, and be unsatisfied. The reader would then need to click on the link to Nuclear weapons design and read that article, or at least the Fusion weapons portion. Still unsatisfied, they would need to click Teller-Ulam design to get to article they wanted.
I think with the summary page, someone could immediately realize that this page is not the detail page they want. They'll go to the article listing and scan it briefly, finding a link to Teller-Ulam design with a description like "The Teller-Ulam design is a design of staged nuclear device which uses a fission reaction to ignite a fusion reaction. It is the design used in modern large nuclear weapons. Devices using the Teller-Ulam design are known as hydrogen bombs or thermonuclear weapons."
I don't think I've seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia before and it might simply go against Wikipedia style and be a bad idea. I think it's most like a disambiguation page but more detailed. TomTheHand22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think this article is already as much of an "intro summary" as one should do (it is an attempt to implement good Wikipedia:Summary style. Teller-Ulam design is linked to in the "types" section here, but I'm not sure that's what people want out of an H-bomb article (sure, they want the design, but not the gritty details and the history of knowledge about the design). Perhaps what we need is some sort of short article on the Hydrogen bomb itself, and have everything except a direct search for "hydrogen bomb" and "h-bomb" link to this page? The H-bomb page could very quickly say it is about particular type of nuclear weapon, but could then itself be a summary style of the design, history, effects of the h-bomb, as well as a section comparing fission and fusion bombs, etc. --Fastfission22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be a good idea for "thermonuclear weapon" and "fusion bomb" to link to the proposed "hydrogen bomb" page as well? TomTheHand00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mockup in a display case, obviously. I don't think it's a very good picture to illustrate the Trinity bomb with in any case, compared to the many actual pictures of the device which are available (see [1]). In any case, I don't think we need another Manhattan-Project-centric link in the history section, and another Manhattan-Project-centric image on the page (there are already three!). I'm not totally opposed to having another picture in the "history" section but it would be nice to diversify a little bit on what we were considering "history" here rather than just sticking to 1945. --Fastfission05:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by "fake" -- I should clarify. I don't mean that it is not a scale model of the bomb. I mean that it is not a picture of the actual bomb, and does not look like a real bomb at all in its case. Compare it with this or this photo, for example. One is clearly a plastic model, the other is the real thing. --Fastfission05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The critics are right. A-bomb needs to be a separate article on fission type nuclear weapons and not a redirect. H-bomb needs to be a separate article on fusion type weapons and not a redirect.****************
tmayes1999
Auto reversion of edits
Hey, fastfission, before you simply revert somebody's edits wholesale, why don't you have a look at them? If you don't like extra content, then take it out, but don't revert all changes also, just because you're lazy. For example, the original article states that a tertiary stage is used for "multimegaton" devices, but that's simply wrong. A tertiary is used in all modern thermonukes (save neutron bombs), for reasons I explained. This is a more important point about what modern nuclear weapons actually are (what they are composed of), than much of what is in the article. Anyway, if you think my explanation is long winded, feel free to just leave my conclusion. Sbharris01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went through most of them and implemented them when I thought they were good, but of course we always miss a few, especially when the amount of text to look at is large. In any case this is not a page to go into any sort of detail about the composition of nuclear weapons; we have other pages for that. The goal of the design section here is just to give an overview of the basic types and their basic differences. --Fastfission02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccuracy
This article
"he use of the weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of at least 200,000 individuals (mostly civilians) and about twice that number over time"
Another article
78,150 killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August,1945
I know I'm not mentioning Nagasaki but I'm 100%less people died in that bombing. Also twice that number over time is a rather disputed figure. I'd be inclined to change it unless I got some good points otherwise.
I just visited the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima and the number they are quoting at and around the Memorial Museum is about 140,000 killed by the end of 1945. A tour guide told me that the number of actual victims is quite higher given that many others would succumb to cancers and leukemia after the end of 1945, but the exact number is far more controversial because whether or not the death can be attributed to the atomic bomb is uncertain in many instances.
Vandalism protection
Anyone else tired of imbeciles inserting junk here ten times a day? Could we petition for protection from edits by anons and new users? - Emt147Burninate!06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By all means try, but when I asked for semi-protection for another page with a similar rate of vandalism, I was told that 10-20 per day wasn't enough to warrant it. --Christopher Thomas07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Imbeciles vandlize many Wiki articles many times a day. IMNSHO, this is one of the two top problems that must be solved before anyone can claim that the Wiki model of collaborative editing works in the real world. (The other problem is, of course, that fact that a vocal, motivated minority can sway the content of an article far from NPOV and get away with it.)
Yup, the semiprotection request was nixed because "it's within the ability of users to revert" (meaning, if you spend an hour a day reverting instead of contributing we don't give a shit as long as Jimmy Retard from Junior High can write profanities all over the place). I encourage everyone to assume bad faith, start with high level warnings (blatantvandal or test3), and quickly list at WP:AIV. I certainly will continue to do that. - Emt147Burninate!18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to just silently semi-protect it and keep it that way unless anyone seriously protests. Any objections? --Fastfission17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "F****** History" ... is inadequate or could someone please explain why it should be called like that? I'll edit that.
You had the bad luck to see the article during one of the three brief periods, totalling four minutes, when an anonymous user had made that edit. It's unfortunate but vandalism of this article is common. TomTheHand20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protection
Because this article is relatively stable in terms of content and has a high-enough profile that it is vandalized by unregistered users on an almost daily basis, I'm going to put it under semi-protection (can't be edited by unregistered users or new accounts). If you are someone who can't edit it, you may feel free to leave any comments or suggestions for changes on this page. If anyone has a problem with the semi-protection, feel free to contact me via my talk page.
--Fastfission13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move "Nuclear weapon" to "Nuclear bomb"!
(This idea came as a byproduct of a discussion about the advisability of replacing occurences of the old and common name, "atomic bomb" with the article's current name, "nuclear weapon". There's a mini-consensus to leave most existing references to "atomic bomb" as they are.)
"Nuclear" might be more correct than "atomic", but how did "bomb" get laundered into "weapon"? "Nuclear weapon" is doublespeak. Every nuclear "weapon" IS A BOMB. "Nuclear bomb" is an honest name. "Nuclear bomb" doesn't sound as smooth as "nuclear weapon". Maybe those who coined "nuclear weapon" were also considering how it sounded.
I would like to move "Nuclear weapon" to "Nuclear bomb".
Interestingly, "atomic bomb" way outnumbers "nuclear weapon". "Atomic" sounds better, but it is regarded as an alternate form, nuclear being "more correct".
"Nuclear bomb" is a distant third, but it is way more honest than "nuclear weapon".
Google is not the arbiter. Who knows if those numbers are accurate. But there is more information there than just numbers. Look who uses which terms:
"Nuclear bomb" seems to get the top news sources nd science organizations: CNN, Washington Post, PBS, Guardian, MSNBC, Slashdot, BBC, howstuffworks, livescience, Bloomberg, USAToday, Seattle Times, Time, newscientist, fourmilab, ABC, NASA, LATimes, FOXNews, ...
"Atomic bomb" gets more historical content.
"Nuclear weapon" gets IAEA, UPI, Washigton Post, NASA, Telegraph, some historical, educational, PBS, ICRC, Encyclopedia Britannica, ...
I would move the "Nuclear weapon" article over to "Nuclear bomb" RIGHT NOW, but unfortunately the "Nuclear bomb" page is a redirect page that has been edited. I cannot up-and move this page with the Move button. (It fails.) (I'm guessing that I am not the first to discover this problem.) I don't want to butcher up the page with a cut-and-paste move. (The History stays behind.) So I need administrative help to get this move.
I don't know if my humble opinion counts as consensus enough to get an admnistrator to move this page.
Let's call a straw poll. Obviously, I voted MOVE. -Whiner0101:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, fast responses and all opposing. I wish I saw a Reason that I agree with. Maybe I am wrong, but I at least have a point. Maybe the euphemism really has worn off and people already know to be scared of nuclear "weapons". Still, I'll indulge in some dissent, rebutting the recent strong support of the Status Quo. -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Such a strong, fast response, unanimously negative, from long-time Wikipedia contributors and some admins, and you're convinced that none of us have a point? You remain convinced that you're dealing with doublespeak here, and not the more correct term used by scholars and professionals? Please step back a moment and think that perhaps you might be entirely wrong. The term "nuclear bomb" is correct under some circumstances, but it is a specific term and this is a general article. We're not going to revert to layman's terms and call anything that explodes a bomb. TomTheHand16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't advocate "calling anything that explodes a bomb". (Though at one point I came pretty close to it.) I proposed renaming THIS ARTICLE! (Please, somebody, LOOK at the article.) THIS ARTICLE deals EXCLUSIVELY with nuclear bombs (in the correct usage) and then links to ways of delivering those bombs. Maybe I should not have led with the doublespeak argument. But I am still challenged to guess how an article about nuclear bombs (a key component of all nuclear weapons) came to be mis-named "nuclear weapons"! -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars and historians and anti-nuclear activists all use the term "nuclear weapon" over that of "nuclear bomb". It is puzzling to me that you could insist this is a euphemism and that the entire world of expert professionals, even dissidents, are somehow being duped. The only time where euphemisms creep in is when they are referred to as "nuclear devices" which is almost never done on Wikipedia except in the specific contexts in which they are not weapons (i.e. in Plowshares experiments). Even Greenpeace.org uses "nuclear weapons" over thirty six times more frequently than "nuclear bombs". Almost every use of "nuclear bomb" on their site refers specifically to gravity bombs. --Fastfission17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I catch a lawyerly argument here.) Scholars and historians actively use BOTH terms, as shown by those counts. Instances of one outnumber instances of the other. But they are often talking about different things. Call a missile a weapon, YES, that is the only choice -- a missile is much much more than a bomb. But calling the bomb inside it a "weapon" -- that's what I don't understand. -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Bomb" would be less accurate. Read bomb, specifically the line where "the military mostly calls airdropped, unpowered explosive weapons "bombs." There are many different methods of delivering nuclear weapons that militaries would not call "bombs." Nuclear weapon is not doublespeak. It is a general term, and calling all nuclear weapons bombs is like calling all warships battleships, another common mistake. TomTheHand01:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh... Bomb: a man-made weapon that does its damage by exploding. Bomb: "an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions". Calling all nuclear explosive devices "bombs" would be like calling all battleships "warships", which they are. Calling battleships "ships" would be kind of lame -- it's one step too general. Should I care what the military propagandistically calls something, or should I call it what I know it is? Military explosive devices that the military does not call "bombs" are called grenades, shells, depth charges, warheads when in missiles, or land mines. But there they are listed under the Wikipedia article Bombs because, you cannot escape it, they all ARE bombs. "Device" and "weapon" are too general. Every "nuclear weapon" explodes, so every one is a bomb. None have a risk of maybe hurting someone if you nick them with it, like most weapons. It is not a knife, sword, bullet, poison or lie. It is a specific kind of weapon that releases energy in an instant. It blows things to pieces, it vaporizes them, it ignites firestorms -- it is a bomb. Calling it a "weapon" is an attempt to soften that fact, conceal it in a polysyllabic euphemism. It is a gentle deception. Methods of Delivery?? If I deliver an "explosive device" in a car, it's not a car weapon -- it's a car bomb. No one air-drops a car bomb or a suitcase bomb. Just because some kinds of bombs with specific delivery systems happen to have names that do not include the word "bomb" -- are they any less a bomb? (Examples: explosive artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, explosive torpedoes.) There are "weapons" known as "missiles". At one point they were known as "rocket bombs". Did it suddenly become not-a-bomb when the name changed?? "A land mine is a type of self-contained explosive device" -- it's a bomb. Depth charges are dropped like air-drop bombs, but dropped in water. Some called it a "dropping mine". Under Depth charge: "The USSR, United States and United Kingdom developed anti-submarine systems using nuclear weapons (nuclear depth charges) sometimes referred-to as Nuclear Depth Bombs (NDB)." Hmm. -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think that the current name is correct. There are several delivery mechanisms; bombs, shells and multiple types of missiles to name but a few mentioned in the article (Nuclear weapon#Weapons_delivery). The collective name for all of these delivery systems is weapons. Hence the article title. --GraemeL(talk)01:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just that "weapons" groups nukes with slingshots and boomerangs. A nuclear bomb is a weapon because it is a bomb. Missiles, shells and torpedoes are delivery systems -- which deliver what? (Hint: Bombs.) -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well, for the reasons above. If we want to talk about "usage", I've done a very quick survey: "nuclear weapon" gets twice as many as "nuclear bomb" on Google, twice as many on Google Scholar, twice as many on JSTOR, eight times as many on a historical New York Times search and a historical Washington Post search. In my mind the only real competition would come from "atomic bomb" but that's a less accurate term, less encompassing, and is only used more than "nuclear weapon" because of historic reasons (sometimes it is better to use in articles than nuclear weapon, for reasons of style and context). --Fastfission02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I point out those statistics already? I declared up front that I was going against the preponderance of usage. I said to take a look at who used it and and how. I went for "nuclear bomb" because it's a known term that is honest, and accommodates the physicists and all those stupid news agencies and scientific organizations; or "atomic bomb", the oldest and still the most popular (except for the definition problem created by the "super"). Anything but "atomic weapon" -- it's like a nuclear box cutter or nuclear nunchucks. Isn't a nuclear submarine a nuclear weapon too? (It's nuclear and it's a weapon...) I noticed that the List of bombs includes "Nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb". Should I go correct that list? And what of the V-1 flying bomb -- is that now the V-1 trans-Europe winged grenade? -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned one of the statistics; I filled it out a bit more with a survey of many different types of sources, showing that "nuclear weapon" is used not only more generally on the internet, but by scholars and journalists as well. All relevant communities and even irrelevant ones use "nuclear weapon" to mean all of the variety of nuclear weapons, including scientists, historians, weapons designers, politicians, anti-nuclear advocates, etc. The term "flying bomb" is an obvious anachronism reflecting the fact that it was the first guided missile. It also reflects the fact that it is basically a gravity bomb with a jet engine attached to it, unlike something like the V-2 which is always called a rocket or a missile. Again, you seem to be suffering from a category error here: almost all bombs are weapons, but not all weapons are bombs. So of course a "list of bombs" would point to nuclear bombs as well -- there are nuclear bombs, but not all nuclear weapons are bombs (some are missiles, some are depth charges, some are landmines, some are artillery shells, etc.). And from what I can tell nobody is arguing for "atomic weapon". --Fastfission16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm swayed. "Nuclear weapon" really IS the correct title for an article about nuclear bombs (fission and fission-fusion-fission), together with nuclear missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery, etc. A bomb by itself is a weapon, but not a very useful one. You have to deliver that bomb, or else build it into some kind of delivery system. A delivery system is not a weapon, it is a weapon component. A delivery system with a bomb installed is also a weapon, a much greater weapon than a bomb. I never advocated calling an ICBM a "bomb" -- that insults the marvelous delivery system. An ICBM is not a bomb (unless it explodes on the launch pad). An ICBM delivers bombs. Whether something is called "bomb" or not seems arbitrary at times, but I notice that complexity is the deciding factor, with pretty good consistency. If an explosive device sits somewhere and then blows up when commanded, it is a bomb. But if the same device has a long accurate timer in it, it is slightly more than a bomb; it is a "time bomb". If a pilot drops an explosive device from a plane, and it has an impact fuse, it is a bomb (or, more specifically, a gravity bomb, to remind us that it is passive or dumb). If a bomb has a radar proximity fuse, it starts to be more than a bomb; it wants to be a "smart bomb". If it has a camera in it and/or can I steer as it falls, it is a "smart bomb". If I waterproof a bomb and add a pressure sensitive fuse so that I can drop it on a submarine, it is a "depth charge". A bomb that waits patiently and tries to sense the enemy before exploding -- is a "mine". If I harden a bomb to launch from a cannon, it is a "shell". If I make a bomb safe to hold and throw a few yards, it is a "grenade". If I design a bomb to ride a missile, it is a "warhead". Distinct inventions tend to get special names; minor inventions seem to keep the name "bomb" (car-bomb, suitcase bomb). I think we are on the same page about bomb, not a bomb, weapons that are more than a bomb. That said, someone please LOOK at the article Nuclear weapon. The title implies that it is about nuclear weapons, but it is almost exclusively about nuclear bombs. The section Types of nuclear weapons lists 5 types of nuclear bombs (a-bomb, h-bomb, boosted a-bomb, neutron bomb, cobalt bomb). I see NOT ONE WORD there about the types of nuclear weapons (nuclear missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery, etc.) that are suggested by the article's title. Then there is a section, "Weapons delivery" that links to a "main(?) article", Nuclear weapons delivery. (And that article also uses the term "nuclear weapon" everyplace where it means "nuclear bomb". Example: "Nuclear weapons delivery is the technology and systems used to place a nuclear weapon at the position of detonation..." How does a ballistic missile place a ballistic missile at the position where the ballistic missile detonates? It's nonsense, isn't it. A ballistic missile places a bomb or a nuclear bomb at the position where that bomb detonates.) The articles and terms have undergone name shifts and content shifts that remain uncorrected, notwithstanding how closely the clergy might watch these articles. My initial disappointment remains. I expected a considered opinion, but what I perceived was collective whim, something quite different. I think that none of you evaluated the proposed title for the article aganst the content of the article. (I missed it too -- I now have a clearer view of what is wrong than I did when I started.) You defended against an imagined attack on sensibility. ((Maybe I need to start over in time, or research it from different angles. Several things probably need re-aligning, but the size of the articles might have them at an editing event horizon -- no one can fix anything unless they encompass the whole set of articles, which is large enough that it resists encompassing.)) -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Just because most other people are ignorant doesn't mean we need to be. Besides, I'll bet half of those "atomic bomb" references are to the Manhattan Project. Give Peace A Chance23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Atomic bomb" is old but entrenched. "Atomic bomb" predates the Super, so it excludes the Super. Nuclear bomb is an "updated" "replacement" term that encompasses A-bombs and H-bombs. Nuclear bombs are the payload of nuclear weapons. The article (Nuclear weapon) is incongruous because it is actually about Nuclear bombs. It does not discuss any weapon other than the basic nuclear bomb itself. (Who's "other people"? What's "ignorant?" Who's "we"?) -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does a missile deliver a "nuclear weapon" OR is the armed missile a "nuclear weapon" that contains a "nuclear bomb"?
(A fresh take.)
For clarity, one little question. There are two ways to organize the terminology. Which scheme is the correct one? (Each scheme links articles that support it or should support it.) Scheme 1: The part that explodes is a not a bomb at all, it is a nuclear weapon. (There are two types of nuclear weapon: The first type is called a "fission weapon" (not as foremost in the text as it should be, and sadly a redlink as well), also "known colloquially as an atomic bomb". The second type is called a "hydrogen bomb" (which article is naturally a redirect to nuclear weapon). (I suppose we should correct "hydrogen bomb" to "fusion weapon", since a "hydrogen bomb" is not a bomb at all.) ) A nuclear weapon that is built into an air-droppable casing is called a "nuclear bomb", like the Mark 15 nuclear bomb, a "thermonuclear bomb" whose heart is "a staged weapon" (not a staged bomb -- again, there's no such thing). The air-dropped device, then, is a "bomb" which delivers the "weapon" inside it. The gravity bomb casing, missile, ICBM, cruise missile or torpedo that can carry a "nuclear weapon" (or other payload) is NOT a nuclear weapon; it is a "Nuclear weapons delivery system" (or method, mechanism, or technology). A missile that has a workable "nuclear weapon" installed in it is then -- a what? I don't see a set name for it anywhere. No article calls a loaded missile a nuclear weapon! We can't call it a nuclear weapon because we already gave that name to the little payload device that explodes (but is not a bomb). Is it an "armed missile"? A nuclear depth charge is not as separable. Its enclosure is a delivery system; inside it is a "weapon". What do we call the whole thing? A "weapon with a delivery system"? Or is it also a "bomb" which includes a "weapon" inside it? Scheme 2: The part that explodes is a "nuclear bomb". (A nuclear bomb is itself a "nuclear weapon", but not very useful without a means of delivery.) A nuclear bomb that is merely encased for dropping as a gravity bomb is also called a nuclear bomb, as is the Mark 15 nuclear bomb, a "thermonuclear bomb". The nuclear gravity bomb is a useful nuclear weapon, one which delivers the nuclear bomb inside it. The gravity bomb casing, missile, ICBM, cruise missile or torpedo that can carry a "nuclear bomb" (or other payload) is NOT a nuclear weapon; it is a delivery system for a nuclear bomb. A delivery system with the appropriate nuclear bomb installed becomes a nuclear weapon. Simple nuclear weapons retain "bomb" in their name, such as Nuclear Depth Bomb. The article "Physics package" also deems the explosive part to be PART of a "weapon": "Physics package is a euphemism for the portion of a nuclear weapon that includes the actual explosive portion of the weapon: the detonator explosives, the fissile material, and (for fusion weapons) fusion fuel." The physics package is "the actual explosive portion" (the complete bomb) "portion of a nuclear weapon". (But there the word "weapon" seems to refer to warhead: "... with the same physics package being used for several different warhead applications.")
I think Scheme 1 leads to more ridiculous self-contradictions, starting its refusal to call an explosive device a bomb.
Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 are contradictory and incompatible. I see clues that those who replied to the previous section do not all suport the same scheme, or are unclear about which terminology is preferred. Both schemes have some degree of support in Wikipedia articles, which means that the articles are in contradiction. That's the question. Which scheme shall we write to? --Whiner0109:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That info doesn't help decide the split, but warhead is one more layer that needs to be fitted into the schemes. Thanks for the reminder. (I omitted "warhead" initially because things were getting crowded.) "Warhead" is potentially euphemistic (used like "payload"), but it has a serious side (like "pointy end") A warhead is a module and there are different types. Scheme 1: A nuclear warhead is a package that contains a nuclear weapon plus a fuse. We may call a warhead a "nuclear weapon" because it is a mostly nuclear weapon (the part that explodes). We may never call a warhead a nuclear bomb because a warhead is not an air-dropped delivery system, it is a payload. A missile or bomb that carries a warhead is a delivery system. A complete missile with warhead(s) is more than a missile, but it is NOT a nuclear bomb, and it is a NOT a nuclear weapon. Scheme 2: The nuclear warhead is a package that contains a nuclear bomb plus a fuse. We may call the warhead a nuclear bomb because it is mostly nuclear bomb (the part that explodes). The warhead is also a nuclear weapon, but one which lacks a delivery system sych as a bomb or missile. A missile or bomb that carries a warhead is a delivery system. A complete missile with warhead(s) is NOT a nuclear bomb, but it IS a nuclear weapon.
Which scheme shall we write to? --Whiner0119:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The United States' Peacekeeper missile was a MIRVed delivery system. Each missile could contain up to ten nuclear warheads (shown in red), each of which could be aimed at a different target. These were developed to make missile defense very difficult for an enemy country I think the final sentence of the text below the image, as shown in the Nuclear_weapon#Nuclear_strategy section of the article, is partial, narrow and misleading. It could equally be surmised that MIRVs were developed and mass produced in a political strategy to 'win' the arms race or express some kind of dominance by maximising the number of targets. Slowman1 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption explains the technical reason MIRVed warheads were considered better. There is no need for the caption to also explain why a country would want a better way to deliver nuclear weapons. By analogy, if I captioned a picture of a car, and said "This car has airbags, which inflate to cushion occupants in a crash", the caption doesn't need to also explain why someone would want a car to be safer. TomTheHand (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kazakhstan
So Kazakhstan would not have the nuclear weapon? So, it basically transferred some of its stockpiles back to Russia?
Ha-ha, well, we'll see how far the American armament of Kazakhstan and previous soviets states will go. But no, Soviet nuclear weapons were transported to Russia.
-G
Misleading intro?
"from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion."
Last time I checked, D-T fusion is on the order of 10 times less powerful than Pu. Well I just checked now actually, it's 17.6 MeV (wiki) for D-T vs. ~300 MeV (did I convert correctly? 2-11 J/mol x 1.6-13 j/MeV) ([2]).
I was under the impression thermonukes are more powerful because they have more fuel, not because the reaction itself is more powerful. If so, the intro really needs to be re-written.
Atom for atom, fission produces more energy, but weight for weight, fusion does, if I understand correctly. This is consistent with your numbers (works out to 840 MeV for 239 AMU of D+T), but I haven't checked the fission energy value, which seems a bit high (though I could just be overlooking some constributions). An upper bound on fission energy can be found by comparing the mass per nucleon for Pu239 vs. Fe56. It might be worth tweaking the intro to make this distinction clearer.--Christopher Thomas15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, but that seems like a very fine point to make in an intro sentance. It seems all of this could be fixed simply by removing the term "more poweful". That makes the statement both factually correct under any interpretation, as well as being just as informative. In fact I'm just going to go ahead and make this change, it seems minor enough to avoid a rvt. Maury17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I way out of date, thinking that fission bombs are called atomic, and fusion bombs are nuclear? This article seems to say (again and again) that there are two kinds of nuclear weapons: atomic and nuclear. Please set me straight or clean up the article. —MichaelZ. 2006-10-08 06:29 Z
"Atomic" refers exclusively to fission bombs; "nuclear" can mean either type (and the varieties of intermediate fission-fusion hybrids, such as boosters). The article almost exclusively uses the term "nuclear" for this reason. --Fastfission14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Recently someone vandalised this page by changing the 1st paragraph to some nonsensical stuff (see history).
I vote for this article to be protected or locked to prevent unregistered or newly registered users to edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by loongyh (talk • contribs) .
Nah, that stuff is par for the course. Nuclear weapon is a popular target for dumb kids, but it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of vandalism needed to trigger a semi protect. We try to avoid overusing those tools, they are anathema to the idea of the wiki. But thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is always vandalism going on - it's mostly not noticed due to editors and bots watching the pages and reverting vandal edits quickly. Some pages need to be locked because they are ripe targets for those with agendas or just wishing to have destructive fun (like the Tony Blair article) and if they weren't locked would likely become useless or misleading quickly or just a constant battle of reverts. Robovski01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Difference between fission and fusion bombs; what does thermonuclear mean?
220.239.185.915:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) NeilR: A fission nuclear bomb was the first type of nuclear device to be developed by the Los Alamos team of multinational scientists, including one Australian Dr Mark Oliphant who was later knighted and his title became Sir Mark Oliphant.[reply]
A fission device derives its energy from the splitting of Uranium nuclei into simpler elements, by the use of relatively slow neutrons.
In natural Uranium or Plutonium, nuclei are constantly splitting as slow moving neutrons from adjacent split nuclei induce nuclear fission in neighbouring nuclei. To make a fission bomb, you need to have a minimum mass of either Uranium or Plutonium, the value needed is referred to as the critical mass.
In a bomb, you need to have the critical mass divided until you want to detonate the device, in which case you ram the divided pieces together, to generate a runaway nuclear fission reaction resulting in a massive release of nuclear energy. To ensure reliable detonation in the largest possible scale, you need to have a source of slow moving neutrons located between the divided pieces, one such source may be the element Polonium.
Due to the nuclear physics involved in an Uranium fission bomb, the gun type design was the most efficient. The Plutonium fission bomb's physics demanded the implosion type design.
The Los Alamos team was divided into two groups, one group using Uranium worked on the gun type design, and the other team worked on the implosion type device. Due to technical problems with the gun type design, the implosion type device was finished first and was tested first in the Nevada desert. The gun type design was finished second, but it was first used untested in the Hiroshima bombing because insufficient Plutonium had been produced to have an implosion bomb ready by the time of the Hiroshima bombing on August 6th, and the implosion type of nuclear fission device using Plutonium was available by the time of the Nagasaki bombing three days later on August 9th.
A fusion nuclear device or thermonuclear device, uses a fission type of device to generate enough heat in the form of Gamma rays or X-rays to initiate fusion nuclear reactions in a deuterium/tritium mix. Fusion nuclear reactions generates much more energy than fission nuclear reactions, hence you can have a fission device small enough to initiate fusion nuclear reactions to get a larger yield, compared to a purely fission nuclear device, this accounts for a thermonuclear warhead having a thinner diameter, than a gun type "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" implosion type of fission nuclear device. The yield of a fusion or thermonuclear device can be adjusted by controlling the amount of tritium you pump into the thermonuclear warhead.
The fission nuclear bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a yield of approximately 10 kilotons each. A thinner looking thermonuclear warhead, as used in US strategic delivery systems such as the MX ICBM or Trident SLBM, or an US tactical delivery system such as a Tomahawk cruise missile, has a maximum yield of 200 kilotons.
What exactly is the above text supposed to contribute? And much—most?—of the information in it is quite wrong. Nagasaki had a yield of 22 kt. The MX warheads (W87s) had a max yield of some 300 kt and could be upgraded to 475 kt. The yield is not dependent on "the amount of tritium you pump into the thermonuclear warhead." The fact that they tested an implosion device at Trinity had nothing to do with "problems with the gun type design." The gun type design was not terribly more efficient than Fat Man (1% vs .9%, respectively). Etc. etc. --Fastfission00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
some notes
Just a note often nuclear material is also used in bunker busting bombs and anti-tank bombs.
Mainly because of their haevy material is better in penetrating hard shells. But also they cause an area with nuclear radion.
Note 2 did anyone notice the reports on the bunker busters used by israel.
It is believed that those where based om some unknown nuclear physics, some kind of secret.
Just curiosity if these bunker buster/tank buster bombs are evolving in a certain way jet unknown to the public.
Depleted uranium munitions have nothing really to do with nuclear weapons except for the fact that depleted uranium is produced as a byproduct of uranium enrichment. No nuclear reactions take place. They are not even radioactive enough to be considered radiological weapons. If there are improvements in conventional bunker busting bombs it is likely because of improved materials or improved shaped charges of some sort, not anything much to do with "unknown nuclear physics." --Fastfission16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ehrm, one question. Russia had always less warheads but more missiles than the US in the last time. I cannot find this anywhere. Instead the article euphemizes the figures in favor for the US. How comes? Neutrality? Humm ...
What are you talking about? The number of relative warheads and missiles varied over time. Military superiority is not formed by the maximum number of warheads. --Fastfission16:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the chart in the History section of the article (as shown here U.S. and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945-2006 ) as I remember the relative proportions of warheads in the '80s meant that the US was more heavily armed due to extensive use of the MIRV multiple warhead system. It is true that "mutually assured destruction"-based deterrence deprives the warhead count of meaning in terms of destructive capacity. However, the warhead count is probably a political indicator worth knowing, and I think the chart in its present context may be misrepresenting the history of the nuclear arms race. Slowman1 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Only six countries— United States, Russia, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France, and possibly India—are known to possess hydrogen bombs."
Could someone consider changing this? If India "possibly" possesses hydrogen bombs, it can't be "known" to possess hydrogen bombs. Goldbringer18:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah - why is it assume that India's detonation of a working hydrogen bomb wasn't quite up to scratch? I was under the impression that it was an agreed success (as verified by seismic data, etc...)
--Nukemason03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many Western observers thought it was unlikely that they detonated a working hydrogen bomb (multi-stage, radiation implosion, etc.). See Sublette's info on it for example. The Indian government of course claimed full success but that doesn't necessarily tell anything, esp. with hydrogen bombs (of which the definition is not necessarily fixed — some people think only multi-stage weapons are true hydrogen bombs, some are content with any substantial yield from fusion in a non-boosting way). --Fastfission03:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Legality?
Is the legality section something which is necessary for this summary-style article, or could it just be a link in the history section? Personally I don't think it adds much, but that might be because I have very little belief that their "legal" status in the eyes of the UN really means anything. In any case if we are going to have a "legality" section, wouldn't it make more sense to have it discuss things like the IAEA and the NPT, which have more day-to-day importance (if not effect) than a toothless resolution by a UN court? I just don't see that particular legal opinion as being terribly important — it has never played a role in the strategy of any nuclear or wannabe-nuclear country as far as I can tell, whereas things like the NPT and the LTBT and the CTBT have. --Fastfission16:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should this article have a legality section?
There's been a little bit of kerfuffle about a template I created, Template:Nuclear Legality. I originally intended to have a bit of information on every nuclear weapon article to do with that particular weapon's legality, and a load of over-arching information at Nuclear weapon. But since there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement I would now like to start with the Legality section of Nuclear weapon and work out from there. There are a few ideas as to what this section should contain, which can be dealt with in due course; for the moment, if you could take the time to add your name and any comments below I'd greatly appreciate it:
Proposal: the article "Nuclear weapon" should contain a section entitled Legality, under which the general legality of nuclear weapons under national and international law is discussed
Note: this section is now titled "Governance". Whatever the title of the section is, should it stand in the article? 2nd note: we're now also discussing what the title of the section (and any subsections) should be. Governance? Legality? Governance and control? Legality and control?
I don't see why a poll is necessary, just start writing and if it turns out that this article isn't a good fit for that section it can be split out and put somewhere else. But check the Nuclear weapon#Governance section to make sure you aren't adding redundancies first, you may want to make legality a subsection of that section. Bryan20:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mark8312:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) - As I've discussed with Jim, I'm not sure about a legality section on every nuclear weapon sub-article. However not discussing legality here seems like a glaring omission to me.[reply]
I don't know why we are even having this debate. Not having a section on legality is like not having any mention of the law on cannabis (drug). A glaring omission as Mark says. --Guinnog20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an accurate analogy; legality matters when you talk about cannabis, but it doesn't when you're talking about nuclear weapons. I think treaties are important topics, because they actually matter, but a decision by the ICJ or by a Scottish court really doesn't. TomTheHand20:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can agree to differ if you want, but I would say that legality and ethics are pretty important in any encyclopedia article dealing with weapons of mass destruction. --Guinnog21:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom: as I have said elsewhere, the decision by the ICJ does matter. Just because it is not binding, does not mean it is meaningless. 95% of ICJ AO's are accepted, but this one wasn't. Surely that makes it notable. In fact, I'm not even sure what you mean by saying certain laws matter when others don't; I can only deduce from your analogy that because possesion of cannabis can cause someone to end up in court, it "matters"? I don't mean to be facetious, but surely law only matters when it is disobeyed? --Jim (Talk) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that cannabis usage is actually affected by the laws of the nations involved, so it's an important topic. The policies of nuclear nations have not been affected at all by the ICJ's decision, so it's not relevant. Before saying much else, I'm going to wait for you to read my other comments on this talk page, where I discuss your misconception of what the ICJ said. TomTheHand21:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to reiterate: the ICJ Opinion is notable precisely because it has not affected the nuclear policies of NWSs. Again, 95% of ICJ Opinions are accepted and treated as binding by states. --Jim (Talk) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me reiterate the point I've made elsewhere: the ICJ Opinion states that the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons when a state's existence is not at stake would be a war crime. It does not state that possession of nuclear weapons is a war crime. All nations have obeyed the ICJ AO, but they would have done so anyway, so the decision is irrelevant: it was not the ICJ AO that has prevented nuclear annihilation over the past ten years. If a nation were in a situation where its best course of action is to use nuclear weapons, it is in a situation far too dire to worry about an international court's non-binding opinion.TomTheHand21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be foreclosing each other's arguments, but in separate threads! See below for the fine line between threat and posession. Also, the ICJ Opinion stated (unanimously, I believe) that states had an obligation to disarm in good faith. Is this a clearer example of the various NWSs flouting of international law? Rest assured that I am not going to use the word "flout" in the article, but I do believe that the fact that states have not worked with the ICJ on this is what makes the ICJ Opinion notable in this article. I also think it's best to avoid speculative arguments concerning who has prevented nuclear war, and about hypothetical situations when a nuclear strike might take place. --Jim (Talk) 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This was why I chose the cannabis comparison. The law against cannabis is also widely flouted, yet still deserves a place in our article. Without getting into a massive sermon about morality, I think it is very reasonable to note these opinions and judgements about the legality of these weapons. --Guinnog21:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
I think something on Governance and Control would be fine, which would refer to things more important (historically and in practical terms) than whether local courts in Scotland (??) think nuclear weapons are "legal" under international law. Treaties, agreements, anti-proliferation control, etc. are all good game for that. It should not become a forum for every time a local government has declared they don't want nuclear weapons either to be ignored or overturned by the executive government — it was a quite common occurrence in the 1980s and if we start going down that path we will have a long list of self-righteous stands which had no practical effect. I don't think such a thing makes for a useful, "top-level" understanding of what nuclear weapons are; a discussion of how they have been tried to be controlled politically, though, would be quite useful and interesting. In my opinion. --Fastfission16:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A small point on the relationship between the ICJ AO and Scots Law: I included it because it is the first example (that I know of) of a national court trying to implement international law as per nuclear weapons. What do you think about having something on how the ICJ AO has been applied at national level? I guess this could be included in the ICJ AO's main article and then summarised here? --Jim (Talk) 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it is important enough to warrant mention in a top-level article. I know almost nothing about Scottish law but Sheriff Court seemed fairly unimpressive to me on the first read of it, and by "unimpressive" I mean, "not really warranting mention in this particular article, since it isn't a legal body that commands much attention in the world at large." I could see how it would be interesting from the point of view of the British Trident situation but even then it seems pretty minor since it didn't actually have any real effect. There were lots of attempts during the 1980s and 1990s in the USA for various groups to say that the USA was acting out of compliance with the NPT or to pass local anti-nuclear laws, some of which won in very low-level courts (if I recall) but none of which had any major effects or lasting successes; I'm wary about including such information because I don't think it informs one much about the current state of nuclear weapons in the world. I've never seen the Scots law bit cited anywhere in discussing nuclear weapons control, is what I am saying in the end, and thus would be surprised to see it in an encyclopedia article about nuclear weapons. 90% of the references to it on the internet seem to be only Greenpeace-like sites, which I'm not discounting out of hand but they are not what I take as reliable information on nuclear diplomacy or legality (just because they are totally marginalized politically). --Fastfission18:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was trying to do was (a) test the water (I've learnt over the last few days that doing this in the abstract by using Talk Pages isn't too effective; the best thing seems to be to make changes and get a response that way); and (b) put it down as the start of a section on how internal law has been implemented (or not) at national level. I take your point regarding efforts to show that the USA/UK are acting outside various laws, and how these attempts rarely result (directly) in anything positive for the peace movement(s); but at the same time, "the law is the law". The "current state of nuclear weapons in the world" is that they are more or less illegal (there is one slight loophole), but national governments are ignoring the law. Obviously this is extremely POV, but I do think that the information should be presented in an encyclopedia article in a NPOV way so that people can make up their own minds. Also, see my comments further down the page. --Jim (Talk) 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The law is the law" — it's not that simple, as any reading in how international law actually works would be clear. This is not a place to hash out such things, and you are deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting things in a very simplistic way, I fear because you have spent more time reading the anti-nuke sites than the serious policy. (Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of nukes. But I'm a scholar before I'm an activist.) Take a look at the ICJ page — there are tremendously complicated issues about jurisdiction, and in the end you have to really simplify a lot of national and international legal theory in order to say that "the law is the law". I'm fine with mentioning the decision and linking to a larger article on it, but I don't want to misrepresent its importance. For me importance comes from action — does it do anything — not words, at least for the purpose of Wikipedia articles. NPT, IAEA, PTBT, START I, etc., all did something, for better or worse, and should get the lions-share of attention in any section about the control of nuclear weapons. If tomorrow the ICJ ruling actually results in something (other than an overturned case in Scotland), then we can certainly give it more space! --Fastfission16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point - that the law is a massively complicated beast - which is one reason why I think it's best to concentrate efforts on the ICJ AO article - thanks for your vote on WP:ACID, btw. Once that article is up to scratch (including how the ICJ AO has been dealt with by national courts) I guess it would be useful to include more information (specifically, how national courts have dealt with ICJ AO) from it. I didn't know such a thing as a "summary style" article existed but now I do I am happier for the Governance section not be split into "Treaties" and "Law". I don't entirely take your point re: the ICJ AO "doing something" being grounds for its notability. You are right in implying that the ICJ lack any way of enforcing their decisions, but the fact remains that 95% of decisions are accepted and complied with by the international community. So the question arises: why are national courts not complying with international law in this case? And why are governments refusing to explain their reasons for not complying with international law? This, it seems to me, is the most interesting aspect here and certainly qualifies some sort of mention in the article, as long as there's something to back it up; i.e., a mention in the ICJ AO article about how the NWSs, at least, have reacted to the ICJ AO. That's what I'm working on at the moment.
Regarding my own background, I guess it should be pretty clear by now that I am "anti-nuke" (although I am not affiliated with any specific organisation or movement); however, I don't see why the fact that I have been reading certain sources from certain perspectives means that my point is suddenly less valid (I accept some other of your criticisms, as noted above, just not this one). I have read anti-nuclear websites, and anti-nuclear books, and court proceedings, and government policy documents, and many other sources, and I think it's a little hard and fast to delineate strongly between "serious policy" and everything else. When the Strategic Defence Review mentions the ICJ AO only twice, and when the government repeatedly refuse to back up their claims that "they believe their nuclear weapons to be legal" whether in court (either a Sherrif Court or the Scottish High Court) or in Parliament, or in reponse to requests from tax-paying voters, how can this "policy" (if this is what you mean by the word) be considered "serious"? --Jim (Talk) 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, the ICJ did not rule that nuclear weapons are illegal. It ruled that using them, or threatening to use them, would be. Nations that possess nuclear weapons are not in violation of international law. TomTheHand20:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of that. But there is a very narrow margin between ownership and "threat or use" - and the UK government have arguably been in breach on the count of "threat". One official government line is that they (the government) can only decide on the legality of ownership once the weapons have been launched. I wonder what bunker they'll make that decision in? --Jim (Talk) 21:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - While legality may deserve a mention, there is no need for a separate section. International Court opinion is already mentioned under the Governance section. The test-ban treaties are considerably more significant than the advisory opinion, and do not currently have a section devoted soley to them. To create a separate section on the opinion would create a false impression of the opinion's historical and practical importance. From the Wikipedia article, it is not obvious what significance the opinion does have. In saying this, I am echoing the comments by User:Fastfission on User talk:James Kemp. As far as I can see, Fastfission's edits to the governance section are sufficient. A section would be unnecessary and disproportionate. - Crosbiesmith16:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that the UK and US (two stable democracies) should maintain their nuclear deterrents. However I think a discussion of the legality or otherwise of nuclear weapons is justified. And if it is not justified here where exactly on Wikipedia is it justified?? And what exactly does "governance" mean to the average reader?? Governance (according to the OED) means to govern or to exercise sway or control. The executives of Enron governed and exercised sway and control, however who would agree that what they did was legal! Mark8322:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "governance" is too weak a word IMO. "Legality" is clearly too strong from other peoples' points of view. I was very happy with the compromise of "governance" as the main header, with a "law" subsection, but this got reverted. I'm going to stick it back in ; if anyone wants to re-revert (and I HATE edit wars) then please say something here to back up what you do. As per my overarching project to have legality discussed on each and every nuclear weapon article (the fundamental argument being that they are all pretty much illegal, and that this is certainly "notable"; the only problem being that the specific legal case needs to be researched for each weapon's article) , I've decided to start by sorting out the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons as per a suggestion from User:Crosbiesmith. I've put it up for WP:ACID and have requested a rating somewhere or other; so if you would like to vote for the article or (even better) can provide a rating, I'd greatly appreciate it. If you just want to read the article, it should now be a much clearer explanation of what actually went on in the Hague (although I still need to add the actual points of international law that are being broken by nuclear weapons) --Jim (Talk) 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Governance" is a nice generic term for organized control. I didn't want to just use "control" because I felt it implied that they were controlled, which is really a pretty subjective judgment (some are, some aren't). I like "governance" as a good catch-all term for the fact that there are a variety of legal/political/national/diplomatic/etc. things at work here, but if you have something that works better by all means change it. It is less specific that "legality" which is itself a rather misleading term ("legality under international law" is too much of a mouthful; international law is not the only "law"). The fact is that the UN's court rulings on the weapons have had no effect on their history, their use, their practice. It is entirely misleading to imply otherwise. There is no need for a separate subsection on it; there is no reason that the international court's views on these things are so different from the general topic of "governance and control" that they need to be bracketed out in any particular way. We should try to keep it simple here — this is a Summary Style article. --Fastfission16:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See above for other points; but surely the fact that the ICJ's AO didn't have any effect makes it especially notable, since 95% of ICJ AOs are complied with? The ICJ's opinions on governance and control are different, in that they are law enforced on states rather than treaties designed by states, who will always partly consider their own interests. If national governments want to flout international law (if they had presented arguments against the ICJ AO I wouldn't be so concerned, but they haven't done this) then that's the way it is; but WP should report this. --Jim (Talk) 20:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's very important that arms control treaties receive coverage, but the legality issue just doesn't matter very much. The ICJ decision is not just toothless, it's obvious: using nuclear weapons when the existence of your state isn't at stake is wrong. It does not say that possessing nuclear weapons is illegal, and above attempts to characterize nuclear powers as "flouting international law" are both false and POV-pushing. I could see mentioning it on the nuclear bunker buster article, because it's my understanding that the RNEP was under development with the intent to use it against non-nuclear powers. However, it's not important enough to be placed on the main article. TomTheHand21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the threat, as well as the use, of nuclear weapons when the existence of a state is not at stake, that is unlawful according to the ICJ Opinion. Various dissenting opinions at the ICJ stated that even the caveat of "the threatened existence of a state" would legalise the use of nuclear weapons. Subsequent legal debate has discussed whether it is possible to possess a nuclear deterrent without actually "threatening" someone with it; it turns out that it's probably not possible. As for the "obvious" nature of the ICJ decision, that seems a rather strange term to use: obvious to whom? It's "obvious" to me that any use of nuclear weapons is against international law, but it's clearly not obvious to the NWSs. You are right that the stuff about "flouting international law" is POV - that's why I said it here, and not in the article itself. But it seems "obvious" to me - my POV of the ICJ opinion is that national governments are flouting it: one definition of flout is "to defy (an order, convention, etc) openly; to disrespect (authority, etc)". The convention, as decided by the ICJ, was that no-one threatens anyone with nuclear weapons; yet the NWSs continue to do this. --Jim (Talk) 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ICJ did not rule that the possession of nuclear weapons is a threat and therefore a war crime. If the ICJ did rule that possession is a crime, I would better understand your point of view, but now you're really stretching: what local courts feel international law should be is relevant to this article? I don't think so. TomTheHand21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tom: law is a matter of interpretation, and some have interpreted the ICJ Opinion as illegalising the possession of nuclear weapons because possession (or, to be more precise, possession and deployment) and threat are, in this instance, equatable. The ICJ were not asked to rule on possession, so they weren't able to, so we're left to the subsequent interpretation when we make up our minds. It's not just local courts that are providing (or, in some cases, withholding) this interpretation; it's high courts, governments, lawyers, academics, etc etc. It is important to include in this article how the NWSs (through their courts) have responded to the ICJ decision. As far as I know most of them have refused to comment when pushed. That's notable. --Jim (Talk) 22:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what our article says. The article says that the ICJ did look at the issue of possession and whether or not it would be illegal and did not reach a decision. Is the article wrong? High courts, governments, lawyers, and academics may think that having nuclear weapons is illegal, but the ICJ did not decide that it was, and it wasn't because they didn't. I see above that you're still looking for some way, any way, that nuclear powers can be said to be flouting international law. However, the AO does not say "everyone is obligated to disarm." It says "everyone is obligated to talk about disarming and try to reach an agreement about it." You can't just say "Wow! It's been ten whole years, and states still have nuclear weapons, so they're flouting international law!" It's a bit more complicated than that. TomTheHand22:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not working from the article, I'm working from the Opinion, and I'm not entirely sure where the section of the article you are referring to is taken from - according to the article's talk page, it started as notes from a university class on international law. As far as I know, only paragraphs 21 and 48, and maybe 61, deal with the possession question. I think that the article section is making reference to part of paragraph 48: "Some States put forward the argument that possession of nuclear weapons is itself an unlawful threat to use force. Possession of nuclear weapons may indeed justify an inference of preparedness to use them. In order to be effective, the policy of deterrence, by which those States possessing or under the umbrella of nuclear weapons seek to discourage military aggression by demonstrating that it will serve no purpose, necessitates that the intention to use nuclear weapons be credible. Whether this is a "threat" contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, depends upon whether the particular use of force envisaged would be directed against the territorial integrity or political independence of a State, or against the Purposes of the United Nations or whether, in the event that it were intended as a means of defence, it would necessarily violate the principles of necessity and proportionality. In any of these circumstances the use of force, and the threat to use it, would be unlawful under the law of the Charter." My reading of this (and IANAL) is that it comes very close to the sixth vote the court took; i.e., the "big question". Although the court was not able to reach opinio juris it still left the question framed in such a way that further argument has been able to show that its findings can be used to show that possession is illegal. The ICJ Opinion is a long, drawn-out process and the court can only hand down its Opinion on the questions that have been asked: i.e., it couldn't vote on possession, so it didn't; and it wasn't just a matter of a split vote. As for your problem with my statement about a lack of "good-faith disarmament", I believe that I'm right in saying that states haven't really gone about this in the last ten years. Of course the continuing presence of nuclear weapons in the world doesn't directly demonstrate that the NWSs are not undertaking disarmament, but the upgrading of the Trident missile program suggests the UK and US governments will have nuclear weapons until at least 2050. The justification for this, in the UK, is the nuclear weapons programs of Iran and North Korea, so they could hardly be said to be acting in good faith. This is all said a lot better in other places, with direct reference to the ICJ, but I hope you get my point. --Jim (Talk) 01:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted Japan's Three Non-Nuclear Principles into the See Also section. I certainly understand that we cannot and should not represent every country's individual laws or statements regarding their stance on nuclear weapons - that would drive the balance of this article completely out of whack. Nevertheless, I think the Non-Nuclear Principles are rather important, as Japan is the only country to have ever been attacked with nuclear weapons, and possibly the country most adamantly against their manufacture and use in the world. If one of the editors who has been working on this article would figure out a way to effect its insertion into the main prose portion of the article, I think it would be a good addition. Thank you. LordAmeth17:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thermonuclear?
What does thermonuclear mean? i dont know cause i am a dum fuck.
A thermonuclear reaction is one involving nuclear fusion as opposed to fission i mena relly stuped come on its easy i am 13 and i know TomTheHand21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that dosn't really make any sense. Has it just become that thermonuclear refers to fusion, but really the definition of the words dosn't mean anything about it?
Well, the fusion reactions described as "thermonuclear" only occur at very high temperatures. The term was first coined to describe the nuclear reactions of the sun. In thermonuclear bombs, the hydrogen must be compressed to incredibly high temperatures and pressures before you'll end up with fusion. You get greater efficiency from fission weapons by compressing the fissionable material, but they'll occur if you just gently place two subcritical masses together which, together, create a critical mass. That's a stark contrast to the amount of temperature, pressure, and effort it takes to create thermonuclear reactions. Does that help? TomTheHand02:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page said "The use of these weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of around 100,000 to 200,000 people...". But figures at articles Hiroshima, Nagasaki, harry S. Truman, and Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all of which have sources, all agree that 70-80,000 people were killed immediately at Hiroshima and 40-50,000 were killed immediately at Nagasaki. I have corrected the article to say "the immediate deaths of around 120,000 people". -- Dominus20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA Failed
Given the scope and breadth of this topic, what I expected from this article was essentially a series of good summaries of large, important facets of nuclear weapons with "main article" fork tags and with smaller facets or aspects fleshed within the article itself. Before I go into why I failed this article, let me state that I have read the talk page (the archive too) and seen the arguments made by the contributors to support the modifications made unto this article. I will address those arguments. The failure reasons, ordered by section of the WP:WIAGA, are:
1. Well-written?
(a)Prose and grammar:
Mostly yes. Proofread the lead and last paragraph of Weapons delivery
First sentence: "As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon is capable of destroying an entire city." - The reader may not know that the yield of the smallest nuke produced wildly exceeds a MOAB, so this sentence is not useful. Say something about how nuclear explosions are far more efficient at coverting mass to energy and are thus much more powerful than conventional. Clarifying this point will also add context - which this lead woefully lacks.
Why mention peaceful purposes when they are not discussed anywhere further on and why link to Nuclear explosive which contains redundant material with respect to Peaceful nuclear explosions?
Peaceful purposes aren't mentioned except that this is what Iran claims its enrichment is related to. And that doesn't have anything to do with PNE's. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is over three quarters of the lead filled with detailed information about states that secretly possess(ed) nuclear weapons and the WW2 bombings? The lead is supposed is to give relative emphasis - surely, by far, the most important facets of nuclear weapons has been their tremendous destructive (and constructive, see Peaceful nuclear explosions) potential, role in the Cold War, and as a source of continuous global consternation via proliferation, state-less nukes, and so on.
(I find it a little telling that you think PNE's are worth bringing up in the lead despite the fact that they never really added up to anything all that useful.) The lead is a quick history lesson; I'm not sure why it should be filled with much more than what one might need as an inroduction to a big topic. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the topic - with all of these blatant ("for more information" and "see this for more") forks and not so blatant (the nuclear explosives and non-military uses links) forks, the lead fails to accomplish this.
Well, in all of the "blatant" cases that is because they are highly controversial and we don't want to pretend that one sentence the end of the story. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
(a) Yes
(b) No
Lead contains multiple uncited statements that do not appear cited later on in the article. Nuclear strategy summary is wholy uncited. Non-trivial statements should still be cited, even if the section forks to a main article. Governance section, which does not fork to a main article, cites only once!
Well, the governance section is just a list of treaties and their dates. Each treaty can be clicked on to verify that information; I think it's a little redundant to then cite each treaty once again, personally. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(c)Yes
3. Broad coverage:
(a) Definitely no
What was immediately obvious upon loading the page was the lack of discussion of: Effects of Detonation, Nukes in Popular Culture, Peaceful Uses, Owners (known and suspected) & Stockpile Stewardship, and Construction & Manufacturing. Each of these sections needs either reasonable coverage or a summary leading the reader to a main article. I do not see putting obscure links (like the popular culture one) to the main articles in unrelated sections as a solution to the coverage issue.
I agree except that I don't think "peaceful uses" needs a whole section (could be part of effects; again, the PNEs are not historically that important IMO, since almost nobody actually used them for anything peaceful). I don't know if a stockpile stewardship section is needed; I think if there was a section on testing added it could have a little note that once nations stop testing it makes reliability/maintenance of warheads more complicated. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument(s) in the talk pages that the article is too long or will become too long with this detail or summaries thrown in are bunk. Wikipedia:Article size does not set absolute recommendations on article size - for an article of tremendous scope and breadth like this one, 50KB of prose is easily justifiable. Moreover, while the article shows as 37KB, if you count the non-prose after the Media section and subtract, the article is really only 27KB (check it!).
Another argument (related to the decision to remove summary sections) was that having an Effects summary section created the temptation in not so clever editors to add redundant detail. Removing the summary entirely and leaving the article incomplete is a horrible solution to this problem! One semi-protects (i.e. bothers admins incessantly about it) the page and then simply reverts bad edits! It's really easy! Then, maybe, leave mocking comments on the offender's talk page.
The question is always what details to include. As it is the sub-pages are basically nothing but details, and detailed pages on this topic draw in people who want to add more details. So I would avoid too many details, personally. But more summaries, more sections — sure. --24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(b) Yes
4. Neutral:
Not entirely. The lead places undue emphasis on the destrucion wrought by the WW2 bombings and secret ownership. The governance section cites only prohibitions giving the impression of a general global consensus that nuclear weapons should not be detonated. It does not mention how these treaties crimp peaceful technologies like: Nuclear pulse propulsion , PACER, nuclear pumped X-ray lasers, and the stuff in Peaceful nuclear explosions.
I don't think there is "undue emphasis" on the destruction; it would be biased if that wasn't acknowledged right from the beginning. And again, I find your desire to include every long-shot and ineffectual PNE pipe-dream to be pretty biased in its own accord; these are minor aspects of nuclear weapons in comparison with their importance as weapons. This is a page about nuclear weapons, not a euphamistic page about nuclear devices. Since absolutely none of those ever became very fateful or important technologies in comparison with nukes as bombs and missiles I think it would be "undue emphasis" to spend too much time talking about them. (Additionally, the nuclear pumped X-ray laser was not exactly "peaceful", but that's a content quibble)--24.147.86.18715:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: Yes
6. Images ish: Sure
That about sums it up for now. I'd be glad to discuss these issues and how they could be amended, as I'd really like this article to become a nice, good introduction and launching pad to other topics in nuclear weapons. --Meowist09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why United States didn't test their atomic weapons in Africa in the 1950s and early 1960s?
United States was powerful and they could test their bombs anywhere they wanted in the West in the early years. Why did United States test their atomic weapons on their land and in the Pacific Ocean, and not in Africa? 216.13.88.8622:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The United States could only test bombs in uninhabited U.S. territory. Since there's none of that in Africa, they didn't test them there. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the U.S. could test bombs anywhere they wanted. TomTheHand03:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why would they have wanted to anyway? Testing far from any possible enemy observer was and is important, as well as the potential for death/injury to innocents. I don't get what this question is driving at. Tsmith7057 10/27/07
AFAIK there is no standard "generation" classification scheme. This paper uses first generation as pure fission weapons, second as boosted fission and staged thermonuclear designs, and third as things like neutron bombs, with fourth being various types of nuclear weapons that get around the CBTB—subcritical weapons, pure-fusion weapons, and so forth. Maybe that is what he meants. Or maybe he just means bunker busters or the RWRP. Or maybe something totally different. --24.147.86.18720:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I have 2 questions actually. The first: How come that the camera's filming a nuclear bomb does not cease to function in a matter of seconds, since EMP travels with the speeds of light? Is it because those early (italic because I don't know in what period they filmed the most of the bombs) bombs did not produce an EMP? Or were there special designed cameras? If so, does anyone know what exactly was replaced/different?
Now my second question. It is about the symbols in this picture:
What resembles nuclear, what resembles biological, what resembles chemical (and what resembles radiological)?
Regarding your first question, the electromagnetic pulse is an effect of nuclear explosion in space. Gamma ray and X-ray photons travel freely from the explosion and when they hit the top of the atmosphere. This leads to a rapid separation of positive and negative charges, which causes a separaqtion of positive and negative charges, setting up a potential that discharges rapidly in an electromagnetic pulse. This does not happen for atmospheric or underground tests because the photons are absorbed rapidly.
Not sure what you're after in the second question, but the three symbols represent nuclear/radiation, biological and toxic hazaards, respectively. NPguy01:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People who can authorise a nuclear strike in the UK
A report by Newsnight recently brought to light the fact that the PM, and indeed the government of the UK, are not the only ones who can authorise use of the UK's nuclear weapons:
Unfortunately, that report is a bit thin, but the abridged report has a little more info.
Essentially, the commander of any submarine carrying nuclear weapons can launch them. There are no codes to prevent this. In the report that was shown on 15/11/07, a statement from the MOD stated that this was intentional. In the event that the government of the UK was destroyed or otherwise unable to authorise the use of nuclear weapons, submarine commanders could act independently making any pre-emptive strike against the UK, no matter how effective, unable to prevent retaliation.
I ask that the sentence 'the use of these weapons is controversial' is to be deleted. There is no controversy - an overwhelming majority of the world population is against of the use of nuclear weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.177.163.254 (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question is about the use of nuclear weapons against Japan at the end of World War II. There is significant controversy over whether that use was justified. Some claim that it ended the war earliler than it would have ended otherwise, saving the lives of many Americans and Japanese. Others claim that the war would have ended soon anyway, once Russia entered the war. On that basis, I believe the sentence should stayl. NPguy (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Planned usage in both Europe and Japan, 1944
I found a link to Studs Terkel's interview with the pilot of the Enola Gay (named for his mother) who first learned of the Manhattan project in 1944. The pilot was selected upon General Uzal Ent's recommendation to General Hap Arnold. According to the interview, two bombs were planned, to be dropped simultaneously in both Europe and Japan. Thus the plans must have changed in 1945. Robert Oppenheimer instructed this pilot to turn 159 degrees away from the bomb's trajectory in order to survive the the blast. And the pilot and crew practiced this maneuver until they could complete it in 40 to 42 seconds.
When did we reach explosive potential to upset gravitational balance
A point of significant historical interest to include in the article, would be to note when the world reached the knowledge-level sufficient to design a bomb big enough that to explode it would blow off a chunk of earth sufficient to destroy the gravitational balance of our solar system. Or, my being ignorant, haven't we reached that point of knowledge yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.215.157.155 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are very, very far from affecting the gravitational balance of our solar system. The largest nuclear weapon ever tested released only 0.00005% of the energy of the impact which caused the Chicxulub Crater. That impact may have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, but did not affect our orbit. TomTheHand (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we will ever get to that point, because no one would invest the researches that are supposed to end with the ultimate dooms day device. Or would they? --77.105.24.182 (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i consider that the title of this page is a euphemism designed to avoid the word "BOMB. it should be changed to "atomic (OR) nuclear bomb. i may therefore place a neutrality check tag hereBenny the wayfarer (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are other types of nuclear weapon besides bombs. Bombs are dropped from planes. In addition there are ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and other types of missiles, and there have been weapons such as artillery rockets and torpedoes. If any think, calling nuclear weapons "the bomb" is a euphemism. NPguy (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Atomic bomb" means it is a fission weapon. This page is about all nuclear weapons. "Nuclear weapon" is not a euphemism in the slightest — as NPguy points out, many nuclear weapons are not "bombs" in the literal sense. In any case, "nuclear weapon" is the most common term used today for armaments which use nuclear reactions for their explosive power. Rather than worrying about the article title in such a case, read the article itself. You'll see it covers them pretty even-handedly. --Fastfission (talk) 01:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to intro
I think we need to resist adding lengthy content to the intro. The intro is meant to be a concise summary and point directions to other pages. It is not a place for a lengthy discussion of Iraq's nuclear history. It's not even a place for a more-than-one-sentence discussion of the current controversy regarding Iran—just a link to the relevant page and a concise sentence ("US says this, Iran says that, it's a current issue") is enough. We can't, and shouldn't, cover every instance of proliferation worries in the intro. There's a whole article on nuclear proliferation—we mention the ones that are in the headlines (since people might be coming to this article to learn about them), and link to the relevant sub-articles, and that's it... it starts looking very wooly and unprofessional when there are two paragraphs on Iraq in the intro and none specifically on any of the countries that actually HAVE developed nuclear weapons! --Fastfission (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
