Talk:Nuclear explosive

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Explosives Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives 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.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Merging Nuclear explosion into nuclear explosive

I'm not so sure about this. The Nuclear Explosion page is much more detailed (although a bit messy still). Shouldn't the merger be the other way round?

Thom2002 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. Anyway, one is the properties of the explosion, the other is no different than saying "nuclear device" or "nuclear weapon." Nuclear explosion should be about the properties of a nuclear explosion. --Fastfission 15:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is significantly different. I remember creating the nuclear explosive page a while back specifically because there was a bunch of information about 'nuclear-type things that go bang' that weren't weapons. All sorts of test explosions, project ploughshare, Orion drives, asteroid deflection, proposals for fusion reactors, that sort of thing. None of those is a nuclear weapon, and unless the distinction is carefully preserved I would oppose a merge at this point. The stuff in this article doesn't talk about the blast effects in detail, and the stuff in nuclear explosion doesn't talk about the devices or what they're used for, so I don't really see a pressing need to merge in any event. Bryan 19:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm opposed to the merge right now. I can't see how these two articles would be spliced together in such a way that the result wouldn't look like two different articles spliced together. They're on two different subjects. Bryan 19:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thom, Ff, that's the way I wanted it to go. Mixed up the tags (a temporary attack of stupidity I guess). DV8 2XL 19:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DV8. Bryan: It seems that the nuclear explosive page is all about non-military nuclear explosions. Would it make sense to have some of this content in the the main nuclear explosion pages, and move the rest to a new page specifically about non-military applications of nuclear explosions? That would seems a bit less confusing than the current situation. Thom2002 15:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents:I also think this page should be merged into nuclear explosion; the title does not make the content clear, and a reader might reasonably expect this type of information to be found in an article titled "nuclear explosion".--ragesoss 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's nuclear weapon too. Gdr 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know proper formatting, but I found a typo: "temination" instead of "termination"