Talk:Comparison of ICBMs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Proposal to keep the current order intact

I propose that we keep the current order of the countries intact while revamping. I know it's sortable but I think, by default it will show what we create here. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Columns

I'd say the table is off to a pretty good start. Under the status column I'd suggest changing from merely saying 'active', etc to in service dates since the basic status is already indicated by the background color. Other columns I'd suggest would include; number produced, throw weight, launch record (successes/failed), and a column for added notation, such as the R-7 derivatives use in space flight. Also you may consider adding national flags to the origin column. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, "in service dates, number produced, throw weight, launch record (successes/failed)" are for the respective original articles to impart (but I might be wrong).

    What we list here are just some basic information that one reader needs to know with a cursory glance. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Well there is still the redundancy of the 'Status' column vs. background coding. Doyna Yar (talk) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep. And like i said, we can remove the Cost column from the new page, as the missiles were built over a period of ~60 years, and inflation and PPP differences make comparing the missiles on cost basis very unreliable and serves no purpose. Also, russian/USSR and chinese data would be difficult to get and verify. What do you think? Anir1uph (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that there is a difference in 'status' between inactive and cancelled, i.e. programs that never were deployed. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Trident missile

The list The list presently contains one row for Trident and another with Trident II.

I have a few queries:

  1. Status of Trident I (Since there is a separate row for Trident II, I presume "Trident" stands for Trident I). In the article it says it's retired in 2005.
  2. Range and CEP of the aforementioned Trident I. Here it says the range and the CEP are 7,400 km and 380 m respectively.
  3. Price of the missile. Here it says $70 mil.

Could somebody please corroborate or counter the claims? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes i have checked the figures, they seem right, and the pages are references too, though with books, not online links. But lets not worry (much) about the accuracy of other wikipages, otherwise this will take ages to build.
I also think that we must remove the Cost column from the new page, as the missiles were built over a period of ~60 years, and inflation and PPP differences make comparing the missiles on cost basis very unreliable and serves no purpose. What do you think? Anir1uph (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 Done Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove the Cost column

Proposal: we must remove the Cost column from the new page, as the missiles were built over a period of ~60 years, and inflation and PPP differences make comparing the missiles on cost basis very unreliable and serves no purpose. What do you think? - Anir1uph contact 07:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support:

  • I support the proposal, it seems reasonable. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Weights

This article relates to engineering and technology, therefore it is not accurate to give the "weights" of missiles in kilograms. Per WP:MOSNUM, we must use SI units, and the SI unit for weight is the Newton. That said, given the accelerations and altitudes that ICBMs are designed to operate at, their weights will change significantly over the course of their flight, and hence it would be far more accurate to give their mass (in kilograms) instead of their weight. --W. D. Graham 10:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree Anir1uph (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree - I'll go ahead and change the column heading. Any external help will be appreciated. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 16:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Jericho 3 / Shavit ICBM year of intro

Hi :) I see you have ’71 as the first deployment. I think this refers to the Jericho 1, which was basically a SCUD class weapon, although it is almost certain it was (and is) nuclear armed. The Jericho 3 / Shavit was first unveiled in 2008. Suggest a change to the date. Consensus? Regards Irondome (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify some things:
  1. It's not "first deployment"; it's "first flight". And FYI, we're putting the date when the missiles were first tested as opposed to unveiled.
  2. Jericho I is believed to have been tested in 1971, that was my reason for putting 1971 under "first flight" section.
  3. I know Jericho I is different from Jericho III.
  4. Shavit took its first flight on 19 September 1988.
So what do you suggest? Be aware that Jericho III is not exactly Shavit, not provably anyways. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the Jericho 1 is a completely different animal to the 2/2B/3 models. So the 1971 launch date is "optimistic", if we are talking about a device with ICBM capabilities.

As you know,Jericho 1 was a SCUD type weapon, although more accurate I believe, with about a 30% longer range.

Jericho 2 was originally introduced as an IRBM, although the upgraded version has ICBM range. This was tested in 1988 with a 3rd stage to launch OFEQ 1. It was a true ICBM. I think it is called in Israeli service the Jericho 2B.

So we have 2 different Jericho 2s in service I would argue. A Jericho 2 IRBM, AND a Jericho 2B ICBM, with a bolted on Shavit 3rd stage. Israeli security measures and the (obviously related) use of the term Shavit (comet) as a 3rd stage booster AND the "civilian" space launch vehicle confuses things a bit.

Jericho 3 is the first member of the family specifically designed from scratch with ICBM/MIRV capabilities. This was first tested in 2008. So there are in fact 2 IDF/AF ICBM types in service.

We are talking in the list I assume, of the date of the true ICBM capable type launch. Then this would be 1988, with the first satellite launch. This was a Jericho 2 with a 3rd stage, the Shavit booster. Therefore:

  • I suggest advancing the date from 71 to 88.
  • Also I would suggest expanding the Israel part of the list to the 2 types. The 2B, and 3. They have different ranges and warhead throw weights, but both fall into the ICBM class.

I am quite happy to dig up some sources and assist, and not just on the Israeli section. Irondome (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Irondome. Saying Agni V was first tested in early 1990s because Agni I was tested then is not reasonable. Hence Jericho I's time-frame should not be used for Jericho III. I would welcome Irondome to contribute more to this article. Anir1uph (talk) 07:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree . And not to mention, none of you guys have to wait for me or my approval (a clarification, just in case). It may be my subpage but I should not be the only one to edit it, I need your active support and collaboration since I'm a bit busy in real life these days (oh! by the way, my net-connection sucks too). Mrt3366 (Talk?) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This source say that Jericho III was tested in 2008.

As I told you already that Shavit is not exactly Jericho III (Hence its first flight may not be Jericho III's first flight). So, any chances of future changes to the first flight column of Jericho III? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of the difference. I have said 2008 for the 3. 1988 launch is the 2B, which used the shavit booster. We need 2 columns I think. We have 2 seperate missiles here.

I wouldnt really call any newspaper article a strong technical-based source, especially in this arcane and secretive area of weaponry. I notice you have 40m as CEP for AGNI 5. This would make it the most accurate ICBM in the world. An extraordinary claim. Is this original research, or a newspaper article?Irondome (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

With a canister-launch system to impart higher road mobility, the missile will give the armed forces much greater operational flexibility than the earlier-generation of Agni missiles. "The accuracy levels of Agni-V and the 3,500-km Agni-IV (first tested in November 2011), with their better guidance and navigation systems, are far higher than Agni-I (700-km), Agni-II (2,000-km) and Agni-III (3,000-km)," said the source.

— source
The accuracy of Agni II is 40 m. Now if you want, we might start a discussion about the accuracy of Agni V and I'm happy to leave it empty (if the consesnsus is established there).

P.S. I try not to behave like a biased editor on any level about anything thing. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 17:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we have the same level of uncertainty about Agni as about Jericho 2b/3s CEP. We should both try to find the strongest sources and discuss them. Till then I suggest both CEPs are marked unknown. (Maybe footnotes for now?) As usual happy to discuss Irondome (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
———————————————
Irondome wrote, "I wouldnt really call any newspaper article a strong technical-based source, especially in this arcane and secretive area of weaponry." - true, but they are quoting somebody else, aren't they?
———————————————
I believe it's understandable as per the sources I provided, that Agni V has accuracy better than Agni I and Agni II and others.
But since Agni II has the accuracy of 40 m (which I have provided a source for), it follows that Agni V's CEP ≤ 40 m. But yeah, if there is a consensus against Agni V's purported accuracy, I'll be happy to leave it empty.

———————————————
On the other hand, about Jericho's accuracy I found in the article itself that the CEP is 1000 m but it's a figure for Jericho I, not Jericho III. I again admit that It was hasty of me to include that number as though that were the verifiable CEP for Jericho III.
With all that said, I object to randomly putting a number based on mere speculations without any reliable source to back it up. If there was any source, any at all, to back your claim about Jericho III's CEP I will be the first person to let it be there.

———————————————
FYI, I am not eager to delete the CEP you put there. All I care about is that the list is filled with, in some way verifiable information, that's all. And as a matter of fact, I'm grateful that you are taking part in the development of the list.

I thought as a Wikipedian devoted to unbiased info, it was my duty to let you know what others might say about the CEP of Jericho III. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Totally agree with all of that and I appreciate your approach. I am attempting to maintain the high standards rightly expected :) Irondome (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Good work guys with the article and the discussion. Please take special care not to place non verifiable info into the article, it violates WP:V and can be considered WP:OR --DBigXray 08:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fruition

So, when does the page go live? Doyna Yar (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

ASAP I hope. Wanna help? Irondome (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Depends on the level of active co-operation and collaboration among us editors. I need you all to build this page with me. I am getting a bit busy in real life and it's getting harder everyday for me to squeeze out time from my tight schedule. So help! Mrt3366 (Talk?) 13:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

CEP of Jericho III

Irondome (talk · contribs) recently change the cep (and with good reason) of Jericho III. The issue is he changed it from 1000 m to 50 - 100 m. Now, I understand that it was right of him to think that Jericho I ≠ Jericho III, but why change to "50 - 100 m", why not less or more? In short, what is the rationale for this particular number? If there is a source I'll be happy to let it remain there but if there is none, then it's tantamount to unfounded speculation or worse, original research. Could somebody help? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I would ask where the original CEP of 1000m figure originated? This is highly unlikely. Until and or unless we get a reliable figure then a mean average for state of the art ICBMs should be used, or the CEP for Jericho removed entirely. Israeli engineers are no slouches, and historically all of their weapons systems have high degrees of accuracy. Their network of recce satellites makes such a figure seem ever more far - fetched.Irondome (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
———————————————
1. Irondome contact asked me, "where the original CEP of 1000m figure originated?"
—My answered would be Jericho_(missile) article but I concede it was a bit hasty of me (albeit that hastiness is quite understandable, I guess, given the speculations floating around Jericho Missiles).
———————————————
2. "Israeli engineers are no slouches"
—I beg your pardon if I gave away the impression that I think they are "slouches".

1000 m was my first guess because I frankly don't have much knowledge about Jericho missiles. I merely asked you a question. Where did you, or rather how did you know that the accuracy of Jericho III is "50 - 100 m"?

———————————————
All I am suggesting is that if you don't have a reliable source to back your claim about accuracy, then we better leave CEP section empty. I don't need to remind you that

verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 17:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The 100 -200m figure comes from one of the Federation of American Scientists reports. They estimate a 100m CEP for the MIRVed warheads. I will isolate it and put it up. Still having diff in putting sources online, thats the only prob. But as the CEP is highly speculative I suggest we indeed consider it "unknown" until we can find some source, and if I can re-locate The F/A/S report.
Please believe me that I do not do original research, if I have a figure or factoid in most subjects, its because I have memorised the original info from a reliable source.
I apologise if I was snappy, but im hot and tired at the moment. Peace.Irondome (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
"The 100 -200m figure comes from one of the Federation of American Scientists reports." - that would be reliable source just post the link up here and we will find something out. Or, if that's in a book then scan it and upload the pdf somewhere and then post the link here.

"Please believe me that I do not do original research" - I believe you.

Please don't apologise. But I admit you seemed a little snappy. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And you can sometimes sound a little under stress my friend. No problem I get it too. I bought you 2 beers for that unpleasant condition on your talkpage. Its your round BTW :) Irondome (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to be lighthearted with the term "slouches". If it didnt come across,then my odd humour is to blame. I dont for a second think you believe that. As much as I deeply respect Indian military scientific and engineering skill, which guards a great and venerable civilisation and democracy.Irondome (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The Federation of American Scientists report (from about 2008) discuss a CEP of 100m with MERVed warheads. This I have been unable to verify so far..please treat with caution.
The N.T.I in its global ballistic missile profile discuss the Jericho 2s radar guided and inertial terminal navigation system. A cited source there asserts the Jericho 2s terminal guidance systems are very similar to the US Pershing missile 2 , which had a CEP of 30 metres. The logical assumption must be that Jericho 3s CEP is as good.
A US Center For Strategic and International Studies report which I have, in an overview of Israeli strike options on the Iranian reactor sites devotes a section to using Jericho 3 as strike weapons (non nuclear penetrating warheads) against the sites. It concludes it is a viabile option as an attack scenario, as there appears to be no cricism of method- (Will revisit it)- There is no discussion over accuracy issues.
Source Study on a possible Israeli strike on Irans nuclear development. 14/3/08 by Abdullah Toukan. C.S.I.S. Arleigh Burke University. PDF online.
To strike such physically small targets would presuppose a CEP of tens of metres. So a high accuracy is assumed by the I.S.S. compilers. Therefore from that it seems a 50-100m CEP is assumed internationally, especially for such a relatively short range as the Iranian sites, considering the widely reported maximum 11,000 km range of the Jericho 3 with a 500 kg warhead. Working from memory here, but I think those figures fairly reflects the sources I have seen. Irondome (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. A token of advice, you need to work on your indentation my friend. Usually the next comment is to be placed below the latest comment (comment with the latest time tag).
  2. "The logical assumption must be that Jericho 3s CEP is as good" - logical assumption would be okay for me, if you had any reliable source to back that claim that “Jericho 3s CEP is as good as US Pershing missile 2”.
  3. "A US Center For Strategic and International Studies report which I have" - excellent publish the link itself then everything will be sorted out within moments. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just add reliable sources. In fact, we can work out a separate wikipage for Jericho III if you have enough reliable sources. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is much that can be developed from this list, not just Jericho :), but enough info is now emerging on that little part of the whole list. I have come across enough sources that would justify a Jericho 2B and 3 model now I think. Its a sideshow but interesting.
  • I am just going to have to go to the sandbox for a few days. Until then I dont dare screw up the page with my playing around. Ive found some new sources on CEP and would like to share them with all of you. Will post links here, not on list page, so we can reach consesnsus as to strength of proposed citations. Irondome (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent! looking forward to what you have found! Anir1uph (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to article space

Should we move the article to article space, with an "under-construction" tag? It seems ready enough. Plus, that way, we can get more editors to help us out. (My internet connection was snaggy/slow for some time) Anir1uph (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree but what about this talk-page? I didn't understand the proposal at first. I think we ought to replace the contents of the article List of ICBMs with the page we are creating. However, the discussions that are taking place here, are pretty important. I don't know if we should we merge it with the main talk page too! Mrt3366 (Talk?) 14:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess we should create a new page, Comparison of ICBMs and move everything there. Anir1uph (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for creating another page, we already discussed it here. I don't think there is any need for two separate articles talking about basically the same thing. A comparative list is, at the end of the day, a list. If you're worried about the talk pages, we can just merge the new talk page with the new talk page with the main talk page. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
List of orbital launch systems and Comparison of orbital launch systems. I think this page is separate from a simple list, this is a detailed comparison. And since there is already an existing case where 2 articles were made for better representation, we can do that here too. Removing a page is a bit too bold to me. Also, a lot of people would prefer a simple list over a cluttered but complete comparison page. Anir1uph (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a cornucopia of existing articles that should not exist here in Wikipedia. The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

"Removing a page is a bit too bold to me."

  1. We're not deleting anything, we're merely improving or restructuring it, that's how this wikipedia is built. That's what we are doing here. Don't lose the focus now.
  2. If you can't be that bold, I can be.
  3. We discussed it, didn't we? There was a consensus in favour of merging the new one with the old one. That's why we are doing this in the first place. Please don't back out now. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
We discussed it, but we could not achieve consensus, due to arguments by W D Graham. Moreover i am convinced by his argument that both the articles should exist, a simple list page and a detailed comparison page. I am not sure that the other article is crap. I am not backing out of anything. I am just telling you how i feel about this. Anir1uph (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Link this to the original and post it as a work in progress, anything else is anal at this point. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you guys propose we should do then? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think a new page Comparison of ICBMs is a good idea. Mean while we can merge back the sea-based ICBMs section into their respective countries. Anir1uph (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
How about list of ICBMs by country? Just a thought Irondome (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The previous/existing list is just that, a list by country. And this is not just a list, it a comparison table. That is why. Any other problems/suggestions? Anir1uph (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Irondome (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of ICBMs or Comparison of intercontinental ballistic missiles would be the most appropriate title since this is a comparison article. Mrt's comments that editors shouldn't "lose the focus now"/"Please don't back out now" seem to suggest that users are not entitled to change their opinions, which goes against the fundamental principles of consensus building, and in any case there was never a consensus to overwrite the original article; given the discussion had only been open two days before drafting began, there was no time for one to develop. As for "If you can't be that bold, I can be", being bold doesn't override community consensus and discussion. --W. D. Graham 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. And FYI, I really don't understand the need for such truculent diction
or maybe I am a bit too sensitive right now.

All I said was that if you want a separate article for this same thing that would really obviate the need for the List of ICBMs article. And I think then the List of ICBMs article would violate the spirit of WP:NOTDIR. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there does not seem to be a consensus that this should overwrite the original article, I have removed the notice from the top of the page stating that it will. --W. D. Graham 10:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay then I think we should initiate an RfC for resolving the issue. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 21:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed some inactive Soviet missiles from the list

I excluded some obsolete soviet missile from the list due to their shorter range and other problems.

  1. RS-16 - Range is about 3,900 km source
  2. R-13 - Range is about 400-600 km
  3. R-29D - Various missiles from the R-29 series have already been listed and there was no "R-29D".
  4. R-27 Zyb - max range was 3,000 km (according to the article).
  5. R-21 - max operational range was 1,650 km (according to the article's citation).

Tried to add citations

Using template on cite pulldown, didnt work. May have screwed up formatting too. Lost will to live. Think I will walk away and let you guys plough on. Irondome (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job, I will correct everything. That's what is needed.
I've made the change but I myself I am unsure if that citation corroborates your claim that “Jericho III has an accuracy of 50 - 100 m”.

External help needed. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, excellent job. Appreciated. I will add the ISS citation later, will keep trying until I get it right. Any repairs you make are well appreciated.

I would suggest this is ancient history, in terms of subsequent Israeli computer science, radar, guidance and related development. This is 17 years ago. And the 50m CEP target figure is also specifically quoted as being a priority in Israeli research. I would strongly argue that given the rate of Israeli development since 1995 in scientific areas of relevance, this target has been achieved. For an example of Israeli precision now recognised and current, see LORA Irondome (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what is called original research. Extrapolating on previous known data, or combining various other sources to form an opinion about a different thing is not allowed. If you can find sources which state a clear accuracy, then fine, but without them, the only way is to mark it is N/A (not available). Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

So indulge me gentlemen. Using the same criteria, please prove the CEP of the Agni 5 as currently cited. If not I would request its removal too Irondome (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Anir1uph
 – Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agni V CEP

We all know that Agni V is an improved version of Agni III, right? This & this source claims that the CEP of Agni III is 40 m.

And moreover, this TOI report says, "The accuracy levels of Agni-V and the 3,500-km Agni-IV (first tested in November 2011), with their better guidance and navigation systems, are far higher than Agni-I (700-km), Agni-II (2,000-km) and Agni-III (3,000-km)".

My question is, can we include 40 m as the CEP of Agni V?

Feel free to disagree. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would argue not at this stage. They are newspaper articles, from Indian sources, or MOD government press releases. I would not be comfortable backing up the Jericho assertion of a 50-100m CEP with just articles from the Israeli print media. The Israeli govt would no way go public on such a technical matter, and if they did, I would be deeply suspicious. They could be puff pieces, and deliberate govt disinformation, quite understandably considering Indias' potential adversaries, and in any event every national print media comes uncomfortably close to propaganda, when on these subjects
I have been looking and am continuing to, to look for third party nation scientific or geopolitical sources for Jericho. Just because something is cited, and a source found, does it then make the supporting fact correct? Surely it must be as far as possible, independent and dispassionate. Irondome (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The navigation ring laser gyroscope for agni 3 & 5 are same. The missitethreat page quotes a source which is not reliable (infact seems defunct). It would be better to find a reliable source for CEP, otherwise simply say what the main article of the missile says. If it does not say anything, simply add N/A. Our place is to construct a wikipedia page based on available reliable data, not to go into policy analysis.
  • @Irondome: This is not about Israel. That belongs to a different section. And hey, try using indentations as reading/distinguishing between what different editors write becomes much simplified. :D thanks! Alo, this is not a "my country versus your country" :D Anir1uph (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did I say anything like that? Up till now we were discussing two seperate missile systems. I merely pointed out the fact that not all sources, although they may pass a theoretical Wiki standard, are the same. That goes for the whole world in every conceivable subject. If anything Israels policy makes my task of finding sources for their stuff 20 times more frustrating. I was talking about types of source and their efficency in a debate. Thats an international question. For what its worth, after thinking about it for a while I believe the Agni 5 citation should stay in lieu of anything more robust. I will not challenge strength of citation, only totally dodgy sources. Irondome (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Firstly, i am please that you are learning the use of indentations. :P All i wanted to say is that the both the missiles are being discussed in 2 different sections and let us keep it that way, otherwise it would be very confusing. If you'd notice, there is no number quoted for the CEP of Agni V. Let us not do so here.
  • I think we should try to stick to what the main articles of the missiles say. If you have a problem with the sources (or lack of) in the main article, first change it there (or better, place a {citation needed} tag) and leave that place on this table as N/A. I hope this would be acceptable to everyone! Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Let us keep the Agni 5 citation also. It can be defended. Irondome (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I have found a reliable source where it explicitly says,

Accuracy

When it comes to accuracy level of the missiles, once again the Indian missiles score over the Chinese. The Circular Error Probable (CEP) of India specific "DF21" missiles which are deployed in traditional Tibet is much lower compared to India's China-specific missile.

The Chinese missiles are in the inaccuracy range 600 metres while Indian missiles have an inaccuracy of 20 metres. This means Indian missiles have a higher probability of hitting the target right.

— Indian Missiles are Superior to Chinese in Quality, Says Expert

So now should I change the CEP of Agni V? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The expert is not saying that about Agni V. He is stating that about already deployed Indian missiles. How can anyone say anything about the CEP of Agni V when even DRDO has not released any information on that matter? The statement is itself not very clear, as india has a range of deployed missiles, from Prithvi to Agni II, and their CEP differs widely. The expert is just making a general statement, and definitely not talking about Agni V. (On a side note: A CEP of 20 m for an 6000 km range missile would be amazing even for the Russians, don't you think? :D ) Anir1uph (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Anir1uph...20m CEP for a 6000+ range missile seems impossible..but who knows? ≫TheStrike Σagle≪`
  • On this source I agree. However one of the original sources deployed (Indian MOD release) on CEP should be re-instated, and the CEP put back I believe. It is a robust enough source. If its disputed subsequently by users, then we will hear the arguments against. Irondome (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • @Anir1uph —— no Disagree
    "The expert is not saying that about Agni V." - I won't be so sure.

    "A CEP of 20 m for an 6000 km range missile would be amazing even for the Russians" - See WP:OR ...

    ——————————————————————
    @Irondome,
    What do you mean, "one of the original sources deployed (Indian MOD release) on CEP should be re-instated"? Are you talking about the CEP of Agni II or Agni III?
    The best I could find was the source I posted above. And although, Anir1uph feels otherwise, I am absolutely convinced that "China-specific missile" is rather an embellishment or a denomination of Agni-V only.
    However, if there is such a source, more explicit about Agni V's accuracy, please post the link here. That could be useful. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 18:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I dont know mate, they are your sources. But I remember seeing that one of them was Indian MOD press release which mentioned the CEP? Please double check your original sources :) Irondome (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My comment about 20 m CEP was not the main objection, it was just a side note between you and me. Even otherwise, it would be an unreliable claim. Agni III and IV are also China specific missiles. Any source (Except DRDO) is merely guessing at the moment, and DRDO has said nothing about accuracy except use terms like "pin-point accuracy", which are not convertible to any numbers. Lets leave it blank. Anir1uph (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I get your point pal. However,
    1. I know as a matter of fact Agni V is just an upgraded version of Agni III. So, even if the expert is talking about Agni III (which is less likely given the context), it may very well be the same CEP for Agni V.
    2. I don't think that Agni III and IV are also China specific missiles since they can't actually reach the northern most part of china.
    3. Notice that the phrase "India's China-specific missile" is in singular form (not plural).
    4. The article doesn't even mention any other version of Agni (not once), except for Agni V.
    5. The article even says,

      “The recently launched Agni-5 which has a range of 5,000 kilometres is bound to be China-specific.”

Which missile do you think he is talking about? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is the credibility of expert? Is/was he involved with the design of Agni V? Even if you are right that he is refering to Agni V, he is merely commenting/guessing/predicting. He may be a reliable source on other stuff, not missile accuracy. Even APJ Abdul Kalam's comments on the Pokhran II yields were criticized because is only an expert on aeronautical engineering, not nuclear physics/bomb design. Now, between you and me, do you think the reliability of the article as a whole would be increased when adding CEP of Agni V as 20 m. Also the navigation systems of both Agni III and V seem to be the same. And that ensures that CEP of Agni V at full range would always be worse than Agni III, as navigational errors in any inertial navigation system keep adding up when missile moves further. I repeat, until the indian government/DRDO/an expert on missile technology explicitly state the accuracy (CEP) of Agni V, let not add anything, as anything else is only guesswork/prediction. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

——————————————
"What is the credibility of expert? Is/was he involved with the design of Agni V?" - if you're implying that he is not credible enough. Then you perhaps should provide a reliable source that says something like "Srikanth Kondapalli is not a credible expert on ICBMs of India or China".
Also it's not me who is labelling him as an ‘expert’ on the matter; it's International Business Times.
——————————————

BTW, he served at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi for nearly 12 years, IDSA is funded by but independent of the Indian Ministry of Defence. The Institute influences the policies of India and other Asian countries; for example; the Indian Parliament's Standing Committee on Defence frequently calls on Institute experts. Kondapalli has also presented several research papers at national and international conferences and lectured at Indian academic, defence, and media establishments. He is a guest faculty member at National Defence College, College of Naval Warfare, Army War College, Indo-Tibetan Border Police Academy and Border Security Force Academy.
——————————————

"navigation systems of both Agni III and V seem to be the same." - This report says that the last two AGNI missiles (IV and V) have "better guidance and navigation systems".
"And that ensures that CEP of Agni V at full range would always be worse than Agni III, as navigational errors in any inertial navigation system keep adding up when missile moves further." - I'm sorry but it sounds to me like original research.

I am not talking about APJ Abdul Kalam.
——————————————

"Now, between you and me, do you think the reliability of the article as a whole would be increased when adding CEP of Agni V as 20 m." - I really don't know. I personally believe that the CEP of Agni V lies somewhere between 30 - 40 m (plus, it's not about the truth but verifiability). If you have better sources then please provide them here. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not need to prove that Srikanth Kondapalli is not an expert on this issue. The burden of proof lies on the person who is adding the reference. He is an expert on Indo-China relationships, and he is not an expert on missile design, nor does he claim to be. Please also read about error accumulation. And you are right, it is about verifiability, so get me a source that says agni V has so and so accuracy, and i would have problems. Saying that "this is what the source is implying", "that it must be what this seems like", etc are not acceptable as reliable sources. The DRDO director says that the Agni V can go up to 5800 km, after it was tested to 5000 km, yep, that is a credible source. But not when a think tank says. Because then the source becomes biased. If the President of North Korea says they have a working ICBM, it is only a claim. I will rest my case on this topic. Plz find explicit reliable sources. I have tried, but cudn't find any. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • First, I appreciate your reply. As far as the accuracy of Agni-V is concerned, Saraswat said Agni-V has used a completely indigenous and high precision missile guidance system with "0.001 degrees of per hour accuracy."
So the accuracy for 20 min flight time is about 30 meters (at a distance of 5,000 km). Hence, I don't think it would be far-fetched, esp. after all the links I have deposited, to claim that the CEP of Agni V is 30 - 40 m. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I would then refer you to WP:SYNTHESIS. Please read the example, if u haven't already. That is why i am opposed to this. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anir1uph (talk • contribs) 09:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • [Don't forget to sign your comments]

    I have already gone through WP:SYNTHESIS. Thats why I didn't go ahead and include anything in the article yet, and still discussing it. I was not intending to include that to the article, it was just a side note between you and me to show you that it's not far-fetched. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Used by?

Can we have another word instead of Used by? ICBMs or any other missiles are used by only a single country..so I personally feel operated by would be a better substitute.Any other ideas? ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Trident II aside, but otherwise correct. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Operators sounds ok Irondome (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree. And i would love if you could be here more often. :) Anir1uph (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Mrt3366 ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 09:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but due to my very busy academic schedule and lack of broadband connection in the near future, I wont be able to access Wiki. ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • BTW it's not first flight but first tested.......Comments? ≫TheStrike Σagle≪ 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have seen both the expressions used in missile article. I have not problems either way. :) Anir1uph (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

references?

I think we need references for the mass, distance etc. Also thanks for giving the real names of Russian and Soviet missiles, rather than their NATO names. Secretlondon (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

We have taken (simply copied and pasted) data directly from the main article of the missiles, which are all wikilinked on the table. I am sure that no additional data has been added into the table. If and when we get additional data+refs, we modify the missile main article accordingly. Info not in the main article (and which we could not find out) is marked as "N/A" (not available). Is there any need for repeating the references present in the missile's main article, here on the table? Isn't a simple wikilink to the missile article (which has all the req refs) enough? Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Isn't a simple wikilink to the missile article (which has all the req refs) enough?" - I think it is enough. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort function needs uniform metrics

Under Warhead/Payload the unit measurements must be uniform for the sorting function to work properly, kt or Mt please choose. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I think I will opt for kT, since that's what is needed to decimals. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Having said that, we don't know the blast yield of many missiles but only the payload-mass. So what about that? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Also, the sort function does not work as desired. load the page and the table on the browser, then sort the list with respect to any metric/column (say country). Now we just cannot get back the originally arranged list, as the original list itself is not arranged in a particular way (i hope u get my point). That should not be the case. A suggestion: The initial list should be alphabetically arranged. Or we use another column for serial number. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
"we use another column for serial number." - Agree . Somebody please do it. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 16:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Anir1uph (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This makes no sense to me. I would suggest the editorially applied arbitrary 'serial number' be replaced with either 'test date', or deployed date/range of deployment. Or chronological development of some acceptable measure. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, we can order the table as following: keep a country's missiles together, and keep the countries in the same order: USSR, Russia, USA, Britain, France, China, India, NK, Israel. (a rough chronology, russia as an extension of USSR, and Israel & NK as suspect states.) In each country, we arrange the missiles by age (first flight). This would require only minor modifications of the current list. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Nice idea, but how are you going to do that without putting the sort function of the whole table in jeopardy? Are you suggesting you'd break up the table into small segments? If so, then wouldn't it nullify the idea of a comparative list? If you could do that without eliminating the sort function or jeopardizing the comparativeness of the list, however, then I'd be wholly impressed.
    Anyway, please feel free to experiment. I support your idea. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should we merge this to the page List of ICBMs or create another?

I've withdrawn the proposal and acted against it. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we merge this to the page List of ICBMs? I am asking this because this subsumes the contents of List of ICBMs. Previously it was discussed and decided that List of ICBMs needed a new face but now some of the users are in favour of creating a new page instead of substituting the contents of the old page. A separate article for the same thing would could really obviate the need for the List of ICBMs article.Mrt3366 (Talk?) 21:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:CFORK
I think the question being asked here is biased. I don't think it is intentional; Mrt is an inexperienced editor, and I think he is yet to gain a full understanding of the community decision-making processes in use on Wikipedia. I am trying to give him every latitude but I am now starting to run out of patience. He claims that the issue was "discussed and decided". That decision was taken in less than 48 hours, by a non-neutral editor, without waiting for other comments and opposition which was subsequently raised. There is no consensus, a fact which Mrt constantly refuses to acknowledge. I would also note that unilaterally opening an RfC is not an appropriate method of resolving a disagreement.
There are several types of list; the two relevant here are a simple, accessible, bulleted list of items, each linked to a relevant article, and a more detailed comparison article, using a sortable table to provide larger amounts of information to allow the list items to be compared. Although at first glance, the list may appear redundant to the comparison, the comparison article is very inaccessible (to quote from the manual of style "the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing"), and the detailed information it provides sometimes obscures the more simple details. A list article can also use a tree structure to display families and variants, something which should be implemented with this list, but is not currently. For these reasons, list and comparison articles are kept separate; for example List of orbital launch systems and comparison of orbital launch systems; list and comparison of text editors, etc. --W. D. Graham 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"I think the question being asked here is biased." - then kindly tell me an unbiased question. "I don't think it is intentional" - Right.

"There are several types of list; the two relevant here are a simple, accessible, bulleted list of items" - but what I asked you earlier is that was it in itself a sufficient grounds for the creation of another article.

"Mrt is an inexperienced editor" - Maybe but this decision is not based upon my inexperience, rather my disagreement with your baseless opposition or your inability to understand my point. Saying that "those articles exist so this should exist too" is unintelligible for me. To me at least your contention is indefensible. No matter how inexperienced I am, I am not a fool. We do not need another article. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should be clearer then. Yes, that is grounds to have two articles. I'm not saying that we should have two articles because we have two elsewhere; those are just examples of how this scenario is handled elsewhere on site. --W. D. Graham 09:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"those are just examples of how this scenario is handled elsewhere on site" - What I am saying is, that scenario here is not really pertinent. Plenty of articles exist on wikipedia that probably should not. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
“to quote from the manual of style "the use of tables to display lists is discouraged—because they provide low-quality accessibility and have a more complex notation that hinders editing"” - I see you have neglected the part where it says, "there are some instances where they can be useful, such as when three or more columns are required" Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't consider that relevant, since the article has been coping perfectly well without columns until now. --W. D. Graham 11:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"I didn't consider that relevant" - I never for a second doubted that.
"coping perfectly" - So are you saying that you don't think tables are needed in that article

If that is so, well then obviously I disagree and this discussion is what kick-started the revamping to begin with. Now if others want to change their minds all of sudden, I won't mind. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • What are the advantages of having 2 lists as opposed to one? I think both should give a brief summary of advantages, for new and potential co-workers who may not want to read the above thread; wait a week and see if any opinons are gathered here. We can then act on that. Agreed? Irondome (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree . Mrt3366 (Talk?) 04:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The list is distinct from the comparison. A list article should be simple and accessible, and ease navigation, whereas a comparison article provides more details in a sortable format, at the expense of accessibility and it swamps the basic information. A bulleted list also allows the article to display the relationships between missiles (which ones were derived from which, etc), and while that is not currently done in this article, it could (and indeed should) easily be. This is completely impossible with tabulated lists and comparisons. Lists can also include some prose, which is not possible with the proposed new format.
Because lists and comparisons are distinct, with incompatible content goals and requirements, our practise in the past has been where necessary to have separate articles to list and to compare. That is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the articles should not be separate because other articles are, but for the same reasons that those articles are kept separate. --W. D. Graham 19:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself WDG. I already told you that comparative or not, what we are creating here is a list and also adequately accessible. There is not need for creating another article just basing upon the difference in look (i.e. tabulation). And if we create such an article it will unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 04:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
You are also repeating yourself. Stop blindly quoting guidelines and merely attacking the fact that two similar pages might exist, and actually answer the points I have raised. --W. D. Graham 07:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"Stop blindly quoting guidelines" - Stop? Well, only if the preacher would follow his own preaching. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think ad hominem arguments are going to help this discussion, please respond to the points I have raised rather than attacking me. --W. D. Graham 09:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Well don't do this again (without discussion or my explicit approval) please. You have alleged that the wording is biased and I think that is enough. Let others decide for themselves. If you want the wording to be changed then post a proposal (preferably starting by validating your allegation) and we will discuss it. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I support creating a new article and leave the existing one as it is. The demand to replace the pre-existing article has no consensus (i too do not support it). And the validity of this article is supported by everyone. Because of the demands of Mrt (which do not have consensus), a good article is blocked up here instead of the article space, where it should be, and would remain so, until he changes his stand, or atleast agrees to create a new article. thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
After seven days I myself will move it where the consensus would want it to be. And between you and me, nobody is dying to get another article about "Comparisons of ICBMs". I think the wait is worth the process. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 14:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Merge only if necessary. Personally I never thought things would move so fast and I feel the new page could have stood on it's own for some time now. Perhaps this editorial flourishment in the comparison page can lead to a re-invigoration of the original, which is clearly lacking many contexts. This is a great opportunity to rewrite the original article from a dry list now that attention is drawn to it. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Few proposed changes

I propose:

  1. In mobility section instead of putting just "submarine launched" let's put the names classes of the submarines if available.
  2. In the MIRV section let's put the MIRV capacity within braces if available (e.g. Yes (10-12) )
  3. Let's clearly state that whether the missile retired or became inactive or cancelled, i.e. programs that never were deployed (as Doyna Yar contact suggested).

Mrt3366 (Talk?) 17:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reply
  1. Names of submarines? USA, China and Russia have so, so many submarines, it will just increase the size of the table. But we can include the submarine class, instead of all sub names, eg Los Angeles class submarine, and not every Los Angeles class submarine.
  2. I agree with 2.
  3. Isnt the color code doing just that? (We cannot have columns for everything, and we may need columns for something else, so must use that space wisely.)
Anir1uph (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 1. Agreed. MIRV capacity useful.
  • 2. Ageed. Colour code seems to work efficiently. Its clear, user friendly. (unless one is colourblind)
  • 3. Sub classes should be sufficient. Irondome (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "USA, China and Russia have so, so many submarines" - no it is not for the names of submarines but sub-classes if available. (I corrected my statement). Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The background colors are fine but the 'status' column should clarify a difference between Inactive (read decommissioned/retired) and Cancelled (not/never deployed), there is a lot of latitude here that could be specified -OR- perhaps the title should read 'Comparison of Historically Deployed ICBMs' or something to that effect. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Why don't you help us do that? That way you could be more specific about the missiles which you think were never deployed. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Space

Since the article is nearly finished, let us move it to Comparison of ICBMs. Rest of the work, like adding MIRV numbers and filling missing info can be done there. I would invite Mrt to do this move, as he has contributed most to this article. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent! Good work. Its looking fine now, ready to roll it out? Irondome (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your cooperation, both of you, but specially Mrt :) Will continue to collaborate in future, on this article and others :) Anir1uph (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Irondome has commented that "the 1992 U.S report on Israeli gyro technology and other aspects is extremely dated. Its over 20 years old. I very much doubt its present accuracy. Also Ive found a couple of sources that indicate that Jericho 3 uses Pershing 2 guidance technology. Basically it just seems wrong. Only last month we had the Arrow 3 exo- atmospheric tests being pronounced a brilliant success. This indicates the obsolescence of the statement. I suggest we remove it." Should we proceed? If unopposed I will put the proposed edit myself. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

S number?

I don't see any direct reference to the "S number" which is the first column and the default primary sort key. Is this some kind of standard, a rating or ? BSD Daemon (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of ICBMs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of ICBMs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_ICBMs/Archive_1&oldid=1142529937"