Talk:List of intercontinental ballistic missiles

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

Iran[edit]

Under development, there might be a possibility to put Shabab-6, with a range of 5000+ km. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.19.25 (talk) 06:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if north korea's non-ICBM missile can be on the list, i can't see a reason why iran's operational shahab-3 shouldn't, not to mention the long range missiles which are under development. unfortunately this was being removed repeatedly from the previous version of this article, when it was a part of ICBM. 94.159.132.14 (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Adding Iran to this list would pure propaganda. Thier most advanced missile goes at best 1600 miles?

It will be unverifiable claim[edit]

Although I don't think North korean Missile should be anywhere in that list, this IRANIAN ICBM CLAIM has almost no substance, rather it's filled with lofty guesses, predilection and nearly wholly groundless predictions. This article is already lacking necessary citations in many places, now adding SHAHAB-5/6 or anything that's unverifiable (By the way, "Verifiability" is the ultimate criterion here at Wikipedia), will surely reduce the article to a level of "unreliability" and with no real foundation and to some extent the material would be highly incendiary too. This kind of baseless appendage may actually tee off many readers. Please take that into account before adding anything more into the article. --DrYouMe (Talk?) 14:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?[edit]

Result:One of the two users' involved withdraws from the argument.New Section suggested

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.

Moved from User talk:Mrt3366
 – Lets talk here please.Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misuse the RFC process, This is not a Dispute Please read WP:DR if you have not read it. you can discuss here with me first--DBigXray 12:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think some outside feedback is not going to be helpful? Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input. And I think we could use some. Cheers Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Mrt your above comment shows you are completely unaware of Ways of Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving_consensus Please understand the Wikipedia:Consensus process first, and how things are done. WP:RFC is not needed at this stage. there is a step by step procedure. (I know what you are trying to say about RfC ). but you dont start RfC just by whims and fantasies, I strongly oppose RFC at this stage . Just allow the talk page for a week and editors watching the page will comment. This is not a very drastic change that would need an RFC. People can see the discussion on the talk page. --DBigXray 12:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Anir1uph contact gave me his consent saying, "If you would like to, plz do so, as i have no experience wid RfC. We can wait for the RfC to conclude before making changes to the layout." I thought it would not be a problem. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • you cannot use Anir as an excuse, he clearly says he is unaware about RFC and so are you. --DBigXray 12:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear, I am not using him as an "excuse". I wanted to let you know what was going on in my mind. Please don't get me wrong. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please go through the 3 links that i have posted above, only then i will discuss further. --DBigXray 12:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I already visited that page and I get your point. But external input would not harm us in anyway, would it? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "whims and fantasies"? Nobody here is doing anything based on whims and fantasies. Please try to understand me. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Yes, Its a whim because you went ahead and had started RfC without even consulting experienced editors and understanding when its needed and when not. yes, it does harm as people will be annoyed with such a trivial thing, that is not even in a dispute. your talk page will be filled with scoldings from users and Admins who get this RFC posts that you are not aware of when to use RFC and when not. Tell me do you still feel RFC is needed ? --DBigXray 12:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cool down people....there is no need to fight(practically) for just an issue of RfC. However, RfC is used mostly in cases of content disputes when there is practically no other possible way of achieving consensus.Fortunately, I suppose we have a way of reaching consensus now:More Discussion.Mrt and DBX...please dont comment on the RfC anymore, just talk about the article.Thanks! ϮheⱾtrikeΣagle ™ 13:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DBX, chill bro . I already told you that my intention was not to anger you. Let's keep things in their perspective. You're experienced, I get it but I'm not your subordinate, or inferior to you here.

So please mind your tone dear. I told you that RfC was meant to fetch diverse and heterogeneous feedback. Whatever we decide here is going to effect the article and we're not the only ones who are ever going to read this article.

I say we need to initiate a RfC ASAP. You disagree. I respect that.

You need to come to terms with the fact that nowhere in the RfC does it say that "you cannot Request for comment even though you want outside input, if other user imperiously asks you not to." Mrt3366 (Talk?) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

looks like my comment made no difference at all.Mrt..please stop this....atleast from your side now.If you really think that an RfC is required...just go ahead...but this kind of comments on each other wont look nice..especially..we are in the talk page of an article..not yours or the other user's talk!!.If you won't stop this comments' war..I will close this discussion now.Thanks ϮheⱾtrikeΣagle ™ 15:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am out of this . Feel free to choose whatever you decide--DBigXray 15:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Continued discussion about possible modifications in List of ICBMs[edit]

Moved from User talk:Anir1uph
 – Lets continue here please, since this is more appropriate place for the discussion Mrt3366 (Talk?) 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you and I have both edited that section in the past. I thought discussing some possible changes with you first.

In this section, I am thinking about including the K 4 missile's second version (5,000 km range) since it is under-development and has the capacity to traverse the continent and beyond. So what do you think?

Please give me a {{tb}} tag when you reply. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can definitely include it. I would like to work together on this. Anir1uph (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Mrt3366 likes this. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also check that in this section it says that the range of Agni V is "more than 5,000 km", this info is less precise than what is available today and dated. Would you mind if I correct that? (You may do it too) Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did that! Anir1uph (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are my changes valid? Mrt3366 (Talk?) 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not understand the reason behind your 3rd edit (removing JL-2)...if you could explain it please...Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i get it, you tried to separate sea based and land based ICBMs. that is fine, but dt must be done for all other countries too. Will help. Anir1uph (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Exactly. Why don't you help me with that? (I tried in vain to gather info about the SLBMs of other countries like France and UK)
  • I see that you wrote, "Cfact not needed, main article wikilink is enough." I think you misunderstood the reason behind my use of {{cfact}}. Neither the touted range nor the purported MIRV capability is corroborated by the original article. Here and here(reliable sources) they contradict both the claims about range and MIRV capacity. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that it fine (specially with the ref, no one can argue :D) AS i said earlier, i will help in this for sure. Regarding removing {{cfact}}, i feel that even if the required info is missing, it should be added to the main article, not here, as this is a very concise list, and any speculation and debates (along with their refs) should be there in the main article of the missile. Like i have done for the Agni-VI and Surya in the page. What do you think? Anir1uph (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur.  Brendon is here 04:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Brendon, I've 1 question for you. Who are you stalking? Anir1uph or me? hahahaha!!!! Mrt3366 (Talk?) 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an all-seeing eye.  Brendon is here 04:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anir1uph, you wrote that the separation of land-based and sea-based ICBMs must be done for the other countries too. Well, what about United Kingdom and France? they don't have land-based, at least not officially. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yaah they donot, that is i was unsure about how to carry out the division in the article. Perhaps we can make only country wise divisons, and include all info about a country under its heading and do not make any separate sections for SL-ICBMs. Anir1uph (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but should I strongly recommend that we start a RfC for that in the article's talk page before making such a move! Mrt3366 (Talk?) 06:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • invited to butt in! The list is country wise for obvious reasons, and in my opinion it should be the way it is now. good to see both of you collaborating . Mrt I am waiting for you to remove that sad face on your talk page --DBigXray 06:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry DBX, I will remove it soon enough. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the section List of sea based ICBMs can be merged back to the various countries, that it need not exist separately. Do you both agree? If you do, then we can start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Anir1uph (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already told you that I agree and I also think that we should start a RfC on the talk page of the article. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 18:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

  1. I suggest we merge the section Sea-based ICBMs (Intercontinental-range SLBMs) to their respective countries.
  2. I also suggest that we removed info related to the submarines these SLBMs are deployed in, and the nuclear warheads they carry, as such info is not relevant in a List of ICBM, instead belongs to articles of their navy and their nuclear weapons etc. Please state modifications/objections to this, if you have any. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[broken into two sections by Mrt3366 contact]

Opinions[edit]

  • Support - per the above discussion.

    (New addition→) I don't support the second suggestion regarding the exclusion of the SL-ICBMs.  Brendon is here 07:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has proposed exclusion of SL-ICBMs. They are to be merged back to their respective countries. What is being removed is information about the submarines they are deployed in, and the warheads they are currently carrying. That information is irrelevant here.Anir1uph (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get it.  Brendon is here 08:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (before starting the rfc) - While this is a helpful way to build consensus, I don't think it's reaching enough number of people. Why don't we start a proper RfC with the template {{rfc}}? That way we could reach more people who might otherwise be interested in this topic. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to, plz do so, as i have no experience wid RfC. We can wait for the RfC to conclude before making changes to the layout. Anir1uph (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but let me tell you that even I am not well aware of the exact procedure for initiating a RfC. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL You dont use Sledge Hammer to Kill a Fly RFC is used in cases of dispute, we agree to it, let this post remain for a week and then you can do the changes --DBigXray 11:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tepid Support - It's settled then. I'm okay with the merger proposal. But I think that submarine launched ICBMs are relevant in this article. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 11:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - If you're gonna condense in the SLBMs for brevity sake then why not go all the way with a table. Wouldn't a sortable table make all the relevant ICBM/SLBM information much more comparable? Say with columns for Nationality, type (ICBM/SLBM), platform (silo, road mobile, submarine, etc.), service window, number produced, active status, throw weight, range, warhead configuration, etc, and a column for added notation. The article would become much similar to the Comparison of orbital launch systems page. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth. Doyna Yar (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A table seems to be a brilliant idea. But a sortable table? I like the structure of the page Comparison of orbital launch systems, but i would suggest that the initial display be based on the year of first test, and not alphabetically. Anir1uph (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Initial test, deployed year, however the editors of this article choose columns is for their expertise, whatever so long as it's not static and has the little sort arrows at the top of the chart. I can see value pulling up a comparison of active systems. Like I said, it's just a suggestion. Doyna Yar (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this suggestion. Do others editors agree to make a table? Anir1uph (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur...Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Seeing that tabulation process will be a lengthy work (which might take several hours or even days) and we don't want to put the accessibility/readability of the current article in jeopardy, I suggest we first start testing all our changes on a separate page in the article's namespace (or one's sandbox) and see if it works fine. Then we might copy-paste or cut-paste the whole thing in the original article. Feel free to disagree. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! A sandbox seems better to me. Can you please start one, copying the basic table code from Comparison of orbital launch systems, and then we can fill in the required changes. Anir1uph (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see I had a positive influence on the article's direction. As a child of the Cold War my interest is a part of my raising. I'm far from an expert and at best a student of such documentaries. I look forward to see your work on the revamped article and look forward to adding commentary. Doyna Yar (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What ought to be the column-headings exactly? That info would help me a great deal. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 09:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are essential: Name, Origin (country) (a separate column for "Manufacturer" is also feasible), Range, weight of missile, weight of warhead, Cost, Status, First flight, MIRVed (Yes or No) and mobility (road/rail/silo/submarine). Anir1uph (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then I will create a separate page in the article subspace and post the link here so that we all can contribute freely and discuss on its talk page, leaving the article in its current form. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tabulation, a simple list should be provided in addition to a more complex table, if a table is to be added, the article should be split like list of orbital launch systems and comparison of orbital launch systems. --W. D. Graham 16:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sole reason for opposing tabulation seems to be that the existing article must not be replaced. In that case, we can keep both the article (if there is consensus for that), with the names suggested by you. Anir1uph (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said. I'm opposed to removing the simple list format, a table would be better in a comparison article, but I would support creating a comparison article. --W. D. Graham 19:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine by me! What about others? Also since WDGraham has pointed out Wikipedia:SUBPAGE#Disallowed_uses, we must move the under-construction article somewhere, and fast. Does everyone agree on that? Plz also suggest where we can move it to. Thanks! Anir1uph (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The table is filling out well and in a timely way. Why not just undo the reversed move back to 'Comparison of ICBMs', add a link and polish it while published? Doyna Yar (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still a lot of blanks, may not be proper for a main article...i think atleast 2 more days would be needed to complete it. Anir1uph (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the consensus is it will be a separate tabulated page and not overwrite the original page. Well if we all keep our heads cool and not panic two options come to mind... 1) hold our breath and keep working on it where it is for say two days getting it ready for showtime barring an outside editor forcing the issue, or 2) move it to an editor's personal sandbox until ready for prime-time. Thoughts? Doyna Yar (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these are the two options. Plus, if we decide to use a sandbox, where would we place it (who's sandbox)? Anir1uph (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty simple thus far. I disagree with User:WDGraham. 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. No need for two different articles. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Yeah, these are the two options. Plus, if we decide to use a sandbox, where would we place it (who's sandbox)?" -

1. I choose the sandbox option.
2. Let's move it to Anir1uph's or my sandbox (since we are mostly active on that page). Mrt3366 (Talk?) 07:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel revamping going on[edit]

List of ICBMs/New form User:Mrt3366/List_of_ICBMs-New_form - this is the link. Let's redecorate the article and increase its efficiency. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 10:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 12:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some inactive Soviet missiles from the list[edit]

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).

Mrt3366 (Talk?) 12:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List 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) 05:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List 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) 15:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HIROC was not an ICBM[edit]

The RTV-A-2 HIROC was not an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. It was a very early experimental technology vehicle. A casual glance at the specifications should make that clear as there is no way a vehicle with it's size and thrust could ever reach anywhere. I realize that the person who wrote the article in Wikipedia lacks any credentials as either a historian or engineer (for no one who had a clue about the history of RTV-2-A would so state). Indeed no rocket with only 2,885 lbs of LOX and ethanol propellants could possibly reach the range required for an ICBM. For proof ov my assertion I cite MX-774 Pages 44-50 of The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960 by Jacob Nufeld, published by the Office of Air Force History, United States Air Force, Washington D.C. 1990, ISBN 0-912799-62-5 Mark Lincoln — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:360:6670:4D8B:F184:CA11:22FB (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iran, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom[edit]

So these countries have no ICBMs? 2001:8003:9007:8201:38C7:65EF:A31B:164F (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of intercontinental ballistic missile" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect List of intercontinental ballistic missile and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 17#List of intercontinental ballistic missile until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Eurohunter (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_intercontinental_ballistic_missiles&oldid=1206689469"