Talk:Nuclear weapons delivery

This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 29, 2006	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Media:Small TextHi all,

Hope you don't give a shit me adding a bit of speculation to this page. Over the last several years (2001-2005) there have been occasional news snippets about clandestine Russian tests that look like the Russians might be testing scramjet or other hypersonic missile technology. It is pure speculation on my part, but I remember that when Bush made the announcement that the US would be withdrawing from the ABM treaty, a few weeks prior or afterwards, there was another news blub about a Russian test. Nobody really seems to have picked up on these tests in the media for whatever reason, although if you google you can find the articles. It should be clear that a truly hypersonic delivery system mated with a nuclear device would be an ace in the hole for Russia; it would bypass anti-ballistic missile technology and make the fact that the US dropped out of the ABMT a moot point.

Petwil

Petwil, Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, but well-researched facts. If you cannot cite the information to a reputable source, it cannot be on Wikipedia. See our policy at WP:CITE. --Fastfission 03:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fastfission: It is a fact that there have been numerous reports of these tests in well-respected newspapers, and it is also a fact that it doesn't take more than a couple of neurons to rub together to see the potential implications of this. I don't see the harm in speculating on these things if it is clearly pointed out that it is, in fact, speculation. But, if this is proscribed by Wiki policy, then so be it. Petwil 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what Fastfission said: it is policy here. Harsh, but the line has to be drawn somewhere or things would get out of control. DV8 2XL 04:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Thanks, DV8 2XL. Just like a little courtesy, that's all :). Petwil 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On an unrelated note, does the page on critical mass need to have a discussion of critical density? Currently critical density just redirects to cosmology (the big crunch). (er, I don't know where I'm supposed to put this since I don't know how often people read Talk:Critical mass, and I don't spend much of my time doing Wikipedia stuff so I'm a bit of a novice.....) Petwil 05:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've no problem with included things that other, well-respected sources have said. Just cite the sources and attribute the analysis when you add the information, that's all -- that way nobody can get on WP's case if it is wrong (we are just reporting what others have said). The two policies relating to this are WP:NOR (No Original Research) and WP:CITE (Cite Your Sources), just for reference. I apologize if I came off curtly before, we just get a lot of people posting goofy stuff on the nuclear-related pages at times, and anything self-consciously labeled as speculation looks like a red-flag to me. ;-) --Fastfission 19:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Again I'll back up Fastfission, some days we do get a little trigger-happy, and with reason. Hang around the Nuke pages long enough and you will be too. DV8 2XL 19:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - I'm sure of that, DV8 2XL. And thanks to both of you - just got my feathers a little ruffled, but you are right Fastfission that that contribution was rank speculation on my part. Course, it is in the nature of nukes in particular to be speculative. In fact, I am quite sure that a substantial fraction of the info on these pages would be marked as classified by any ADC. For example, the only thing a nuke designer is allowed to tell you about weapons design is that there are two parts: The primary, and the secondary. That's it. Anyway I'll check out the policy in detail before I make any other changes that might be on the fringe, and thanks once again for the input. 71.131.50.118 User:petwil 20:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crud. ). And from the same source, " 'It looks like the Russians were testing scramjet technology,' said one intelligence official." Petwil 20:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC),[reply]

Thanks a lot for those valuable information.

Ublative Coating and other info

The Army's Lance and Pershing2 missiles both had an ublative material coating the outer shell of the cone and propulsion section of the missile. The material was cork-like, painted olive-drab, and was used to counter friction, to stop the missile from burning up after it was fired. I have repaired many small patches on the Lance and P2's during the late 80's/early 90's.

Also, the M454(155mm) and the M423CA1E1, both artillery fired projectiles, used a cylinder shaped breechblock fuse inserted into the guntube of the projectile for firing. peace. Nathraq (talk) 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other delivery systems

I think that the text "for anti-submarine warfare" should be removed as nuclear torpedos for anti-shipping also exists. See "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_65"192.71.219.1 (talk) 10:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the START II treaty forbids the USA from using stealth weapons on stealth aircraft?

I have looked in the START II treaty pages (http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/start2/text.htm) and have not found any provision stating that the treaty forbids the parties from using stealth weapons on stealth aircraft. 50.152.130.159 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nuclear weapons delivery. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 19:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]