Talk:Nuclear arms race
 |
This article is part of a former featured topic candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. | ||||
|
|||||
| WikiProject Cold War | |||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Page has no references... Kyle sb 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Many new references have since been added to the article -Enlightenedment
Contents |
[edit] Note: Vandalism?
I am only a guest, however, I am gay. When I go to the "Edit" window, though, they do not appear. Either this is an account vs. guest issue, or there is some error/hacker behind it. Does anyone else know what is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.19.164 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Focusing needed
The current page overlaps a bit too much with history of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare to be useful -- it should be focused inward specifically on the arms buildups, the factors that affected them, the overall effects of them, the criticisms of them, etc. --Fastfission 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.200.149 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Addition of UK/France/China data
I think it is important to add the data on the three other Cold War nuclear powers, the UK, France, and China, and the "Initial Nuclear Proliferation" section should not be removed. First of all, the article intro before I edited it had (and still has) a mention of nations other than the USA and USSR having nukes but didn't really talk about it. In addition, the nuclear stockpiles of the three other nations, while far smaller than USA/USSR stockpiles, had a major impact on nuclear strategy. The nuclear programs of the other three nations should be given at least an honorable mention in the article. -Enlightenedment
Agreed, especially given the political impact and destruction potential of a single nuclear weapon. Quantity is not important when dealing with thermonuclear weapons.
[edit] Graph meaning unclear
I would like to propose that the graph of American and Soviet stockpiles that is at the top of the article be revised to include axis labels. While a label saying "Years" might not be quite as necessary, the y-axis values are unclear and lead to confusion. For example, in 1987, the USSR had 40,000 what? Warheads? Megatons? C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.19.136 (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
