Talk:Weapon of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Talk:Weapons of mass destruction)
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola actions help green.svg This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

For most recent comments, see bottom of page

Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.



Archives
  1. 2004-2007


Contents

[edit] Rename to NBC Weapons

Wouldn't it be better to rename this to NBC Weapons, as that is what the military calls them?--219.79.73.249 (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)



there's an article about NBC weapons already, and the two are different. A WMD is a weapon of mass destruction, so for example, an antimatter bomb would count as a WMD but not as an NBC weapon. Conventional bombs the size of skyscrapers might count as well. RowanEvans (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] US Politics Sections

Not this may have been changed by the time you read this.

Sections 4-13 are all 'United States politics." All of the sections start out the same, and appear to have the same content. I have not gone through to verify that they are the same though, which is why I did not delete them. Does someone want to look into this?

(Please delete this if the problem has been resolved.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IKrolm (talk • contribs) 00:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does the poll belong

Moving text from the article (where it didn't belong). This came immediately after a paragraph saying many members of the public believed WMD had been discovered in Iraq.

This poll really does not belong in this article. Whether or not people believe that WMDs were found in Iraq has absolutely NOTHING to do with what happened historically. Either the weapons were found, or they were not. Take the opportunity to educate your readers here, not skew the facts with media opinions. If one chemical agent was found in Iraq, then that needs to be in this article. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

My view is that this discussion of the poll would be more appropriate in an article on Iraq and WMD, though a brief mention of the Iraq issues should be in this article. NPguy (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sadam's WMD Stockpile Removed from Iraq

In 2003 an IAEA team removed 1.8 tonnes of low enriched uranium and 500 tonnes of natural uranium which had been stored under IAEA seal since 1991.[1] On July 5, 2008 a top-secret shipment of 550 tonnes of concentrated natural uranium [enough to make 142 nuclear warheads] arrived in Montreal from Iraq, depleting the last major stockpile of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program, the Associated Press reported. "Yellowcake," the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment, was sold to Canadian uranium producer Cameco Corp. by the Iraqi government. The deal is said to be worth tens of millions of dollars.[2]

I've just added the above for discussion and input from all interested. Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This addition to the article has since been (overzealously, in my view) reverted. The facts are mostly correct, but the link to WMD is over the top and the headline is completely wrong. These materials pose minimal proliferation concern by themselves. They might have been used as feed stock for an enrichment program, but without an enrichment program they pose relatively little risk. Their removal was a matter of prudence, particularly considering the risk of theft by factions supporting Iran, which does have an enrichment program. Where does the number 142 come from? NPguy (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it certainly belongs in Iraq and weapons of mass destruction (and I see that it has been added to that article), but in the form written above, it doesn't make clear that the uranium is what remains from Iraq's 1980s atomic program. Ideally, a short summary of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction should be included in this one. I doubt this particular news item would fit within a couple of paragraphs' summary of the long and convoluted history of Iraq's WMD programs and the US's stance toward and interactions with such programs.--Father Goose (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Cold War and the War against Terrorism

In 1990 and during the 1991 Gulf War, WMD was resurrected and used widely by members of the Clinton Administration, including Madeleine Albright, Samuel Berger and William Cohen,[4] by other western politicians and by the media.

Interesting claim. Cited even? The simple fact is the Clinton administration WAS NOT IN OFFICE in 1990/1991. The claims that the terms were used by the Clinton administration in 1990/91 is absolutely bogus right wing propaganda AS THERE WAS NO CLINTON ADMINISTRATION in 90/91. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.82.117 (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, along with a whole lot of other shit... but the article still needs a tremendous amount of work.--Father Goose (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken links

Under Public Perceptions, the PIPI site is broken. Also, WMD.com is no longer relevant and the site is for sale. Brian Pearson (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref #27: Certificate has expired, the page will not load.

[edit] Dresden

I reverted the addition of a reference to the firebombing of Dresden. It does not fit the definition of WMD used in this article (nuclear, chemical, biological and maybe radiological).

Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to adding a discussion of what might be considered WMD. it's just that this offhand and misplaced phrase is not the way to do it. A history of firebombing ought to include other examples besides Dresden (e.g., Coventry, Hamburg, Tokyo and other Japanese cities). The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represented only 2% of the explosive destruction of WWII. NPguy (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Specific information

An editor is placing specific information about yellow cake being found in Iraq into this article. One other editor and I have removed this information. I believe it is not appropriate information for this article. It appears to be a coatrack for the information. This article should be used to further the understanding of WMD, not to continue the arguement that the Iraq war was or was not justified. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The information also happens to be both inaccurate and irrelevant. There is an erroneous claim that 550 tons of processed uranium ore ("yellowcake") were recently "discovered" and secretly removed from Iraq. The yellowcake was not discovered but had been under IAEA seal since the early 1990s. It is not WMD but one of the most basic feedstocks for a nuclear program. It was not removed earlier because of its relatively low significance. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Has that editor been reprimanded about inserting the information? I noticed that it has been put on and off several times. He only had a uw-test warning, and those 550 tons were already discussed in one of the above threads. --Eaglestorm (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Military Definition Inbound

The new JP 3-40 Combating WMD (CWMD) will change the JP 1-02 definition for WMD. The term will no longer cover high-yield explosives. This page's Joint Publication quote should be updated when JP 3-40 CWMD is signed.

The reason for the change is that the National Military Strategy for CWMD does not address high-yield explosives. Kevin CBRN Defense (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bioweapons as nuclear replacement

Perhaps it can be described that strategic long-range missiles (eg low cost ones as those of Bruce Simpson) with bioweapons (eg Botulism, Anthrax, Lassa fever, cheap neurotoxins (which is concentrated) extracted from eg Botulism bacteria, ...) aimed at some 150m? just above large cities can serve as a replacement for nuclear weapons. Reason to include this (probably very insensitive remark for the peace-community) would be in order to presevere life (silly enough). This as it allows the nuclear material from the nuclear weapons to be reused for nuclear energy facilities. This would make a jump possible to lower co² emissions of energy production (if more nuclear plants are built). The resulting lower amount of environmental disasters will decrease mortility (as weapons of mass destruction are never used anyhow, but environmental disasters do occur). Extracted neurotoxins instead of bacteria may decrease cost further as they may require less maintenance (and are more humane than true bacteria aswell as nuclear weapons; which kill or may kill slowly). Biological weapons can also be incinerated quickly when the facility is at risk of being hijacked (especially an advantage eg for Pakistan). It would also decrease the costs of maintaining a (small/reduced) arsenal of WMD-weapons. Also, bioweapons are non-hazardoes to the planet; a nuclear war would eradicate the planet due to dust and its resulting solar shielding where a biological one would not.

Perhaps these arguments can be mentioned in article or comparisation table between biological and nuclear weapons can be given—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.185.80 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.188.188 (talk)

[edit] Request for comments on edit

I propose changing the text in the text from:

The first use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" on record is from The Times (London) in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

“ Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[3] ”

to

The first use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" on record is from The Times (London) in 1937 in reference to the aerial |bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

“ Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[4] ”

Any comments? Opposition? Please let me know. Kushal (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Superweapons

Why was a whole section on "superweapons" added to this article? I think it is a bad fit. It consists of weapons considered impressive in their day and fictional weapons. They do not have significant substantive overlap with the main subject of this article. NPguy (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it does not belong. It is outside what I believe to be the scope of this article. I have removed it and it should be discussed to get consensus before anyone reinserts it. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Countries Possessing WMD

This section doesn't even try to discuss which countries possess WMDs! Per the intro:

the term is often used to cover several weapon types, including nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) and radiological weapons. Additional terms used in a military context include atomic, biological, and chemical warfare (ABC) and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) warfare.

This section discusses nukes only! what about biological chemical, radiological, etc? --RhoOphuichi (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Automobiles?

What about automobiles, aren't they Weapons of Mass Destruction? Pollution of air, water, soil, noise, light, heat pollution is mostly caused by automobiles, isn't it? And crashes kill almost 50,000 people in US alone every year. Stars4change (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's like saying cancer is a weapon of mass destruction. Accidental car crashes is not something that can be wielded or directed, unlike actual weapons. Any other bright ideas? 68.84.6.98 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WMD is a term in search of a definition

Unless somebody improves the definition of WMD (and I don't see who in the world could adequately do so), I think Wikipedia makes too much of the term. A minimal history of the term might be worthwhile and a brief discussion of the need for better definition. Two paragraphs tops.

I ascribe little significance to the term on the following grounds:

1) how big is necessary for a weapon's effects to be called "mass destruction"? a qualitative definition is useless. a quantitative definition is time-dependent. dynamite was a WMD when it was first discovered.

2) combining nuclear, chemical and biological weapons under WMD is a conceptual nightmare. for example, when has mass destruction been demonstrated with biological weapons? missile delivery seems problematic. similar problems with chemical weapons. how many people can be killed with an existing chemical weapon? is it different from a conventional explosive in terms of destructive power?

3) the term is emotionally loaded in the wrong way. instead of inspiring fear of these weapons, which I would count as a good thing, the emotional baggage is all about bad intelligence, possible lying, and an error in judgement that led to a war being started on false premises.

I think the term is best buried for 50 years or so. Wcmead3 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of term in JFK's televised speech of 1962-10-22

As he revealed the Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy made reference early on to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction", but whose usage informed his use of that terminology is unclear. knoodelhed (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Was the phrase already widespread after first use in 1946?

I only ask because in an pamphlet on Film Music published in 1947, The Need for Competent Film Music Criticism, the musician, critic and broadcaster Hans Keller used the phrase 'film music is capable of becoming a weapon of musical mass destruction', which can hardly be a coincidence. Cenedi (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weapon_of_mass_destruction"