Talk:Nuclear terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

Removed statements about use of nuclear weapons during WWII as possible acts of terrorism. These statements violate Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Cite Sources and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. The use of nuclear weapons during a declared war by uniformed military under orders from top government authority is not terrorism. At most, it may be considered a possible war crime, but even that is doubtful.

I just have an honest question about this: "Others believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute such an act." First, I'm not positive I agree with that statement because a declared state of war existed between Japan and the United States, but I can accept it IF someone can point to some sources where people are stating that they believe the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be nuclear terrorism. I would then support changing "others" to "sources" in the statement. --ABQCat 00:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I don't know what the article's author had in mind because I didn't write it, but I think the origin of this statement lie in the serious problem of defining the word "terrorist" in a neutral apolitical fashion that would be of practical use when deciding how the international community should respond. The best suggestion so far, IMHO, was made by the Indian government which said it would simply be "any act of violence that contravenes the Geneva Convention". Technically, I think but I'm not sure, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be arguably said to contravene the convention because they were deliberate attacks on civilian areas of little military significance. The same "terrorism" label is sometimes also applied to the deliberate British bombing of civilian areas in Germany (especially the city of Dresden) as ordered by the famous Royal Air Force officer "Bomber" Harris. Bomber Harris' actions have actually been a great source of controversy in Britain over the past couple of decades, with many now of the opinion that they should never have happened and should be classed as war crimes because Harris' conscious and stated strategy was to end the war by deliberately killing as many German civilians as possible in order to break their morale. Deliberate indiscriminate mass killing of civilians in order to break morale is, in many people's eyes, also a definition of a terrorist act. I assume the phrase about Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the article is meant to refer to similar discussions about the morality and legality of using the atomic bombs on those cities.

Request for addition to article[edit]

I was watching the New Hampshire Debate on January 5, 2008, and the moderator Charles Gibson posed this question to the Democratic candidates, which has stuck in my mind ever since:

MR. GIBSON: "I want to get to another question, and it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city. I've read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there's a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years. Some estimates are higher: Graham Allison at Harvard says it's over 50 percent. Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind, and I want to put them to you here. On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?"

Here is a link to a transcript of the New Hampshire debate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

I think this question and its answers would be a good addition to the Nuclear Terrorism article. Also, info on the experts Mr. Gibson cites would be helpful. I dread the coming of this day he speaks of, not only because of the terrible attack itself (which will make Sept. 11th look silly), but of the terrible war of revenge that will inevitably follow. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Good comment. It is significant that all US presidential candidates consider this as a very real possibility. You are very welcome to add yourself this material to the article. Pleas be bold.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by Pro-US editors[edit]

Certain editors have first rewritten the sections on hiroshima and nagasaki with horrendous editorialising, and then deleted them outright. Due to the 3RR rule I can't do anything about this right now (but I will continue to reinsert the sections in question at a later date).

The view the these were acts of terrorism is quite prevelant and deserves attention, regardless of whether certian people wish to sweep them under the carpet. Damburger 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems no matter how much evidence I produce that people do hold that opinion, the pro-US crowd on here stick to blind denial. The section needs to stay as a contrary opinion. Regardless of whether it offends certain editors senses of nationalism. Damburger 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to start by actually producing evidence, and if, as you claim, "The view the these were acts of terrorism is quite prevelant", you should have no problem producing WP:RS that say this. What you have done so far is not even close. For example, the most recently added citation [1], does not call the acts nuclear terrorism, but rather asks a question 'So who was the terrorist here? The "allies" who used the ultimate atomic weapon -- or was it the Japanese, who had launched the Pearl Harbor terrorist attack on the United States and whose wartime invasion of Asia was notable for its brutal tactics?' - but does not answer it to say that it was the allies who are terrorists. Two other points I'll make to you: (1) Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. Your recent edit summary was abusive, and editors may be blocked for such behaviour (2) 3RR is not an entitlement. Making statements like "Due to the 3RR rule I can't do anything about this right now (but I will continue to reinsert the sections in question at a later date). " indicates an intention to continue edit warring, and will get you reported and blocked even if you do not technically violate 3RR. Isarig 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC) +
I have produced 4 links, after having the first 2 challenged on tenuous grounds. Its clear to me that no matter how much I produce you and your allies will never accept the presence of an opposing viewpoint in this article. The question you quote is a Rhetorical question, I suggest you familiarise yourself with the concept.
You produced 4 links. The first two were rightly rejected as they were not WP:RS. The next two do not say what you claim. The CommonDreams article calls Fort Benning the capital of Nuclear Terrorism, but that's unrelated to Hiroshima. It says bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was evil, but does not once say that Hiroshima was nuclear terrorism. The Asia Media article also does not say what you claim, as I have shown. It is indeed a rhetorical question - one that explictly calls one attack "terrorist" - the Japanese one. You have claimed that the view that it was Nuclear Terroism is quite prevelant - so you should have no problem producing WP:RS that actually say it. Isarig 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Given that the idea of a reputable source around here mainly revolves around being a representative of the mainstream US media, it is quite hard to find material that doesn't toe the American line. Nevertheless, I have found it, but have been met with constant vandalism of the article (deletion of the entire section, and thus the entire opposing view, is clearly vandalism). Damburger 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You are bot incorrect with regards to what makes a WP:RS, and misleading with regards to what your sources say. Isarig 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


And still there is no justification for deleting the entire section (beyond demonstrably false statements in the edit summary). How can I see this as anything other than vandalism if people refuse to discuss why they wish to remove this side of the argument from the article? I am deeply dissappointed at the level this has got to, with people trying to censor section and refusing to discuss the content at all. Damburger 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to somehow justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March. Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March were an attack and an atrocity perpetrated by the Japanese military against US and Allied soldiers, whereas the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were largely civilians. Pearl Harbor was a military base, and the city of Honolulu, which is within a few miles, was not attacked. This is comparing apples to oranges. Attacks against soldiers and the wholesale slaughter of civilians are not one and the same. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, as an American citizen, I can tell you there is much guilt in this country over the Japanese atomic bombings. Why else would there be such stone-faced denial? As an anti-nuclear activist, I run into it all the time. Yes, the Japanese conducted civilian atrocities as at Nanking and in Manchuria, yet it could not be said that the Allies were avenging the Chinese with our atomic bombs. Then, as now, unfortunately, the Chinese people were held in contempt and considered expendible. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We are making an encyclopedia here. This has nothing to do with "guilt" or "denials". It is generally accepted that war by governments is not terrorism. We are not making moral judgements here. I belive war is even worse than terrorism, but it is something different.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, in the sense that if you have a flag and a mandate from a sovereign government, it's a possible "war crime" as opposed to a terrorist act. I think about Sherman's March to the Sea for example. I did not call the atomic bombing of Japan a terrorist act. My entries above were in reference to Isarig's mentions of Pearl Harbor vs. Hiroshima in the above section. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed outline for major revision[edit]

Greetings everyone. I'm planning on making a major revision to the page, incorporating information on nuclear terrorism from a number of sources. I'll work from books ( Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism, Ferguson and Potter, Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism), papers ([2]), and official sources like the IAEA. I propose to outline it as such.

  1. Definition of nuclear terrorism, including links to Radiological Dispersal Devices (Dirty Bombs) and attacks on nuclear power plants.
  2. Incidents that might have been precursors to nuclear terrorism.
  3. Scholarship on nuclear terrorism.
    1. Early scholarship and how it has waxed and waned.
  4. Efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism.
    1. Proposals and official efforts.

Note if you think I'm missing anything--I plan to make this article about three times as long; see the above list for the extensive scholarship on the topic that this article hasn't even begun to mention. I will not get into the controversy about Hiroshima, though I may mention it toward the end. I would love input from anyone on these changes, which I plan to make next week.Mich112358 22:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as the controversy about Hiroshima is actually mentioned I'm happy. A lot of the editors are trying to purge any mention of it from the article.

I support this effort. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings though, I can't see them being actually purported as terrorism. Perhaps a note where it says "it has been suggested that the Hiroshima bombing was an instance of nuclear terrorism by *insert source*" because I think the commonly accepted position on that issue is that it was not terrorism for reasons already well stated.
My suggestion for the future direction of the article would be to very clearly point to articles that hit on the same issues such as Dirty bomb and default to those articles when appropriate.
Another thing, are there copyright tags that allow use of pictures straight from Homeland Security work like this [3] because I find them hilarious. theanphibian 03:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's be Honest[edit]

Whenever you hear a half-witted fuckwit from America bang on about the possibility of 'nuclear terrorism', it must surely be realised that they are probably 11 short of a dozen (I'm tempted to state more than this). The probability of someone making a *functioning* nuclear bomb and using that within a device on an American city is EXTREMELY unlikely. Yet the internet devotes several hundred thousand (nay, millions) of websites to this non-existent issue (non-existent in the reasonable sense that that a significant proportion of the world's population doesn't have enough nutritious food to feed itself, let alone - so nuclear weapons construction does seem to be off the cards for this portion of the human race).

Anyhow, the point that I have made is that US tax-payers shouldn't bother directing money towards preventing nuclear terrorism - because it's probably never going to happen.

Note : "Dirty bombs" don't really (or remotely) count as nuclear in any meaningful sense. If there was genuine concern about such devices - then why not ban almost every house-hold device containing anything remotely radioactive ('honey, the smoke detectors a potential threat to National Security'.....Jesus Christ....).

If making such a rant, please cite sources. Any information that you supposedly possess of the lack of danger of nuclear terrorism would be very useful for this article. Especially this assertion you make that a terrorist would have to build a bomb, rather than possibly just aquire one. Peoplesunionpro 20:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Insulting people in a political argument usually indicates a lack of intellectual confidence on the part of the person throwing the insults. It is also a fact that nuclear terrorism IS a major threat, although a minority of extreme Leftist are so lost in ideological thinking that they refuse to acknowledge it.

No one on the far-Left political end of the spectrum wanted to acknowledge the threat that Hitler to the free world either, until it was too late.

Ideology is a drug, the collapse of intellect into a pseudo-relious thought process-- And the denial of the threat of nuclear terrorism posted above is an excellent example of what ideology of any sort can do to intelligent people and their thought process.

It is revealing that the poster above starts by throwing personal insults-- and then ends by calling for some kind of orderly citation process in the article. This logical inconsitency-- (personal insults followed by a call for a reasoned debate)-- is a red flag that ideological thinking patterns have taken hold of this person.

Sean7phil (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sean7Phil: The posts above were by two different people. It's plain to see. The first post ends with, "Jesus Christ....)." The second poster is the more reasoned one. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of radioactive materials by Soviet block secret services[edit]

See European Journal of Radiology, volume 63, "Ionizing radiation in secret services’ conspirative actions", Pages 263-269, by H. Vogel, P. Lotz and B. Vogel

In 1957, the physicians of a US- Military hospital stated that the secret agent Nikolaj Khokhlov, who had deserted from the USSR to the USA, had been killed with radioactive thallium.

General Pacepa, who had deserted to the West in 1978, reported in his memoirs in 1987 [5], that radiating substances for killing purposes belonged to the weapon arsenal of the Bulgarian secret service. In spring of 1970, the department K, a small department in the counterintelligence, included radioactive substances obtained from the KGB, in its weapons arsenal. The action “Radu” was ordered, to apply these for the assassination of the former foreign minister Kiraly.

The investigations of the British and the German authorities suggest that Dimitri Kovtun brought the Polonium-210 from Moscow to London via Hamburg. He contaminated his ex-wife, his children, and their apartment when he stayed with them in Hamburg. The ex-wife and the children stayed for the measurements of the Polonium-210 in Asklepiosklinik St. Georg, Hamburg. The proof that the contamination occurred during this visit and not during a former one of Kovtun or by another person could be made by identifying Polonium-210 also on the documents of the registration office in Hamburg, where Kovtun went to extend his residence permit. Furthermore Polonium-210 traces were found in the airplanes, in which Kovtun had traveled.

The incident with Litvinenko has also attracted comparisons to the poisoning by radioactive thallium of KGB defector Nikolay Khokhlov and journalist Shchekochikhin of Novaya Gazeta. A comparisonwas also made with Roman Tsepov whowas responsible for personal protection of Anatoly Sobchak and Putin [7] and who died in Russia in 2004 from poisoning by an unknown radioactive substance [1]. Biophys 05:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And the big question to Biophys after all, where in this source Litvinenko's, Shchekochikhin's murders are described as act of nuclear terrorism? Create article "Poisoning with radioactive materials" and do what you want. Insertion of these cases in the article titled "Nuclear terrorism" is clear original research. La poet 05:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources provided.Biophys 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

radiological poisoning?[edit]

I don't see anything in the articles cited actually referring to the radiological poisoning incidents as "terrorism" or "nuclear terrorism" -- should that section be removed? csloat (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed this and other material that has no clear relationship to "nuclear terrorism." Another user reverted without comment. If this user thinks the material is relevant to this page, he or she should provide links to reliable sources explaining this connection, otherwise it is considered original research. csloat (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea that radiological poisoning could be utilised by terrorist groups as a tactic to assassinate government officials is valid. I have edited the article to make this clear, and emphasise that this has never actually occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.34.2 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Just what this article needs; more illegitimate original synthesis of ideas combined with rampant speculation. What would be really cool is if someone actually read some of the ubiquitous books and academic articles available on this topic and wrote about the ideas scholars actually publish about under this heading instead. csloat (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions and reverts[edit]

I can not discuss anything with the user who is making massive deletions of sourced text in this article per Arbcomm ruling. I suggested to avoid any conflicts with him by not editing any articles that have been edited earlier by another party, and I followed exactly this rule. This article has been edited earlier by me. So, I am going to continue work here, but I can not discuss any issues with him, as he is well aware.Biophys (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the rule you suggested has not been followed; I have been on this article and on Terrorism and similar topics long before you got here. If you can't discuss your reversions, you are simply being disruptive -- I have discussed each of my changes in the edit summaries and above. I would prefer to stay out of conversations with you as well, but you cannot make disruptive edits and declare that you won't even defend them. Reverting my edits on principle just because you don't like me is exactly the kind of behavior that the Arbcom ruling was meant to prevent. Refusing to discuss your revert-warring only compounds the violation. csloat (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Biophys, for reverting massive deletions of sourced material by User:Commodore Sloat. I will make the reversion again... Johnfos (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry; the material is sourced, but it has nothing to do with this page, as I explained clearly. The connection to nuclear terrorism needs to be explained, with reference to reliable sources. Can you explain what the connection is, if Biophys refuses to? It seems like original research to me. It is sad, too, because this is a topic with several books written about it and scores of interesting academic articles; yet the Wikipedia article is awful -- much of it taken up with half-baked conspiracy fantasies from the likes of Lunev that don't even mention nuclear terrorism! And yet there's not even a reasonable definition of the topic on here. Also, what about your other edits -- you have deleted an entire section with sources about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and you have re-introduced an embarrassing grammatical error that I tried to remove. Do you stand behind these edits as well? Can you explain your edits please, or is this just a matter of agreeing with your friends on Wikipedia in order to outnumber anyone else who tries to change the article? It is disconcerting. csloat (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem upset, and are raising a lot of issues at once. And you have made many edits at once which has confused things. I wonder if we can focus first on the section relating to Stanislav Lunev, which you deleted. Exactly what is the problem with this:—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfos (talkcontribs)

Allegations of preparations to nuclear sabotage[edit]

The highest-ranking GRU defector Stanislav Lunev described alleged Soviet plans for using tactical nuclear weapons for sabotage against the United states in the event of war. He described Soviet-made suitcase nukes identified as RA-115s (or RA-115-01s for submersible weapons) which weigh from fifty to sixty pounds. These portable bombs can last for many years if wired to an electric source. “In case there is a loss of power, there is a battery backup. If the battery runs low, the weapon has a transmitter that sends a coded message – either by satellite or directly to a GRU post at a Russian embassy or consulate.” [1].

Lunev was personally looking for hiding places for weapons caches in the Shenandoah Valley area. [1] He said that "it is surprisingly easy to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US" ether across the Mexican border or using a small transport missile that can slip undetected when launched from a Russian airplane [1] US Congressman Curt Weldon supported claims by Lunev, but "Weldon said later the FBI discredited Lunev, saying that he exaggerated things." [2] Searches of the areas identified by Lunev - who admits he never planted any weapons in the US - have been conducted, "but law-enforcement officials have never found such weapons caches, with or without portable nuclear weapons."[3]

OK, great -- where in the above do you see the phrase "nuclear terrorism"? Or the word "terrorism" at all? If this is the only one of your edits you will defend, can you please revert the other edits you made? And if you want to keep this section in the article until the dispute is resolved, can you please revert the title as I suggested in this edit?

By the way, I am not "raising a lot of issues at once" as you wrote. I made every single edit independently with a brief explanation of each one. Did you even bother to read my edit summaries, which clearly explained every single edit including the deletion of the above? Or did you just do a wholesale revert of all my edits without a word of explanation? csloat (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette Johnfos (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Johnfos. I have a cool head, but thank you for your advice. Please respond to the arguments below, and please do not use admonitions like "keep a cool head" as a way of dispensing with the discussion. You made significant edits to the article that you seem unwilling to defend. It would be great if you could show some good faith about those edits and either defend them or revert yourself. Thank you, and have an excellent day. csloat (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In reply to Johnfos, I must tell that one of cited sources includes the following (first paragraph): "The leading congressional expert on Russia's small portable nuclear weapons told United Press International that the FBI has stepped up its investigation of whether al Qaida or other terrorist groups have acquired these deadly devices from Russian stockpiles." So this text is definitely about terrorrism - per source. Besides, the difference between the sabotage and terrorism is not clear cut.Biophys (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually the difference is clear cut enough to have separate articles on both concepts that don't even refer to each other. But that is not the issue -- the quote you refer to is not actually in the text that we are discussing. I don't have a problem with a quote about FBI investigations into al Qaeda acquiring nukes from Moscow for attacks on the US. But that really isn't what the Lunev material talks about at all. You do see that, right? csloat (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

csloat's suggested changes[edit]

Since I have been accused of making a lot of edits at once and "confusing things," I offer the list below of every single edit I made on this page that has been wholesale reverted by User:Johnfos without a word of explanation:

(1) this edit removes the section on "radiological poisoning" because, as I pointed out months ago, it has nothing to do with "nuclear terrorism." Unless we have a reliable source reporting on these acts as cases of nuclear terrorism, for us to do so is original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia.

(2) This change fixed an embarrassing grammatical error. I assume Johnfos and Biophys are in favor of good grammar; why are they reverting this?

(3) This edit added a cn tag where a citation was needed, and deleted the editorializing (which was also unsourced).

(4) This edit changed the title of the Lunev section to more accurately reflect that it represents one man's theories.

(5) Removed entirely a section about private ownership of nuclear weapons. This article is not about private ownership of nuclear weapons, is it? I don't see any comments in this section relating such ownership to terrorism.

(6) This edit is explained above - I deleted the Lunev section entirely because it is not talking about nuclear terrorism. This seems to be the only edit that Johnfos wants to defend, I would be happy to leave that section in the article with the modified heading pending the addition of some reliable source directly relating Lunev's theories to "nuclear terrorism."

(7) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nuclear_terrorism&diff=212237922&oldid=212236423 this edit does two things -- first, I re-deleted the section on "radiological poisoning" because another user had replaced it after I deleted it the first time; second, I added a section on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that has four separate sources each calling them "nuclear terrorism." Johnfos has yet to explain why he is deleting well-sourced content that is actually directly relevant to this page.

I think that explains every edit, Johnfos -- please show a bit of good faith and revert yourself, at least on the items above that you are not willing to defend. Thank you. csloat (talk) 07:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Csloat's arguments are reasoned, well-explained, and compelling. They are worthy of consideration. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
65.248.164.214, I have provided the source which explains why Lunev section is about the terrorism. An intentional radiological poisoning is a variety the nuclear terrorism per International conventions, as described and sourced in the beginning of this article. It is generally accepted that war =/=terrorism. Hence the deletion of "Hiroshima" section by Johnfos.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Biophys can you name the specific source and quote from it or provide us a link? That would be a huge help to this discussion. As for the Hiroshima section, we have at least 4 sources specifically calling that "nuclear terrorism"; so far we have not a single one using the phrase with reference to the Lunev fantasies. Are you agreeing with the rest of the arguments above and simply defending those two edits? Thanks for your input; I appreciate it. csloat (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This ref from the article.Biophys (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That article mentions both nuclear terrorism and Lunev, but does not connect the two. As I said above, I have no problem with including information about FBI investigations into nuclear terrorism, or about the possibility of al Qaeda getting nukes from Russian or other sources. But that is not the information you are clamoring to add to the article. So can we agree to add the relevant information and leave out the Lunev stuff? Thank you! csloat (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Compromise version[edit]

Thank you Biophys for your compromise version -- I think it looks very good... Johnfos (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not a compromise version at all! It keeps in all of the WP:NOR violations and problems I outlined above. Can you guys please address the arguments above rather than just ganging up on a revert war? Thanks. csloat (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Johnfos! I agree with you that best way to handle such disputes is to include all sourced views on the subject of the article. That is required by WP:NPOV policy. With regard to any specific points, please see my comments above.Biophys (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Biophys -- let us include "all sourced views on the subject of the article." The material you are adding is not on the subject of "nuclear terrorism." If you find a reliable source indicating some of the material is, please let us know what that source is, and we can help you craft a paragraph that doesn't violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. Thanks! csloat (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

how about a section on Russian nukes[edit]

If you guys are willing to consider an actual compromise, how about a section discussing the hypothetical possibility of terrorists accessing the Russian nuclear stockpile -- this is an actual topic that experts on nuclear terrorism have discussed in reliable sources, unlike the Lunev fabrications or the radiological poisoning of individuals. The Economist for Nov 1 2001 comments, for example, on reports from the Russian Defence Ministry on at least two incidents where terrorists tried to break into the Russian nuclear storage sites. This is far more relevant to the article than Lunev's hypothetical nukes in the Shenandoah Valley. All I'm asking here is that sections in the article -- whether about Russia or any other country -- are specifically about "nuclear terrorism" rather than threats or incidents that don't actually involve terrorism, terrorists, or nuclear terrorism. The use of radioactive agents to poison a journalist, for example, is horrific, but it is not nuclear terrorism. I hope this helps. csloat (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if a person unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”, according to International conventions.[4].Biophys (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Please find a citation specifically stating that radiological poisoning of a single journalist by a state has anything to do with "nuclear terrorism." Also, it would help if you would respond to the above compromise suggestion rather than raising a new and completely unrelated point. Thanks! csloat (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
According to medical experts, "Litvinenko’s murder represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism."[5][6] [7].
  1. ^ a b c Stanislav Lunev. Through the Eyes of the Enemy: The Autobiography of Stanislav Lunev, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0-89526-390-4.
  2. ^ Nicholas Horrock, "FBI focusing on portable nuke threat", UPI (20 December 2001).
  3. ^ Steve Goldstein and Chris Mondics, "Some Weldon-backed allegations unconfirmed; Among them: A plot to crash planes into a reactor, and missing suitcase-size Soviet atomic weapons." Philadelphia Inquirer (15 March 2006) A7.
  4. ^ International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism
  5. ^ "Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, p.953-954, 2007.
  6. ^ "Beyond the Dirty Bomb: Re-thinking Radiological Terror", by James M. Acton; M. Brooke Rogers; Peter D. Zimmerman, DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564760, Survival, Volume 49, Issue 3 September 2007, pages 151 - 168
  7. ^ Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation

Biophys (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No one has been convicted or charged with the murder of Litvinenko. There are still very credible theories that he was part of a nuclear material smuggling ring and that he was accidentally poisoned. There is no solid evidence that it was an assassination at all. Interestingly, it's you who keeps deleting those theories from his "assassination" article. I can't help but wonder why. Please gain consensus before making controversial changes. Krawndawg (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This is very simple. Scholarly sources that I cited (articles in scientific journals) claim his assassination to be "nuclear terrorism".Biophys (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I concede that the quote that directly mentions it as "nuclear terrorism" can be quoted if accurate - thank you for finding that Biophys. But I don't see the need for any of the rest of the heavily disputed nonsense that is being added about Soviet nuclear sabotage and about "private" nuclear weapons -- why not stick to the stuff that is actually discussed in the many books and articles by scholars that are actually about nuclear terrorism? Filling wikipedia with this tangential junk just so certain editors can soapbox is really destructive to the project. csloat (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
"There is no solid evidence that it was an assassination at all" Says who? There's ben a lot of evidence. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Everyone is welcome to include more sourced information about nuclear terrorism. No one objects. The claims about portable nuclear weapons and privately owned nuclear weapons are sourced to published books, such as Comrade J by Pete Earley. These are reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that the stuff you are adding has nothing to do with nuclear terrorism. The quote about nuclear terrorism above does not at all appear in the text you are adding. If you would like to add that comment (and not the other stuff) please do and you won't be reverted. Thanks. csloat (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

OK Johnfos please explain this edit. Your summary claims that "The text is about nuclear terrorism per sources," but there is only one citation that you have added that says anything about nuclear terrorism. I am fine with leaveing that citation but the rest has to go. Perhaps you can expand the one citation with a quote from it, but the rest doesn't belong here. Agreed? csloat (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

new edit wars?[edit]

I'm not going to join these new edit wars but can someone please explain what the hell these things have to do with "nuclear terrorism"? I've actually read many books about nuclear terrorism and have yet to see any of these things mentioned. You need to provide a direct quote that uses the phrase "nuclear terrorism" to describe "radiological poisoning" or Lunev's ridiculous fantasies about Russians planting nukes in the Shenandoah Valley. One user has even added material that is particularly abusive of WP:OR as it doesn't even mention nuclear weapons at all. It's kind of silly when in fact there are many experts writing about nuclear terrorism and defining it clearly and using it appropriately, yet the Wikipedia article by this name simply rolls off into fantasy land with a bizarre fringe conspiracy theory and with reference to unconnected things such as the horrific poisoning of journalists by the Russians. If you are on a campaign to redefine nuclear terrorism for scholars please do so in an appropriate forum such as a published academic article, rather than on an encyclopedia. I strongly suggest everyone here review WP:SYN before making any further edits to the page. I will be adding the "totally disputed" tags to the relevant sections; please do not remove them until this is resolved. I may also start an RfC on this to bring more attention to this page. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If something is missing ("I've actually read many books about nuclear terrorism and have yet to see any of these things mentioned.") everyone is welcome to add more sourced materials on this subject, just as other contributors did.Biophys (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes of course -- that's not the question raised above. csloat (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Note: After I posted the below RfC, a user added some information that addresses my point #1 above. I think this is exactly the kind of evidence we need to include such things in the article. I propose that that section be pared down, including only the information directly linking this incident to nuclear terrorism. Any objections? csloat (talk) 06:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Information about potential transport of tactical nuclear weapons to US, allegedly to assassinate US leader (according to Lunev) belongs here. A notion that something should be included in article ABC only if it was called precisely "ABC" in a source is completely groundless. It is enough that it fits definition of "ABC". One can include information about a sparrow in article Birds even if sparrow was not called a "bird" in a source.Biophys (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that is precisely what is prohibited per WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said already, there is no consensus to remove these materials.Biophys (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact, there is clear consensus. Every single response to the RfC that addressed the specific issue of this material agreed it should be removed. Shall we file another RfC or do you think we can remove it now? csloat (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should this page include material that does not mention "nuclear terrorism"?[edit]

(Neutral statement of dispute): There are currently three sections in the article -- here, here, and here, that do not discuss or even mention "nuclear terrorism" per se. The question is whether this page should include such material.

(Advocacy of removal by csloat): I filed an RfC because I don't think these sections belong here; my explanation is below:

  • The first one discusses the radiological poisoning of a journalist by the Russian government. There are no quotes or information explaining how this is "nuclear terrorism," and indeed, while the use of radiological material may loosely fit the definition of "nuclear," it was not carried out by a terrorist group but rather by a legitimate government. But even if it were, I believe we need a specific piece of evidence showing that this is recognized as "nuclear terrorism" by some experts or by the media. If we can find such evidence, I think a sentence would do the trick rather than an entire section, but it really depends how common such mentions are or how extensive the discussion in reliable sources is.
  • The second discusses "allegations of preparations to nuclear sabotage." Again, the phrase "nuclear terrorism" appears nowhere in the section, and it takes the reader making logical connections from one point to another to even consider this "nuclear terrorism." The connections may be accurate but if they are not made in reliable sources, Wikipedia is guilty of synthesizing research in an original way. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. More problematically, the section gives a lot of space to extreme fringe views of a Russian defector, views that are in fact quite ludicrous on their face. Does anyone really believe the Russians planted nuclear weapons in the Shenandoah Valley?! Certainly this claim got very little press at the time it was made, and it was mostly of the "gosh what a kook!" variety.
  • Finally, there is a section on "private ownership of nukes" and mentions a pretty bizarre claim by a businessman that he owns a nuclear weapon. No evidence is presented that the guy is a terrorist or that the claim is notable in any way. Again, the phrase "nuclear terrorism" is never used, and it is never even implied that the guy is planning to sell his nuke to a terrorist group or whatever. This may be interesting information but there must be a better place for it than here.

Ultimately, while each section has different problems, the common element is original research. When the reader (or the Wikipedia editor) has to connect facts to the topic of the article themselves, without the connection being made in reliable sources, we are in danger of synthesizing published material ourselves and thus creating an original essay out of a Wikipedia article. I also find soapboxing issues involved; all of these sections seem to have been created in order to focus on Russian military issues rather than on nuclear terrorism per se.

Thank you for taking the time to look at these issues. csloat (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Think it would not be NPOV to proceed on the assumption that actions and policies of goverments cannot be considered "terrorism". I make to specific comment on the example cited in relation to the Russian government, but governments in general are perfectly capable of terrorism. --FormerIP (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, but just to clarify, I wasn't saying that government actions cannot be considered "terrorism." But they are not usually considered "terrorism" and I believe we must have a reliable source that calls it "terrorism" in order for Wikipedia to call it "terrorism." Does that make sense? csloat (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that does make sense. As long as we apply the same standard to non-governmental terrorism and we are careful that our choice of sources is not prejudicial in this respect. We should, in general, not play fast and loose with the definition, but also not summarily dismiss non-mainstream sources, other than self-published ones. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that sections should be removed if no sources support the definition of nuclear terrorism. The first section has been sourced. The second section concerns possible plans for sabotage at wartime, which does not necessarily make it an act of terrorism rather than an act of war. Although sourced, the source does not support the assertion that this was "nuclear terrorism". The third section does not seem to be terrorism of any sort, and so it is unlikely that a source can be found. The second and third sections in question should be deleted. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
People, who are you? One of you reminds me Giovanni33 [4][5]. One section is about "Nuclear sabotage". Do you suggest to create a separate article about this? Do you suggest to move another section (about privately owned nuclear weapons) to nuclear proliferation? Biophys (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it should simply be deleted. It's a non-notable conspiracy theory. But if you must have it somewhere on Wikipedia, how about a page on Lunev? Looks like the material is already there. The privately owned nukes stuff might make sense on nuclear proliferation, I don't know, but you will probably need to show notability there as well. csloat (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, I removed last section as a compromise. Once again, everyone is free to add more materials to NPOV.Biophys (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
A good start; now we need to remove the "sabotage" section and of course pare down the section on "radiological assassination" so that only the relevant material is there. Thank you. csloat (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Please behave with courtesy to other users. I suggest removing anything from the page that is not about nuclear terrorism. Sabotage is not equivalent to terrorism, and there are no sources to suggest it is. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The prospect of private ownership of a nuclear weapon- if it can be substaniated with a relaible source is definitely worth inclusion in this article. It is totally significant in that it would be a non-state actor in possesion of massive destructive potential. Terrorists are terrorists for planning an attack but not committing it. While there is no pre-existing and agreed upon term for someone who personally possesses a nuclear weapon and has not yet used it, it is only logical to put it in this article. If he as an individual were to use it, you wouldn't call it an act of war or self-defense. Of course if there is no reliale source for this, then it is all moot.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, one, there is no reliable source, but two, if there is no source that calls it "nuclear terrorism," we cannot call it that ourselves. The source quoted stated that a "businessman" may have a nuke. Are all businessmen considered terrorists now? Or just the ones who may own nukes? What about those who own other weapons often used by terrorists (e.g. assault rifles)? But I think there are a host of problems with Wikipedia assuming that private ownership of nukes = "nuclear terrorism"; for one, WP:NOR, for another, there appears to be no evidence that "private ownership" of nukes even equates to intent to use or threaten to use such nukes. Now, if we have evidence that an individual actually did use or threaten to use such a weapon, that would be different, but I suspect we would have heard about that. csloat (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with Elmmapleoakpine. Yes, the claim has been sourced to a reliable source. Of course, this is only a claim. However, this specific claim has never been disputed. If it was disputed, please provide the supporting sources.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please show the direct quotation from the reliable source that makes this claim and calls it "nuclear terrorism." I must have missed that. csloat (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

do we need more RfC?[edit]

Thanks to those who participated in the RfC so far. I propose the following changes to conclude this:

  • The section on "nuclear sabotage" be eliminated per the above discussion
  • The section on "radiological assassinations" be eliminated, and the one sentence that actually discusses "nuclear terrorism" be moved to the section on "Radiological weapons." The sentence is "the murder of Litvinenko with radioactive polonium "represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism", according to medical experts."" I think the material afterward about poisonings in 1957 and 2003 should be removed as they don't call it "nuclear terrorism" and in fact they contradict the claim that the Litvinenko poisoning ushered in some kind of "era of nuclear terrorism."

Any objections to these changes?csloat (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You suggested to eliminate two sections. Now we need a poll, because the opinions above were quite unclear.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Just to be clear; the suggestion is to eliminate the "nuclear sabotage" section and to merge the "radiological assassination" section with "radiological weapons" and to delete the material that is not actually about "nuclear terrorism." csloat (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


  • Opposed because both claims are perfectly sourced and related to nuclear terrorism.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support removal of everything that does not mention "nuclear terrorism." As established above, this article is about "nuclear terrorism" and if we cannot find a source making that link, we are engaged in original research. csloat (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support POV fork and POV pushing of specific Litvinenko assasination theory. Has nothing to do with nuclear terrorism. Opinion of Lunev is not notable and famous. Vlad fedorov (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


Are there any further objections to moving ahead with the above proposal per consensus? csloat (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

private ownership[edit]

You know, this is getting ridiculous. After agreement emerged that material that doesn't mention "nuclear terrorism" should be deleted, a user removed the section on "private ownership" in what he said was a "compromise." Then, after I tried to sum up the remaining issues left to discuss, he reverted himself, restoring the original research to the article. Let me make this very clear -- I don't think there's any doubt that this section must be deleted. It never once mentions terrorism, nuclear terrorism, or even implies it. Most of the paragraph is about some bizarre scheme to blow up an island full of chemical waste. The only tangentially relevant part is this "businessman" who claims to keep a nuclear weapon in his house. The source rightly considers the businessman "insane," yet we print as notable his response, that "anyone" can buy a nuclear weapon at these bargain basement prices, and that "It's no big deal really." What the heck does any of this have to do with nuclear terrorism? If it's easy to buy a nuke in Russia, surely we can cite an expert on nuclear terrorism actually making the connection. But some businessman bragging about having a nuke mounted over his fireplace is just not relevant here at all. csloat (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to me following through with the recommendations here based on the consensus of responses to the RfC? I'll give it a day or two before I implement the above suggestions. csloat (talk) 06:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no consensus whatsoever.Biophys (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is - everyone voiced opinion for removing the material that does not mention "nuclear terrorism" except for you. There was one comment that seemed to be in favor of keeping the "private ownership" section if it was properly sourced, but as I indicated it is not, so we can't count that as a vote either way until he responds to my comment. So far the only voice clearly in favor of keeping this material is Biophys (talk · contribs), who has so far absolutely refused to respond to the arguments concerning relevance and concerning WP:SYN. Again, these are interesting points but they do not seem to have to do with "nuclear terrorism" per se and thus do not belong here. csloat (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for removing that material, Biophys. However, there is even more clear consensus on removing the other material. Again, this page should be about "nuclear terrorism," not about fringe accusations and/or fantasies about "sabotage." csloat (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

one more item[edit]

First, thanks to everyone who participated in the RfC. I've made the changes that seem most appropriate to consensus - anything that is not to do with "nuclear terrorism" is out as original synthesis, and I've added the Litvenko murder to the appropriate section. There is one other sentence that I think should be moved however: "60 Minutes reported that in November 2007, burglars with unknown intentions infiltrated the Pelindaba nuclear research facility near Pretoria, South Africa. The burglars escaped without acquiring any of the weapon-grade Uranium held at the facility." My suggestion is to move this to the section on recovering lost nuclear material. Any objections? csloat (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on disputed material[edit]

Statement of dispute: This is the second RfC on this; the issue is whether material that says nothing about "nuclear terrorism" -- specifically, large sections on "radiological assassination" and "sabotage" -- should be included on this page which is ostensibly about nuclear terrorism. Everyone who has commented so far except for one editor has agreed that material that isn't explicitly about nuclear terrorism should not be on this page. I maintain that the connection between these two sections and nuclear terrorism as asserted by User:Biophys is a form of original research because he is synthesizing sources that do not mention nuclear terrorism in order to make the link to nuclear terrorism. The only item that actually mentions it is a single sentence on the "assassinations" section. This diff shows the difference between the two versions -- the one I support, on the right, and the one Biophys supports on the left. I believe it is fair to say that my version gained consensus on the first go-round of this RfC -- above, the users AtSwimTwoBirds, FormerIP and Vlad fedorov have all made it clear that they think the original research does not belong on the page. Biophys reverted my change, however, with only the explanation "there is no consensus to remove." Now, it was pretty clear to me there is consensus but I would like to see if I am missing something here. So could some outside voices please make clear what you think about these changes? Are there any good reasons to keep the original research in the page?

(Please note that in the version I support, I did not delete the one relevant quote on Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning. In fact, Biophys' version carries the same exact quotation twice.) csloat (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In general I agree with the idea that sources should specifically describe something as part of a given phenomenon for it to be described in an article of that title. If the sources don't describe it that way, adding the information likely involves problems of due weight, even if it doesn't count as original research. Born Gay (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand the concern about no sources describing the assasination as nuclear terrorism and applying the policy of no original research to this matter. However, I think there is some logic to appy here in the form of this question? When someone is murdered for political reasons using nuclear material by a government that is out to supress disent, what do you call it? Both the government of Iran and Osama Bin Laden used proxies to carry out a variety of deadly acts against groups and idividuals. They are both labeled as terrorism. For a reader of wikipedia to get a better idea of how terror is committed via the use of nuclear material, one could argue that matter of Alexander Litvinenko could be relevant. Most of nuclear terrorism has not happened and is discussed most often as a possible threat. A possible threat is for massive numbers of people to be poisoned in the same fashion as Alexander Litvinenko. I think it is relevant and should at least be alluded to in this article. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we can do that without a huge section on it -- the version of the page I support includes mention of it with the specific quote that calls it "nuclear terrorism." Anything more is original research and undue weight, in my opinion. csloat (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't agree. Litvinenko case is not closed, there are no court sentences, no convicts. There is no subject to write about. Only hearsays, conspiracy theories, etc. We may have an article of one crazy men calling Litvinenko incident terrorism. So what? Is it notable? Is it popular? It is a personal, objective opinion of specific person. There is no authoritative conclusions on that. If state is convicted - there must be a judgement or a document adopted by the international state organization, such as UN Security Council, OSCE, or International Court of Justice. Possible, deemed, alleged - are not the words that describe facts. Try to write about "alleged Wikipedia", for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.149.190.145 (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. POV fork from Litvinenko assasination theories which is given undue weight and posted here as a section without any citing of other theories! Original research in addition! Vlad fedorov (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and make the changes as mandated by WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. I am leaving the Litvinenko material in as per the comments by Elmmapleoakpine, but there is no reason for it to be in twice. Thanks to all who participated in the RfC. csloat (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Note - this RfC was closed and I made the relevant edits about 2 weeks ago; today, Biophys started edit warring against consensus on this, restoring the disputed material (including quotes that are already in other parts of the article, indicating his unwillingness to even read the article he is editing). I have reported this dispute on AN/I; hopefully an admin can help us resolve this issue. csloat (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiological assassination seems like an encyclopedic subject, but I wonder if this is the correct name? Only one book uses this phrase. As such, it may not be notable enough to warrant its own article - which leaves a mention here and/or in some other article (perhaps something on rare assassinations techniques?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Under assassination techniques it makes sense. It is already mentioned here under "Alleged nuclear terrorism attempts and plans." People can click the link for further details. But there is no reason to have a separate section about it here, since none of the other information that was being added actually mentions "nuclear terrorism." csloat (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

legal definition?[edit]

The lede states "In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if a person unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”, according to International conventions.[2]" The citation leads nowhere. I'll replace it with a CN tag for now but does anyone have the original citation on the missing pdf file? csloat (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There is another link with this definition.Biophys (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Where's the definition in that link? csloat (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the below is what you're calling the "definition" - I don't see how we can pull only that part out and say it is a definition of "nuclear terrorism," when (1) the source never calls it a "definition" and (2) that clause is one of many that constitute a violation under the law cited; why pull out that clause and not the others? There may not be an easy way to summarize all this but there might be a better place to find a legal definition. csloat (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I've quoted a bit longer passage - it was a too big manipulation to miss out the rest of that subsection. Probably the whole article 3 should be quoted (even if it's a-page long). Lampak (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

below is quoted from the source[edit]

1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person unlawfully and intentionally:

   1. Possesses radioactive material or makes or possesses a device:

         1. With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or

         2. With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; 

   2. Uses in any way radioactive material or a device, or uses or damages a nuclear facility in a manner which releases or risks the release of radioactive material:

         1. With the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury; or

         2. With the intent to cause substantial damage to property or to the environment; or

         3. With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act. 

2. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

   1. Threatens, under circumstances which indicate the credibility of the threat, to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 (b) of the present article; or

   2. Demands unlawfully and intentionally radioactive material, a device or a nuclear facility by threat, under circumstances which indicate the credibility of the threat, or by use of force. 

3. Any person also commits an offence if that person attempts to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article.

4. Any person also commits an offence if that person:

   1. Participates as an accomplice in an offence as set forth in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of the present article; or

   2. Organizes or directs others to commit an offence as set forth in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of the present article; or

   3. In any other way contributes to the commission of one or more offences as set forth in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of the present article by a group of persons acting with a common purpose; such contribution shall be intentional and either be made with the aim of furthering the general criminal activity or purpose of the group or be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the offence or offences concerned.

Pakistan[edit]

disruptive editing[edit]

Look Biophys, we did an RfC, the consensus was to delete material that didn't mention nuclear terrorism. You continued to edit war, so we did another RfC, and reached the same consensus. So far every editor who has actually commented on this issue has agreed that this material does not belong on this page. You haven't even bothered to read the page yourself and update the material to take into account other material on the page (in fact, your version STILL includes two copies of the same quotation). I can't see how you are helping at all here -- your edits are just being disruptive. If you are unable to contribute to the conversation meaningfully, please stop the revert warring. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I can not respond because of this ArbCom decision [6].Biophys (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Then stop adding material that is opposed by consensus. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I did not do it.Biophys (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I apologize for my error; it sure looked to me like you made this edit and this edit, but if you didn't make those edits, and you don't make those edits in the future, there shouldn't be a problem. csloat (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
There was no consensus to remove sourced materials that I restored. Biophys (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes there was; there were not one but TWO RfCs establishing this consensus. If you think consensus has changed, please start another RfC. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Two votes against one is not consensus. Both votes were made by people who previously have been involved in ArbCom proceedings against me, and one of them banned for one year. One need some uninvolved users who would vote on the subject to claim consensus.Biophys (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Three, and now four. Dynablaster (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I count at least six against you, now seven if we include Dynablaster. csloat (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Radiological assassinations[edit]

What was the reason for removing "Radiological assassinations" [7]?

The text tells: "A politically motivated assassinations using radiological agents are considered nuclear terrorism according to International agreements[2]. For example, the murder of Litvinenko with radioactive polonium "represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism", according to medical experts[12][13][1]. Other similar cases include poisoning of Nikolai Khokhlov by radioactive thallium poisoning in Frankfurt in 1957 by KGB[14] and death of Yuri Shchekochikhin on July 3, 2003 in Moscow [15][16]." What's wrong with it? Biophys (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That material is already in the article. This has been explained several times; there really is no reason for the same quotation to be in any article twice. csloat (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"Nuclear 9/11"[edit]

I've removed that label from the article because it is a very imprecise term, and the stuff under that heading talked about 2 totally different things -- the Obama strategy to deal with nuclear terrorism, and the threat emanating from Pakistan. Both are appropriate topics for this article, but there is no need to characterize them as part of the same topic, especially a vague and sensationalistic term that is only occasionally used in the media. I will add that the article on "nuclear 9/11" was appropriately deleted months ago, but the user who added this section here also re-created that article unilaterally after it had been deleted by consensus. User:Johnfos has been warned and asked not to do it again. csloat (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

'Obama administration' section[edit]

I think that the content of the 'Obama administration' section should be integrated into other sections of the article and/or removed. Only one of the two sentences in the section pertains directly to the Obama administration, and the one that does is not especially significant in the context of this article.

The first sentence of the section reads:

Nuclear weapons materials on the black market are a global concern,[11][12] and there is concern about the possible detonation of a small, crude nuclear weapon by a terrorist group, in a major U.S. city, with significant loss of life and property.[13][14]

This sentence is not directly relevant to the Obama administration, and it is not even especially relevant to the United States. Black market radiological weapons are a "global concern" (emphasis added) and worry about the possibility of nuclear terrorism against a major population center is not limited to the United States. I think that this sentence could be generalized and relocated to the end of the 'Radiological weapons' section.

The second sentence reads:

The Obama administration says they will focus on reducing the risk of such nuclear threats and aims to strengthen homeland nuclear security.".[15]

While this is directly relevant to the Obama administration, it is a fairly generic statement and does not seem to be particularly significant. Surely every government, when posed with a question about nuclear terrorism, declares that it will work to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism and strength national counter-terrorism efforts. Information about specific initiatives undertaken to reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism might be significant, but a general statement of intentions does not appear to be. I would not object to the sentence being kept in the article if there was another place for it, but I think that the sentence should simply be removed.

Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It also doesn't make any sense. We don't have sections on the Bush Administration or the Eisenhower Administration. I think the whole organization here needs rethinking; people have just added random stuff whenever they came across it so I don't think it's ever been thought out how to organize this. After "History," none of the sections make logical sense. csloat (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that your characterization of this section (and content in a few others) as "random stuff" is completely on-target. The article does not, as you note, have sections on any other US administration or on governments of other countries. Likewise, even though Pakistan is one of many countries that possess radiological material, it is the only country to which a separate section is dedicated.
For the moment, I have gone ahead and removed the 'Obama administration' section as per above—moving the first sentence to the section 'Radiological weapons' (not ideal, but at least it preserves the sources for now) to another section and removing the second sentence. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Hollywood fantasy, not helped by exaggeration and scaremongering[edit]

Professor John Mueller of Ohio State University, published an assessment of the possibility of terrorists obtaining fissile material and successfully manufacturing a nuclear weapon,* and in his book Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda he argues that:**

Anxieties about terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons are essentially baseless: a host of practical and organizational difficulties make their likelihood of success almost vanishingly small.

Furthermore it's 2013, those poorly educated fanatics {Al Qaeda} declared there would be a nuclear hellstorm 9000 two years ago in 2011. That was widely published, What happened guys? brutal reality get in the way of your imaginations? haha. Don't believe the hype, especially not from that ilk! Boundarylayer (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation redirect loop on #12[edit]

The North Caucasus terrorist threat to nuclear submarines is cited by this link which cited Simon Saradzhyan, “Russia: Grasping Reality of Nuclear Terror,” on page 30 as the source for the attack. In his article http://www.uk.sagepub.com/martin3study/articles/Saradzhyan.pdf he cited Gladkevich 2002 on page 5. He is or was an analyst with the Russian Military News agency given here he is also referred to as the AVN miltary news agency editor. As to his article in 2002 which Saradzhyan refers to, I cannot find any such article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoruweiNoMori (talkcontribs) 05:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)