Talk:Tectonic weapon

Untitled

Hi. I'm just passing by (I have never really collaborated to Wikipedia) but I just wanted to drop the abstract of an interesting document (in relation to this article). I'm posting this in the hope competent people critically analyze these documents and update this page with fresher sources. As I said, I'm just posting an abstract, but you'll be able to find many similar articles by looking up the author's name in google scholar.

Thank you

P.S : I don't myself really understand what this article say, I'm just posting a lead.

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 1, February 2004 Spatial-temporal structure of seismicity of the North Tien Shan and its change under effect of high energy electromagnetic pulses Nikolai T. Tarasov and Nadezhda V. Tarasova Schmidt United Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia Abstract The effect of high-energy electromagnetic pulses emitted by a magnetohydrodynamic generator used as a source for deep electrical sounding of the crust on spatial-temporal structure of seismicity of the North Tien Shan is ex- plored. Five-six years periodicity of changes in spatial distribution of seismicity was revealed. The effect of elec- tromagnetic pulses increases the stability of the spatial distribution of seismicity over time and simultaneously speeds up cycles of its transformations, which develop on stabilization background. Increasing of seismic ener- gy release after electromagnetic impacts is observed basically in most active zones. Periodic variation of effi- ciency of earthquakes triggering on the distance to the MHD-generator was detected. It was shown that electro- magnetic pulses give rise to an appreciable increase in the rate of local earthquakes, occurring around 2-6 days after the pulses. Total earthquakes energy released after start-ups was by 2.03⋅1015 J greater than the energy re- leased before them. At the same time, the total energy transmitted by the MHD-generator was 1.1⋅109 J, i.e. six orders of magnitude smaller. Consequently, the electromagnetic pulses initiated the release of the energy that had been stored in the crust due to activity of natural tectonic processes in the form of comparatively small earth- quakes, which leads to an additional release of tectonic stresses.

Proposal for deletion

Immediately after I created a 1-paragraph stub it was tagged for proposed deletion; obviously I disagree.

The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to inform about topics relevant to potential readers. After earthquakes and the like, conspiracy theories about tectonic weapons surface; someone reading these stories in the press and elsewhere should have a source to find out what is known about them, including sourced opinions about whether they're feasible.. I have added some respectable sources since creating the initial very stubby stub, so the article is no longer totally unsourced. It is about what is almost certainly a "non-existent weapon", but that doesn't render it non-notable (if anyone wants to delete an arsenal of non-existent weaponry, I draw attention to List of weapons in Star Trek). Some of the ideas advanced, even by people who should know better, are ridiculous (a US Secretary of Defense saying that electromagnetic waves can trigger earthquakes?! - or maybe he knows something we don't?). The idea of triggering earthquakes with nuclear explosions is a bit more sane, though I would say unlikely—if you've got a bomb which is devastating by itself, why use it in the wrong place and hope it'll trigger remote devastation, it's like relying on causing a fatal car crash by dazzling the driver—and I haven't mentioned it in the text (so far). Certainly many criticisms can be made of the article as it stands today - that's why it's labelled as a stub.

I haven't mentioned this in the text as I've not heard of it suggested as a weapon, but there have been suggestions in scientific circles of creation of large numbers of dams containing huge masses of water possibly being correlated with earthquakes. Pol098 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for deletion - 2

I proposed this article for deletion. The title is totally WP:OR. In addition, there is nothing in either source of this article that says anything about a "Tectonic weapon" WP:RS and WP:OR. The first reference of the article is related only in regards to false scares and conjecture by the source article. The first reference is much more about terrorism concerns in 1997, and a South Korean defector in 1997. At best this article is WP:SYN and WP:Crystal This article consists of original theories and conclusions WP:DEL#REASON. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition this appears to be very similar to a content fork. See: Environmental Modification Convention. ---- Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As the original creator of this article I'll respond to these points. I stand by what I said in the previous section: the topic justifies an article (without assuming that such a weapon exists, or can exist). I'll say where I'm coming from, not to justify or support anything, but so my biases and assumptions are exposed. This started when I saw wild accusations from Chavez of Venezuela regarding "tectonic weapons" (sic) being used by the USA to cause the Haiti earthquake. I know perfectly well that the whole idea is nonsense, but, as I often do when presented with something I know nothing about, recurred to Wikipedia, to find nothing. I would have liked to find a discussion of the idea and its background, and consider that such information would be useful. I've done this often enough before; the latest example is earlier today when I changed Banking Code from a redirect to a 2-paragraph stub with references.

My bias is a very strong feeling that such a weapon is totally ridiculous, and this may have influenced my dismissal of the US Secretary of Defense's comments on electromagnetic influence - I have since found that there has been some discussion in scientific circles of USSR programmes raising such ideas. I still think this is nonsense, but accept that my opinion is irrelevant and must not affect the text of the article. Beyond a basic knowledge of the principles of tectonics and rather more about nuclear physics (via PhD, not websites), just about everything I know about the subject has been derived from recent searching for information, and I have tried to pass on what I have found.
Re specific points raised:

• The title is totally WP:OR
  That is ridiculous and false. The idea of a tectonic weapon is not mine, and there are plenty of references (mostly loony, with a few saner discussions).
• there is nothing in either source of this article that says anything about a "Tectonic weapon".
  Not yet, but there are plenty of references using exactly those words, and I will add them. E.g., in the journal "Nature". The earliest I have found is from 1992. I have now added this to the article.
• The first reference of the article is related only in regards to false scares and conjecture by the source article.
  So? The article doesn't say there are tectonic weapons, or that they're even credible, but it is notable that these fears exist and are discussed by worryingly official sources.

• The first reference is much more about terrorism concerns in 1997, and a South Korean defector in 1997.
  So? The possibility of an earthquake weapon (as you pointed out, the word "tectonic" was not used) was explicitly discussed.

• • Reply - I appreciate your full disclosure here, and wish you luck with this article. I leave you with two points to ponder. First, the problem I have with the source entitled: "Federation of American Scientists: Address by US Secretary of State at 1997 conference on terrorism, is that I found only one sentence mentioning environmental (eco-terror) weapons, and that sentence is vague. It says "Others are engaging...." These are WP:Weasel words. And I mean that there is no reference to who is engaging in this sort of thing and there is nothing concrete. Who is doing this? Iraq? Iran? South Korea? Australia? The state of Florida? In addition, there are no verifiable facts that go with this sentence, and just because a Washington official said it, doesn't make it valid. This statement does not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Second, if you have sources that use the term "Tectonic weapon" then please add them to the article. I see that you intend to, but until you do this title is WP:OR. I have never heard of this, and assumptions cannot be made that everyone, everywhere has heard of this. It doesn't matter if the source is fictional, or conspiracy theory, or crackpot. The idea is to "show" that this is not a title simply made up by the author. Otherwise it is then POV. The title as it is now sounds like it is designed to be sensational. And the sensationalism is based on false scares and lack of information. It's like a tabloid headline, until you show references for it. Hence, it is unencyclopedic. If you can't supply references then I recommend changing the article name. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    • After another look at the article I see that you already have the title sourced from an article written by a Russian scientist. That is what I meant, and you already have it. OK thanks for your time. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• At best this article is WP:SYN
  It is not; I do not want to advance a pre-held position, I am trying to discover what I can and report it; my opinion comes from what I find, I am not seeking to support a pre-existing idea. I do admit that I tend to disbelieve that a tectonic weapon can exist, and this may prejudice me; I would hope to be able to put aside any prejudice when writing. I have deleted a sentence that I had written saying that there is no evidence for an electromagnetic weapon (there actually doesn't seem to be any evidence as such, but there have been reports that there were attempts to develop such a thing).
• [At best this article is] WP:Crystal.
  That guideline deals more with speculation about the future. The topic has been the subject of speculation about the existence of secret programmes in the past and present certainly, but in respectable journals and by government, military, and academic figures. In the far enough future tectonic warfare and planet-busting bombs may be routine, but that would indeed be crystal-ball stuff.
• This article consists of original theories and conclusions
  Please help me by pointing out any such theories and conclusions, and I will expunge them. Please be as detailed and analytical as I am here. I have admitted that I inappropriately dismissed what I considered nonsensical speculation about electromagnetic triggering; I have deleted that sentence as OR.
  
• By the way, I believe that tectonic weapons were featured in the film Megafault. Wikipedia often seems happier with referenced fictional material, so that can be added.
  
• this appears to be very similar to a content fork [of] Environmental Modification Convention
  I don't see this at all. I came across the Convention while looking into this topic; the article on Tectonic weapons is no more of a fork than Biological weapons is a fork of Geneva Conventions. I will try to address these points and expand the article in a proper, referenced, way.
  
  I have the impression that I have stumbled into a fierce battle between fanatical believers and disbelievers in the actual existence of tectonic weapons and other weirdnesses and been taken as a believer. I'm not, I was just trying to find out what has been said, and report my findings.
  
  I've amended and added to the article a bit and am waiting for responses here before removing the 7-day deletion tag; if the article is still considered inappropriate it should go to the normal deletion procedure with comments from anyone with an opinion. Pol098 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Rather than saying that I am selecting material to push a POV, could you please find and either add to the article or at least inform me of any relevant material, regardless of what you think my opinion of it is? Thanks Pol098 (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2010

this might help search (Tesla's oscillator)

Why Conspiracy Theory?

The word conspiracy theory is not the same as theory. It is overused and not neutral. When the science and technology are both present, and as reported, so is the "will" since WWII, why is there so much attempt to ridicule?

Mass surveillance theories were called a conspiracy theories until they were proven. Why not call the "theories". Lets not jump on the band wagon.

I propose cleaning this article up. Maybe awareness would lead to prevention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulthemonk (talk • contribs) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)