Talk:BLU-80/B Bigeye bomb

What is the diameter of this bomb? (13,010 mm does not equal 13 1/4 inches)Mgeorge16 (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Aggrieved tone
This page seems to have been heavily edited by a single anonymous IPv6 user who takes issue with the GAO criticism of the program. [The single anonymous IPv6 user was the official Project Engineer and Engineering Director for this program. I cannot divulge or otherwise disclose specific documentation supporting my edits due to security classification. If you want to dispute my comments, please file a FOIA request to the Navy, Army, Air Force and DoD regarding my edits. I have neither the time nor inclination to do so knowing that I spoke the truth!] They have added what appear to be unsourced claims and personal opinions [Had you any credibility on this subject, you would know that these comments were neither unsourced nor personal. You need to do better homework; not just vomit uninformed criticism]. It is not Wikipedia's role to take sides and determine whether criticism is fair or unfair, nor to host original research. From a brief look at the history, it also seems that this individual may have altered dates, and removed citations from passages critical of the program. Clement Cherlin (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am curious. What Years were you program director? 24.209.223.249 (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
I just added the NPOV_dispute POV-section tag to the last section. This is in line with Clement Cherlin's criticisms above, but I felt that the seemingly very biased language needed to be pointed out to all readers. Unfortunately, I am not an expert in this area, so I can't offer any specific corrections, but overall the section levels very strong criticisms against the cited GAO report, which is not the job of Wikipedia. The facts should be presented without bias to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Any edits should probably begin by reviewing the changes made at the link above and reversing/modifying them if deemed necessary.

I also added the Expert needed in military history tag to draw attention to the page and hopefully attract some people with a greater level of familiarity of the United States' chemical weapons program in order to put this section in the proper context. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This source: Pentagon Finds Unexpected Danger In 'Bigeye' Bomb (By Walter Pincus) explains some of the issue. There were problems- Big ones. From that source, "...according to a recently released General Accounting Office study of chemical weapons."  The criticisms of the Big eye as described in the main article may be understated and the GAO conclusions will need to be presented in a more neutral description of the controversy and GAO conclusion if reliable sources allow.
 * Quotes: The Pentagon has asked Congress to defer $43 million it had sought for production of the controversial Bigeye binary chemical bomb because it has discovered that the bomb could explode on its own and spew deadly nerve gas while being carried by an American aircraft. "The problem was discovered late last year," Dr. Ted Gold, deputy for chemical matters in the office of the assistant to the secretary of defense, said yesterday. "But we believe a solution is in hand."...The problems of the Bigeye will provide new legislative ammunition for opponents...Gold said he was "reluctant" to delay the Bigeye program for a year because the bomb is "our most pressing need" to deter Soviet use of chemical weapons...In releasing the GAO report Thursday, Rep. Clement J. Zablocki (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a leading opponent of the new chemical weapons, said it "underscores the importance of our "pursuing a chemical weapons arms control agreement rather than initiating a chemical arms race." (not really an expert) Johnvr4 (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)