Talk:Nuclear warfare

Removal of a section see-also list by user User:Mysterious Whisper
This user continually removes a see also list in this article. The following links have been included in a see also under the "survival" heading - Duck and cover, Fallout shelter, Ark Two Shelter and Continuity of government, but bizarrely this user doesn't feel that they're relevant and likes removing the whole "see also" list.

Perhaps the user should see WP:SEEALSO - "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics."

86.46.184.167 (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has a very specific definition of vandalism, and this isn't it.
 * The guidelines you've linked to are for a separate see also section, usually placed at the end of an article. The guidelines for what you've been adding are different, and can be found here. Of course, your edits are even in conflict with the guidelines you link to, for example, in that you linked to fallout shelter which is already linked in the body text.
 * For the record, I've twice attempted to initiate discussion about this. In the edit summary of this edit, IP 86... claims the links have been added "In preparation of expanding this section". While I couldn't see how the links would help, I nonetheless gave IP 86... the opportunity to expand the section, and left the links there for over a month. The section was not expanded, so I removed the links.
 * Of course, so far, only IP 86... and I have weighed in on this. If consensus favors piling all those links at the top of the section, I won't persist in removing them. However, per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, the links should be removed for the duration of the discussion (I believe IP 86... is at 3RR as of now, while I've reverted twice; even so, I'm not going to touch it for now).
 * ʍw 02:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Erm, in nuclear and thermonuclear warfare, there are few survivors. Duck and cover gives one days at best. that isn't surviving. Surviving until you starve to death or die of dehydration isn't survival either. It all comes down to *actually* surviving or lingering death. The latter equals death. *No* plan offers true survival for the species in the event of a total nuclear war. And as all war plans I'm aware of, and I have had clearance to actually review said plans for two nations, it means something, no plan offers survival beyond a handful of years. Duck and cover is really cool until the building falls onto your head. Then, since advanced life support isn't available, let alone rescuers, your coma won't last long. It's a moot point.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As the section explains, there are many persons and publications that suggest large numbers of people could survive even a global thermonuclear war (and many who disagree). But this dispute isn't about the entire section, just whether there needs to be a at the top of it. ʍw 03:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Large numbers of people survived the 9-11 attack on the WTC. Only to be crushed and ground to nothing recognizable by modern science, to include my cousin. That is most certainly not what I'd call surviving. In this case, one has to consider species survival, especially in the consideration of massive ecosystem damage that would impact weather systems on top of the already present massive dust/smoke/ash condition. Ronnie Reagan was considered an idiot when he first pronounced nuclear war survival, he's since lost ground entirely to the point of being a proponent of a particular political party of the Dodo birds.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What does any of that have to do with whether there needs to be a at the top of the "Survival" section? As near as I can tell, me and IP 86... both support having the section itself; we're just arguing about a single point of content/formatting within it. If you would like to suggest removing or reworking the section in it's entirety, please start a separate discussion, so we can keep this one on topic. ʍw 03:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. Survival for a minute, day or year means survival for the species, let alone family, hence it is cool. Did I get that one right? Go interview Dodo survivors. Dead genetically is dead. Period. Not surviving to eat yet again for a bit.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Back on topic, I've incorporated the desired links into the text, leaving absolutely no need for the see also header, which I thus removed. I trust that's satisfactory?

I've also removed the accusation of vandalism from the section title. If you wish to continue these accusations, I encourage you to do so somewhere more public, like WP:AN/I.

ʍw 04:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Re this - Someone please explain how my reversions of a bold edit, each followed by attempts at discussion, and now, edits attempting to effect a real compromise solution, could possibly be considered vandalism? If the accusation can't be substantiated, they're bad faith at best, and could even be considered personal attack, and thus should be removed. ʍw 17:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that, while the section title and statement by the OP is a clear attempt to put me on the defensive, this discussion is about IP 86...'s edits at least as much as mine. They made the initial edit, and refused to comment at either discussion I started, instead just reverting the page to their desired version. And now that they've finally started discussing, their comments are laced with bad-faith and accusations of vandalism; such is absent in my comments on their talk pages. ʍw 17:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Your edits were vandalism as they repeatedly removed all mention to the likes of continuity of government etc, you have now tried to rectify your dogged removal of the see also list by writing ad-hoc one liners that incorporate the links, which sure is better than your previous knee-jerk reaction to wipe them completely, but I wonder, if you thought such links were completely inadmissible before hand, why the sudden change of heart? Furthermore, if you have some kind of passionate disdain, or OCD against see also lists, then why didn't you write your one liners days ago, and save all this trouble?


 * All I was aiming for was that readers could have relevant links at hand, and could go forth and read further articles related to the topic of nuclear survival, but I was confronted by someone who's behaviour suggests they found such links contrary to your own personal philosophy or some such, and therefore moved to completely censor all mention to them. Moreover your new one-liners are horrible, for example radiogardase and potassium iodide aren't the only radio-protectants stockpiled, but by the wording of your edit readers come away thinking that only two substances are held by the USA, which is false.


 * Secondly, the Ark Two Shelter is notable not for being the biggest underground warehouse, most folks aren't concerned with such redundant pissing contests, but is notable for being completely privately funded and well equipped to survive a nuclear war, being able to operate autonomously for a considerable amount of time, it has decontamination showers etc. etc.


 * Lastly, on a separate point, who wrote that crap about nuclear ethics? it sounds so condescending I laugh every time I read it. Correct me if I'm wrong but most people regard the prospect of war, of ANY type as immoral, nuclear no more so, and secondly, what has morality got to do with how organizations plan to survive? The argument pushed by that paragraph is essentially - War is bad, and preparing to survive a war makes you a bad man m'kay. So the Swiss are immoral, are they?
 * 86.46.184.167 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." (And I'll remind you to assume good faith). Also, there was still a link to continuity of government, in the ==See also== section proper (and there still is one in the text).
 * At no point did I suggest as much, and I even agreed that those links could be worked into the section. All the links you've suggested are exactly as relevant as anything in Category:Nuclear warfare; which ones to include in a see also header, if any, is a matter of editorial discretion, and a point at which we disagree.
 * Because you claimed you would be using them to expand the section, presumably removing see also links as you incorporated them. And, frankly, your combative attitude (coupled with ignoring my attempts to discuss) is not conductive to collaborative, constructive editing.
 * I do not. I just don't think one is appropriate here.
 * Ah, but much better than a see also, both by the usage guidelines and your own admission. I encourage you to edit and improve them to your liking.
 * ʍw 19:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not. I just don't think one is appropriate here.
 * Ah, but much better than a see also, both by the usage guidelines and your own admission. I encourage you to edit and improve them to your liking.
 * ʍw 19:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, but much better than a see also, both by the usage guidelines and your own admission. I encourage you to edit and improve them to your liking.
 * ʍw 19:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a policy-backed explanation of how my edits could be considered vandalism, or why the otherwise unsubstantiated accusations should be allowed to stay. For anyone new who happens upon this discussion, I've put together a timeline of all events I'm aware of leading up to this discussion and the accusations of vandalism:


 * IP 86... adds the see also header.
 * I revert.
 * IP 86... restores the see also, "In preparation of expanding this section"
 * I do not revert. Instead, I explain my concerns on the IP's talk page, and offer a grace period during which I left the links, expecting IP 86... to expand the section as promised.
 * My comment is (apparently) ignored.

Did I miss anything? ʍw 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After over a month without comment or the promised expansion, I remove the see also.
 * IP 86... restores.
 * I remove it again.
 * IP 86... restores.
 * I again attempt to start a discussion, and am again ignored.
 * I again remove the see also.
 * IP 86... restores a third time, this time calling my edits "vandalism".
 * Ignoring my comment on their talkpage, IP 86... instead starts the discussion here, accusing me of vandalism etc.

I refuse to let unsubstantiated accusations of vandalism on my part be left on this page. Note that I created the Nuclear War section (not that I'm claiming ownership or the section or anything, just stating facts for the record), and I have made many other constructive edits to this and related articles, so any claim that my edits aren't a "good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia" is going to need some significant evidence backing it.

ʍw 01:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by neutral editor: After having reviewed all the above-linked diff's, it is clear to me that User:Mysterious Whisper is not vandalizing the page, but that 86.46.184.167 is verging on edit-warring over "their" list of see also topics.  That being said, it should not be controversial to include the list that IP 86.46.184.167 advocates.  Indeed, it was once strenuously argued within both the Soviet and American military and civilian policy-making circles that nuclear war was survivable and that nuclear weapons were capable of being deployed in a superpower conflict with a clear winner.  See, for example, Gray and Payne, "Victory is Possible," Foreign Policy, 39 (Summer, 1980), pp. 14-27 or Arnett, "Soviet attitudes towards nuclear war: Do they really think they can win?", Journal of Strategic Studies, 2:1 (Spring, 1979), pp.172-191.  If these discussions were historically part of the debate of nuclear war, we can't ignore them because they make us uncomfortable or are considered ludicrous today.  Eggishorn (talk) 05:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed no vandalism here. The IP has does not seem to understand what vandalism means.  MW is acting entirely in good faith.  I think a bit should be added as noted above, but if this IP continues on this path I think a trip to ANI will be in order.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with Dbrodbeck that i see no vandalism here, on anyone's part. I further agree that so describing MW's edits after the meaning of Vandalism on Wikipedia has been clearly explained (as it was above) is a violation of the no personal attacks policy.
 * As to the merits, including those links (which are I think relevant to the section) is in my view a good thing. I think that including them in prose is better than a see-also link as it allows context to be provided. in general I section-specific see-also links are poor style when another alternative is available. DES (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Old Nuclear holocaust merge tag?
The Nuclear holocaust page has a merge tag that directs here. I am going to remove it as there seems to be no discussion here or on that page. The tag has been there since 2013. If anyone wants to discuss the subject, they can put the tag back, but it looks like a dead issue to me. (FWIW, I'm opposed to the idea because of how I am linking to it.) Dcs002 (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've since reinstated this merge tag. Nuclear holocaust or "apocalypse" is merely an emotionally grabbing tag, used by Bush etc-as the holocaust article notes, for a nuclear war. The unsubstantiated and wishful thinking notion that a nuclear war could kill all human life on earth is dealt with here in the nuclear war article, as is the appearance of post-nuclear war in fiction. So the nuclear "holocaust"/"apocalypse" tripe is an entirely redundant article. We weeded out the nuclear darkness article for the very same reason, and merged it into nuclear winter.
 * 92.251.216.191 (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

"North Korea (2006) are also thought to have developed stocks of nuclear weapons, but their governments have never admitted to having nuclear weapons"

Really?

101.98.150.50 (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nuclear warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130606090311/http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/China/Nuclear/5630.html/ to http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/China/Nuclear/5630.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.windowonheartland.net/2012/02/russias-top-secret-bases.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110315084044/http://ocw.nd.edu:80/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-17 to http://ocw.nd.edu/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear warfare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141010114324/http://ocw.nd.edu/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-18 to http://ocw.nd.edu/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)