Talk:Nuclear weapon/Archive 5

Edit request, stated fallout deaths are grossly exaggerated
This wiki article suggests that the following report found that 11,000 deaths may have resulted from nuclear testing in the United States.

But that is completely incorrect, as the report unambiguously states - 1,000 excess cancer deaths on page 23, there is no mention to 11,000 in the report whatsoever.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10621

83.71.31.96 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * -- I have verified the quote in the source, and I have made the appropriate edits in the main article. Thanks for catching that!


 * kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that seems like an incorrect fix. The source document is Report on the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations and it contains the quote (Executive Summary, p. 4) "It is also estimated that about 11,000 extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout."


 * You're correct, I just checked. Looks like the other report was estimating 1,000 deaths based on the 1951 US population estimates (which they assumed were constant over 50 years), and the study was readjusted later to bring the population estimates up to a more realistic number.  For anyone else wishing to double-check, the figures appear on page 115 of the report.
 * kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 18:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * An error- the article reads - The goal would be twofold: first, to deter leaders of nuclear states from selling weapons to terrorists by holding them accountable for any use of their own weapons; second, to give leader every incentive to tightly secure their nuclear weapons and materials. However "leader" should be "leaders, no?
 * Secondly, it's, the alleged 11,000 extra cancer deaths is not a scientific number.
 * Page 115 details very clearly that the figure comes about by "crude[ly]" assuming the population of the US in 1973 was the same as that in 1990. Moreover the article now falsely ascribes the previously discussed nap.edu reference to this crude "11,000" figure, but as was just previously determined, that particular reference does not mention 11,000 at all, it states 1000.
 * See page 115 here, for the "crudely" estimated 11,000 figure, that is presented merely as "illustrative only". http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/Technical_Vol_1_Chapter_4.pdf
 * I'm suggesting that the article should read something like this -...with estimates on the total number of predicted cancer deaths in the continental US from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref], to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000, both according to the Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions.
 * What do you think?


 * On page 112 of your linked report from the CDC, it would appear that the CDC specifically says that the estimate on page 114 is "for tissues other than thyroid" (emphasis mine).  On page 112, they cite several studies that support the claim of over 11,000 deaths from thyroid cancer; the lower estimates are for cancers other than thyroid.  The article already mentions that most of the 11,000 estimated deaths are from thyroid cancer caused by iodine-131, so I don't believe that we need to change it.
 * In addition, after rereading the NAP study, it looks like they're estimating the death rates from fallout-triggered cancers for parts of the body other than the thyroid (which is alluded to in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report.
 * kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * On page 112 the report does NOT cite several studies that support the claim of over 11,000 thyroid cancer deaths, they cite studies that support 11,300 to 212,000 thyroid cancers - not - cancer deaths. Thyroid cancer has a ~ 95% survival rate so not very many people who get thyroid cancer die. I'm not exactly sure why you're into the number of thyroid cancer deaths, as according to the CDC paper, most of the deaths are "likely" to be from other causes. Page 115 "It is likely that the number of deaths (roughly 11,000) might exceed deaths from thyroid cancer,". Meaning, that the number of deaths from other cancers probably overshadowed the number of thyroid cancer deaths. Granted, if the US was absent a modern health care system then thyroid cancer might've been the no.1 killer, but that's getting out of the realm of what the references say.
 * 22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.191.135 (talk)


 * You know what, you're right. I must have misread it; I could have sworn it said cancer deaths, but after carefully rereading it, I can see that it is instead discussing the number of total thyroid cancer cases.  I was in a hurry earlier, misread the report, and I apologize.
 * I'd agree that we should go ahead and rewrite the section; I'll take a stab at it, but I'd appreciate it if somebody who knows more about the subject would clean up after me (most of my knowledge pertains to the development of the bombs, not fallout).
 * And thanks for following up and correcting me!
 * kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * To repeat the comment from above:


 * Sorry, but that seems like an incorrect fix. The source document is Report on the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations and it contains the quote (Executive Summary, p. 4) "It is also estimated that about 11,000 extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout." NPguy (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes it does say that NPguy, however, pg 115 clearly states it's a "crude" estimate based on simply assuming the 1970s population was the same as the 1990s etc. That's why I suggested that the article should read something like this - "...with estimates on the total number of predicted cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref], to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, both, according to the Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."


 * Even then, that's pretty conservative, as the controversial LNT model (as discussed in the CDC paper) suggests, amongst other things that natural background radiation causes millions of cancer deaths each year, there is no "safe" level of sunlight, and therefore those that don't wear a burka, are all increasing their cancer risk. In sum, it's pretty extreme, with little evidence to support it.
 * 86.46.191.135 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The 1,000 estimate is only for that small portion of the U.S. population born in 1951. I don't see any citation suggesting it as the total number of fatalities.  The only figure for the total U.S. population is 11,000.  You describe the linear no-threshold model as "controversial."  Granted there is some controversy, but LNT is the norm.  Adding editorial comment based on your personal skepticism is original research. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I'll take out the word "total" in my suggested change, that should suffice then? Secondly, I feel my proposed suggested change is particularly important as the "crude" 11,000 fatality figure assumes a 5% per Sievert risk coefficent, however, the present ICRP risk coefficient is higher at 5.5%, as seen and referenced in the intro of the Sievert page. Thirdly, yes the model is controversial, and although the norm in the US it isn't in France etc. I don't think my suggested change would inject any of my own skepticism of the model, simply convey to readers that it is controversial-an important point, as I feel you agree? How do you figure that my suggested change injects my own personal skepticism into the article?
 * Thanks for the reply!
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're suggesting at this point. The 1,000 figure has no place.  If you want to call the estimate "crude" (I haven't checked but accept your statement that this is a quote) that's OK, and it's OK to say that this is based on an uncertain dose reconstruction and on a widely accepted though unproven (and largely unprovable and unfalsifiable [sic]) dose model.  I don't think this is the place to get into the controversy, which is largely non-scientific. It falls into the category of "meta-science," issues that seem factual in principle but are not resolvable by empirical means. NPguy (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggested that we write something like - "...with estimates on the number of predicted cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref], to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, both, according to the Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."
 * Lastly, the LNT model is falsifiable, you just need a large enough sample size of organisms and a salt mine with practically no natural background radiation present, this experiment is apparently being done see Radiation hormesis.
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the reasons cited, that won't work. The 1,000 figure simply is not comparable.  How about this: "One estimate predicted about 11,000 deaths within the continental United States due to fallout from the 100 atmospheric tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site.  This self-described "crude" estimate is based on the standard Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of one death per 20 person-Sievert, with large uncertainties in the population dose reconstruction."
 * You are right that the LNT model is falsifiable in principle, though (I suspect) probably not in practice. The natural experiment you describe seems unlikely to do that as (1) it appears to apply to micro-organisms and (2) the populations being compared may not be comparable. NPguy (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your position on the 1,000 NAP figure, however I wouldn't like to see the NAP reference removed entirely from the article, can you think of a way to keep it in ? I also don't understand why you changed the 5% figure cited in the CDC reference to "1 in 20", I think that is a bit misleading, as I don't think I would have recognized that the CDC's 5% coefficient is not the now standard 5.5% pushed by the ICRP if this article read "1 in 20". How about we remove mention to the LNT and explain each reference like this?
 * "...with estimates on the number of predicted cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref] in the population alive in 1951, to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, made in 2005 according to the then ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."[include cdc.gov ref}
 * As for the LNT, using micro-organisms would help put firmer experimental data behind, or against, the LNT. As they often have higher radiosensitivity, of course there are radioresistant organisms too like the tardigrade, but you wouldn't select those for the experiment anyway. In either case, putting the LNT on firmer experimental footing should be something that its proponents would be all for. Who knows, we might even find radiation is even more dangerous than the LNT model suggests?
 * 86.44.238.236 (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I dont object to including the NAS citation, but don't have any particular idea how to use it. I think using percentages is a misleading way to describe the risk, but mainly because use the unit Sievert (the biological effective dose in an individual).  For population exposures the standard unit is the person-Sievert - the sum over the population of the individual doses, most of which will be far lower than one Sievert.  However, I will acknowledge that the LNT model is implicit in this unit. NPguy (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So the following compromise is accepted? - "...with estimates on the number of predicted cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref] in the population alive in 1951, to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, made in 2005 according to the then ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."[include cdc.gov ref}
 * 86.45.239.159 (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

No. The 1,000 figure is not comparable and should not be included. As i said above, "The 1,000 estimate is only for that small portion of the U.S. population born in 1951. I don't see any citation suggesting it as the total number of fatalities." NPguy (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How about this then, note the lack of any mention to "total" in the following - ...with estimates on the number of predicted downwinder cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, being from 1,000[include nap.edu ref] in those born solely in 1951, which is the demographic which represents the most heavily exposed Americans.[include nap.edu ref] To a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, with the latter estimate made in 2005, according to the then ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the crude uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."[include cdc.gov ref}


 * That should be pretty unambiguous right? As something really needs to be done with the article as it currently stands as the mention to thyroid cancer killing 11,000 is unsupported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.207.6 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but all this seems like Original Research, an effort to draw conclusions by selective interpretation of sources. The 1951 cohort figure simply does not claim to be representative, and I do not recall that 11,000 estimate refers primarily to thyroid cancer. In short, I do not see a problem that needs to be fixed. NPguy (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you. The article at present quite clearly mentions, erroneously, that the 11,000 deaths estimated by the cdc were/are mostly due to thyroid cancer. Just have a look. Secondly, how is any of the above WP:OR? Could you state the specific sentence. Lastly, the 1951 cohort are representative, they, as the nap reference plainly state, represent the most heavily exposed Americans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.175.111 (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the articles cited as sources in this WP article. They do not ascribe 11,000 deaths to thyroid cancer - they refer to all forms of cancer.  The simplest fix to this WP article is to delete the reference to thyroid cancer and replace it with a reference to all forms of cancer.  I think I'll make that fix. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Your recent edit, yet again, has introduced unsourced nonsense. Now the article claims most of the 11,000 deaths will be due to thyroid cancer, when, as we've been over above ad nauseum, the CDC source does not state that! They state thyroid cancer might be the most prevalent cancer as a result BUT IMPORTANTLY, the numbers of these cancer cases that result in cancer deaths will be low. Did you even read the source?
 * 86.44.234.63 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I deleted the false claim about thyroid cancer deaths. Then another editor put it back in.  Fixed it again. NPguy (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I did read the report before making the change. The report says that all cancer deaths will be low, but most of the excess deaths will be from thyroid. It also says that leukemia deaths will be about 10% of all excess deaths, so it seems counter-intuitive to me that we would emphasize leukemia and not thyroid. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Not this again. The CDC's 11,000 estimate is, in their own words - "crude", IMHO its not only that, its junk, as VQuakr shows, the CDC doc doesn't really put forth any kind of solid cause for these supposed "11,000" cancer deaths. The atitude is one of - some probably thyroid, some probably other causes meh. - However it's maybe all we have to go on (excluding the NAP ref) so, VQuakr I direct you to an earlier comment here made on January 22 2014, as above, -"On page 112 of the CDC doc, the report does NOT cite several studies that support the claim of over 11,000 thyroid cancer deaths, they cite studies that support 11,300 to 212,000 thyroid cancers - not - cancer deaths. Thyroid cancer has a ~ 95% survival rate so not very many people who get thyroid cancer die. I'm not exactly sure why you're into the number of thyroid cancer deaths, as according to the CDC paper, most of the deaths are "likely" to be from other causes. Page 115 "It is likely that the number of deaths (roughly 11,000) might exceed deaths from thyroid cancer,". Meaning, that the number of deaths from other cancers probably overshadowed the number of thyroid cancer deaths. Granted, if the US was absent a modern health care system then thyroid cancer might've been the no.1 killer, but that's getting out of the realm of what the references say."
 * Secondly, NPguy(nuclear proliferation guy), good job on putting the Kenneth waltz back in! however, it is thus becoming quite obvious that at least a paragraph should be dedicated to the number of cancers along with cancer deaths that reliable sources argue will/have result(ed) from the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, and that includes the NAP ref for JUST the 1951 cohort.
 * I had previously suggested the following measured paragraph, but you claimed it was WP:OR yet the irony is, what's in the article at the moment is WP:OR, as it suggests that these were the first such estimates made/only in the 1990s+ did anyone care, which is completely false and not contained in any of the references either. - ...with estimates on the number of predicted downwinder cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, being from 1,000[include nap.edu ref] in those born solely in 1951, which is the cohort that represents the most heavily exposed Americans.[include nap.edu ref] To a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, with the latter estimate made in 2005, according to the then ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the crude uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."[include cdc.gov ref}
 * 86.44.234.63 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My concern about the 1,000 figure is that it should not be presented as an estimate for the total number of cancer deaths. That is misleading. I also think attaching the label "crude" has twinges of bias, as it tends to denigrate the credibility of the estimate. Why didn't they make a refined estimate? Why should we take a "crude" estimate seriously? In this case it seems any estimate would be highly uncertain, so "crude" is gratuitously derogatory.

I do take the previous point about thyroid cancer and leukemia. Assuming the full context is as represented above (I haven't gone back to check), perhaps it should read "including thyroid cancer and leukemia." I have no objection to including cancer incidence numbers. NPguy (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, however, I repeat, the NAP reference containing the 1000 figure is just for, repeat, JUST for the most heavily exposed 1951 cohort. It is not being presented as a total.
 * Furthermore the CDC source from which the 11,000 total figure is found does not explain how "11,000" was chosen, it does not show the authors mathematical work prior to arriving at this estimate, in sum, the whole enterprise smacks of not getting its just rigor in that reference. Especially considering the importance of the question, what was the total body burden on Americans due to all the atmospheric nuclear tests conducting at the Nevada Test Site.


 * I appreciate that finding an estimate requires making assumptions, however simply explaining these assumptions, and presenting an equation whereby one can plug various values into the equation etc is the kind of thing that is needed, to give readers the ability to assess whether or not these assumptions are reasonable and meet current best health physics practice. An example of the latter is that the CDC document arrived at the "crude" 11,000 fatality figure by applying a 5% per Sievert risk coefficient, however, the present ICRP risk coefficient is higher at 5.5%, as seen and referenced in the intro of the Sievert page.
 * 92.251.149.61 (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Future Edit request once I get the sources
Hey : The AEC built and detonated a device with a Np-237 pit in an undisclosed test at the NTS in 1962. I read this is some DOE documents. Will try to find them. There are articles about Np-237 pits that were made as well, but they don't say what was done with the pits. So yes Np has definately been used in a fission device as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sqrt1024 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you're not confusing the reactor grade plutonium test also conducted in 1962 and/or the Operation Teapot MET U-233 test with your reported Np-237 test?
 * In any case, we await your response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.213.197 (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Add link to Nuclear_fission in summary please
Fussion is linked but Fission is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission -- 2600:1010:B01F:BD99:543C:B037:142E:4FA6 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Not true. Look again.  First use of "fission" is wikilinked. NPguy (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Soviet fallout related deaths

 * The following is behind a paywall but given its title, it would definitely go some way to dealing with this articles US-centric stance. Radiological Consequences of Nuclear Testing for the Population of the Former USSR (Input Information, Models, Dose, and Risk Estimates)O. A. Pavlovski. Atmospheric Nuclear Tests NATO ASI Series Volume 35, 1998, pp 219-260 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.207.177 (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a citation really needed?
The line 'Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.' in the introduction is followed by "[citation needed]". This isn't exactly a controversial opinion and is sort of obvious when you see the size of the explosion simply from the photo attached to the article. Is a citation really needed? 86.153.199.7 (talk) 07:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, someone had added three unnecessary citation needed tags to the lead, and I've removed all three. Per WP:LEADCITE it's usual for material that's cited in the body of an article to be uncited in the lead. Thanks for the note! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC) p.s. New threads go at the bottom of the page.

nation =/= state
haven't checked the whole article, and wouldn't be surprised if it crops up more, but it's certainly in the opening at least.

"only a few nations...", linking to a list of states with nuclear weapons. obviously, this should read "only a few states". nations is not an appropriate word to use in this case, it's usage relying on the common misunderstanding of the term. article is protected, somebody else will have to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.37 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Nation" has several definitions, including a synonym of "state." VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start a pointless debate about the difference between the two, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThalesMontana (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to support the user proposing we distinguish nation and state more carefully - and think this would be useful throughout Wikipedia. It's true that "nation" has several definitions, including as a synonym for state, but I think that's recent (dictionaries are too inclined to follow common usage these days I think), and imprecise ( the "nation-state" does not refer to the "nation-nation" or the "state-state" i.e. the words are not strictly synonymous). Especially, the matter is not trivial: here in Canada we've had constitutional issues over the confusion between the two terms in everyday use, and the distinction mattered a lot in the age of Empires - something we all may be drifting back towards.alacarte (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015
Abduhukhan (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC) pakistan has also tested thermo-nuclear tests


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: - it already states this in the lead section, in the Nuclear weapons infobox and twice in the Governance, control, and law section. - Arjayay (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Nukemap3d
Is it worth mentioning this Google Earth add-on http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/ ? It's certainly worth a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Nuclear weapon. 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/20120716191419/http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm to http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131082633/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/news/articles/060106/6kirsch.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060106/6kirsch.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101113041501/http://www.theartnewspaper.com:80/article.asp?id=8529 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=8529
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106070000/http://www.freewebs.com/atomicforum/tsar3.html to http://www.freewebs.com/atomicforum/tsar3.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 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views
Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"?--Anders Feder (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: The RFC was closed and reponed by Andres Feder. Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was edited by you after I had closed it, and thus implicitly reopened.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And you explicitly re-opened it. Mhhossein (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And why shouldn't I, given that you had been editing the discussion?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply, I started editing sooner than you, but you finished closing sooner. So, I could not tell that the discussion is closed, and clicked the "Save page". In other words, the discussion was not closed when I began to edit. Any way... Mhhossein (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: There's no reason not to mention such a relevant heavily supported material here. Secondly, the section is not going to include only the view of an individual, whether khamenei or other scholars. The section is rather devised to include "Islamic view", i.e. the view of Islam toward this issue, and khamenei's view is one part of it. By the way, the nominator seems to have no valid reason for opening this RFC, at least the way he opened it suggests that. Mhhossein (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it "suggest that"?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please say why should it not be here in your view? Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the reasons outlined by VQuakr below.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh! Thanks God he helped you! Mhhossein (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apparently God likes me more than he likes you. Why do you think that is the case?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear that! You seemed as having nothing to say when opening the RFC, rather an inner oppose feeling with no motivation (It's only my view). One could easily add view points of other scholars to have a de facto "Islamic view" section. To me, the section would develop by other users to show another aspect of nuclear weapons. Mhhossein (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even need to have anything to say - the onus is on you to form consensus for including the lopsided section you added, not on me.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pinging some of involved editors: . Mhhossein (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How about one sentence, part of a single paragraph on Islamic views. A key policy here is WP:WEIGHT. The previous version gave way too much weight to Khamenei's statement. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * VQuakr: In my view, we'd better have the fatwa beside other fatwas or viewpoints. I don't have any idea about how many lines or sentences there should be covering the issue. Mhhossein (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a high-level article with a lot of ground to cover. Very little space should be devoted to religious viewpoints, with a portion of that being Islamic views, a portion of that Shia views, and a portion of that potentially the views of Khamenei. It might be more helpful to draft a full version of the section and get an RfC for input on that rather than badgering everyone who posts here. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * VQuakr: Thanks for your clarification, I agree with you. This RFC is opened in a misleading manner and suggests that the section was meant to be devoted to an individual's view, while this is not the case. Any way, the idea of making a draft is reasonable and fair. Mhhossein (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not misleading in any way. It is a simple yes/no question. What is misleading is the section you added, in that it gives undue weight to a minority view on a minor aspect of the subject. The day you or anyone else has balanced material to add to the article, this RfC is no hindrance to it.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder: It's obviously misleading. you wrote:"Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"? while you could easily write: "Should the article include a section on "Islamic view" and should the section include khamenei's view? By the way, if the problem is undue weight, why did you opened the RFC for inclusion? Sorry, but it was obviously an amateur action. Mhhossein (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care what I "could easily write" - the RfC asked the question I wanted an answer to. If you want an answer to something else, open your own RfC. What is amateurish is your failure to respect to WP:NPOV by including a lopsided section that there clearly is no support for.--Anders Feder (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You misguided other editors by the question you wanted because you carelessly opened the RFC, as you said. AFAIS, the section on "Islamic View" is obviously supported. Mhhossein (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What I ask other editors is none of your business . If you have some other question you want to ask, open your own RfC . How hard can it be to understand? It is blatantly obvious that the section you added is not supported, whether you pretend not to get it or not.--Anders Feder (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't explode and take control of yourself. The problem is that the RFC is not actually yours and I can't have my own RFC! they are aimed to develop the articles, so we have to be careful what we ask other editors. Mhhossein (talk) 14:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only "problem" there is is your disruption. Your endless refusal to get the point is not going to change anything.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder: Please Be polite and respect Wikipedia Etiquette. This is you who refuses to respect the consensus on the "religious view" section. Mhhossein (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only one here who is not being "polite" is yourself. I have not refused to respect any consensus at all.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anders Feder: What you said, was one of the most impolite things I had ever heard here in Wikipedia. Do you respect the community? Ankhsoprah2, NPguy, Kyteto & VQuakr have all agreed to have a section on "religious views" or "Islamic views", and it's very surprising that you don't get that! Mhhossein (talk) 13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Who cares what you think is "one of the most impolite things you had ever heard"? You are obviously just victim playing. If you feel your heart has been treated with "impoliteness", I propose you report it at WP:ANI - I can't wait to see what they make of your behavior.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Try it! Mhhossein (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I do not support a section on "religious views," and certainly not one on "islamic views." Those sound like subjects for a different article, although there could be a link from this one.  And in any case the topic of this RfC is neither of those, and that issue is closed. NPguy (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NPguy:WOW! But you already agreed on that. You are surprisingly jumping into another different viewpoint? Could I know why? Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that diff is not at odds with the opinion stated above. Stop trying to play "gotcha" (and please back off in general). VQuakr (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * VQuakr: As far as I remember, I asked NPguy. By the way, what's the problem with asking to clarify things and in what sense are the two views the same? Mhhossein (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, this is a not a private messaging system. You badgered; you didn't "ask to clarify" anything. Do you really want to plead such incompetence that you cannot figure out how this is a clarification of this? VQuakr (talk) 07:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked him by mentioning him, and I really really believe that "I do not support a section on "religious views," and certainly not one on "islamic views." is not an attempt to clarify "It might make sense to have a section on religious views on nuclear weapons, though that section would have to acknowledge that a Muslim country has nuclear weapons. Better would be to embed that into the section on controversy and ethics, and better still would be have a separate article on religious views on nuclear weapons." Tell me if there's any thing wrong with that. Mhhossein (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying "it might make sense" and then offering alternatives that would make more sense hardly counts as an endorsement. Give it a rest! NPguy (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NPguy: Sorry for my misunderstanding and thanks for your civil response. As you had suggested some details on how the section might be, I thought that you were leaning toward having such a section, and thanks for your clarification. So, you are offering an alternative viewpoint! 05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would think it to be a good step to draft and develop a section on Religious views on nuclear arms. I would be concerned however, if one individual were to be used to represent a whole religion's views; it is certainly a Due Weight issue in that case. There have been some interesting ethical arguments against the bomb - religion should be a fair perspective for reflections as well. I've heard that Iran considers the development of a nuclear weapon to be incompatible with the state religion; I find that point of view noteworthy for instance. I'm sure there are many others, if serious work was made to look into this. Kyteto (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Kyteto: Religous views is even better, to me. I'll be concerned with developing it and I think I took the first step of reflecting a shia scholar and the leader of Iran viewpoint. But remember that, one individual were not to be used to represent a whole religions's view, rather he is a part of a whole and other scholars view are expected to be reflected here. This article deals with the Iran view toward nuclear weapons. Mhhossein (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Undue weight to a relatively minor and controversial claim. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NPguy: 1- It's not a claim, it's an issued fatwa. 2- I agree that it's controversial, i.e. some analysts questioned aspects of it while others tried to defend it. But consider that the section expected to include it is labeled "Controversy". 3- What's your criteria for calling it a 'minor'? Mhhossein (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is controversial in that there are skeptics who question whether there is a fatwa and whether it actually forbids nuclear weapons. Including a reference will invite a lengthy dispute over its validity.  But more important, the views of an Iranian religious leader are at best marginally relevant to a general article on nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NPguy: The fatwa is recognized by US administration and issued orally in several official occasions. The long article on validity of the fatwa is written by those who know little from shia jurisprudence so their view is of the least importance. As I said many times, the section is not devised to contain the view of only an Iranian individual. There are of course some other Muslim countries. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is he the King of Islam? No, but maybe the Iranian government view? Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tough sailor ouch: How did you get to that conclusion. That section is meant to include the view of Islamic scholars not only an individual. Is it sensible to you? Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Khamenei's view can be here, but it shouldn't be termed as Islamic View because the Muslim country that has the second largest population of Muslims, and is predicted by Pew Research Center to soon become country with largest Muslim population--Islamic Republic of Pakistan, has Nuclear weapons. Pakistan also has the second largest Shia population in the world after Iran. Shia Muslims are only 10–20% of all Muslims+ many Shia scholars disagree with Khamenei inside Iran and are often jailed/executed (e.g. Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi). Also there are many Shia scholars in Iraq and elsewhere who disagree with Khamenei.-- (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ankhsoprah2: Of course Of course there are other scholars and Muslims countries. That's why I tried to open such a section. It was devised to contain those different viewpoints and not merely the view of an individual. Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ankhsoprah2: If there are reliable sources which shows other shia scholars allow nuclear weapons, please add them to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to include Khamenei's justification (from Quran and Hadiths) about how nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic, then do so. It can't be anti-Islamic or Islamic just because Khamenei, who happens to be a Muslim cleric, says so. He or no one else is dictator of Islam.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ankhsoprah2: "Khamenei's justification" can be added only if there are reliable sources covering it. We don't have to prove what he says but we can reflect it. By the way, who said Khamenei is determining what is or not Islamic for the world? I said that he, as a Muslim cleric, has a fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, and others may have different viewpoints and there should be a section to include them. I doubt whether you really read my previous comment or not! Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support adding the info, if you write it in ways such as "khamenei, who is a Muslim cleric, issued a fatwa, claiming that nuke production is haram" etc--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we've settled that a section on Khamenei's views is unwarranted. It would give undue weight to one person's view and is out of place in this general article. It might make sense to have a section on religious views on nuclear weapons, though that section would have to acknowledge that a Muslim country has nuclear weapons. Better would be to embed that into the section on controversy and ethics, and better still would be have a separate article on religious views on nuclear weapons. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with .--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ankhsoprah2 & NPguy. Mhhossein (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - undue for this article. Maybe some subarticle like Nuclear weapons debate. Also it definitely should not be titled as "Islamic views" as Ali Khamenei alone does not hold that level of authority.--Staberinde (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per others. (If there ever is a whole article about him and nuclear weapons, just possibly a link under Controversy.) And at best "Shi'ite views". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-weapons uses
Most of the Non-weapons uses sections seem more relevant to the Peaceful nuclear explosions article, so wouldn't it be best to shift them there, leaving a summary and link here, per WP:SS? Johnfos (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Johnfos (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Johnfos. Mhhossein (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016
Under nuclear-armed states, insert that Iraq is thought to be able to possess nuclear weapons.

Palted Seanuts (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuclear weapon. 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/20160215113917/http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects.shtml to http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects.shtml

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 12:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like the link on the article works for me, so I'm going to set this to true. kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 00:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017
Could someone fix the duplicate year that User:Headbomb added to the "The physics of antimatter induced fusion and thermonuclear explosions" citation? 98.230.196.215 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, good catch, my bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017
Please change the link text "Charles DeGaulle" in the Nuclear Strategy section to Charles de Gaulle with a space and proper capitalisation. Firekraag (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Uglemat (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.history.navy.mil/download/cv-deploy-vietnam.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050204002118/http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/ to http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329105730/http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

...render the planet uninhabitable...
This is a pretty big claim, not that I am for or against. Can such a claim be sourced? Discuss. Asgrrr (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nuclear weapons use would be horrible beyond imagination, but humans are a very adaptable species. "Uninhabitable" is an exaggeration, even taking into account nuclear winter models.  I have deleted the claim. NPguy (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Ever since the 1970s, the USA and the USSR aka Russia have a combined nuclear firepower that could explode the planet into tiny pieces 40(!) times over. There's little chance for human survival on radiated debris floating in space, especially without any breathable atmosphere. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * False.NPguy (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Section on public awareness
I feel what this article still lacks is a section on the history of public awareness of the bomb. Throughout the remainder of the 1940s, knowledge of the bomb was still highly classified. Throughout the 1950s, the public was told that "duck and cover" and brushing off one's clothes would be all that's required to weather a nuclear fall-out. Generally, it took until the 1970s until the public in many first and second-world countries got to know about the true horrors due to nuclear radiation. This is not exactly the same as the history of ban-the-bomb and pacifist movements, and I couldn't find this information in those articles either. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What you're forgetting is that the technology changed over time, so what was an appropriate response in the 1950s was subsequently outdated. For information on this subject, I suggest Boyer (1985) By the Bomb's Early Light. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I pretty much doubt it was "appropriate" to try and find out how close you could get ground troops to the blast without them dying within days. There had been radiation deaths on the Manhattan Project, so scientists and the government knew how dangerous the technology was even without any explosions. And besides, I'm talking about what the governments let their people know: During the 40s, populaces didn't even know the bomb existed or what it was, and government agents would probably take you to be interrogated if you even just used the words "Manhattan Project" or "a-bomb" as late as 1949. In the 50s, people were told that nuclear power was safe and if the bomb blast didn't kill you, you could simply "duck and cover" and brush your clothes off, and it took until the 70s that the public actually received unbiased scientific information on stuff such as radiation poisoning, probably even by whistleblowers only. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There were two radiation deaths on the Manhattan Project, of involving criticality experiments, out of the 24 deaths at Project Y. The Manhattan Project and atomic bomb were made public in August 1945. Details were published in the Smyth Report, which quickly became a best seller. What wasn't made public was that before 1949 you could have counted them on your fingers and toes. The bombs of the early 1950s were much less powerful and much less numerous than what my generation grew up with - this became reality only in the 1960s; but by the late 1950s, large numbers of bombs were being exploded in tests annually, and there was widespread discussion of the dangers of fallout. Popular movements to end atmospheric testing gathered momentum, resulting in the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. In the 1950s, scientists setting safety metrics for nuclear power copied those of the coal industry; but by the 1970s it became clear that the public would not tolerate nuclear power stations emitting radioactive nuclear waste at anything approaching the levels of coal-fired stations, nor would they permit the number of fatalities. (In the U.S., coal power has a fatality rate of 10,000 per trillion kWhr, whereas the corresponding figure for nuclear stations is 0.1.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See, you already have all this knowledge which would be required for a sourced section on what the public knew. Just pointing me personally to a book is just not the same as actually having it in the article. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Detonation
Just to be pedantic. Detonation is an explosion caused be a exothermic front. Should 'detonation' not be replaced by initiation of a chain reaction? In the Trinity test, the only denotations was those of  the implosion shell, used to 'initiate' a chain reaction within the core. Nuclear bombs do not detonate - they get initiated. A fine line maybe for some but an important one. This factual inexactitude appears spread throughout  WP articles on these subjects. Just a thought. Comments? Aspro (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * detonate: to explode. A nuclear explosion certainly involves a shock front as well. Given the ambiguity between the layman and technical definitions of "detonate", I think the proposed pedantic wording is unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A nuclear explosion like that of the Trinity Test starts with a conventional one, with detonators starting the detonation of chemical explosives. Once the core is compressed, an initiator is used to supply neutrons to start the nuclear chain reaction.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  20:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Shock? Within gnats whisker of a μ second of initiation,  X-rays exit at the speed of light. The surrounding atoms are effected not by other approaching atoms (layman's shock) but by a high X-ray flux traveling at the speed of light. So, it should not  be difficult in an encyclopedia to explain that initiation is a  different from detonation. At the moment WP appears to be underestimating the readers ability to to comprehend that what they read in the popular press is an over simplification and sometime a gross oversimplification. What is the point of an encyclopedia if we can't tell it like it is but have to lower  our  vernacular to suit the lowest  common denominator. Aspro (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * You asked for comments. My comment is that you are being needlessly pedantic. See also WP:SUMMARY and WP:JARGON for a guideline basis regarding overtechnical language in introductory articles such as this one. VQuakr (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the above editors, and suggest this: "a detonation initiating a chain reaction". Too much technical info is not necessary, yet it is important for encyclopedia readers to understand the contingencies. Netherzone (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't think that any reader imagines, that in order to bring a nuclear power plant online, starts with someone having to first strike a match in order to  set the fuel on fire.  So why should they have trouble, if every occurrence of the  word 'detonation' in  the text gets replaced with initiation? In open heart surgery do we say the surgeon  first has to 'kill' the patent because it is too over-technical to say the body is first cooled and the heart stopped from beating? Come on.  A ten year old child can learn and understand  semantical differentiations from the context without having to look them all  up in the dictionary.  How in the hell do children form  a working vocabulary before they are old enough to go to school? If these articles were first created using the word   initiation, wouldn't  we be  objecting to anyone wanting to dumb them down with an inappropriate substitution.  So on reflection I don't think my point is pedantic – but from a desire  to make them more encyclopedic. Aspro (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

United Nations
Hello, for this part i would like to ask some updates from UN concerning the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The question is still vivid nowadays, and we can notice it from UN discussions about it.

Nowadays, the problem of security that the nuclear weapons seem to generate has been questionned by the international scene. Ban Ki Moon, ex General Secretary of U.N., even said that "We must eliminate all nuclear weapons in order to eliminate the grave risk they pose to our world. This will require persistent efforts by all countries and peoples. A nuclear war would affect everyone, and all have a stake in preventing this nightmare". The treaty of prohibition of nuclear weapons has been adopted in july 7th 2017 by the U.N. after the resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 23rd of December 2016. The treaty of prohibition has for aim to delegitimize nuclear weapons but actually there is nothing proposed about the conditidions for the prohibition. It is more a general prohibition which doesn't lead to any abolition of the use of nuclear weapons. It only points out the danger of nuclear weapons hoping that later those weapons will slowly be less used. Moreover, the thing is that the treaty is not legally binding for the countries who choose not to sign it. The countries need to give their consent by singning it in order for the treaty to be legally binding. Therefore, the countries of NATO are likely not going to sign it since nuclear weapons are a way of securing their countries. Indeed nuclear weapons are usually used to dissuade other threatening countries. Futhermore, there is another treaty against the use of nuclear weapons called Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons). However, the countries having nuclear weapons don't respect the article 6 of this treaty about nuclear disarming for the same reason as to dissuade other threatening countries.

Hoping this edit would be useful for this article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichraf08 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * You have not proposed a specific edit. The NPT is already mentioned in this article, sufficiently.  The ban treaty might be worth a brief mention and a cross-reference to the corresponding article Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. NPguy (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150418011842/http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/index.html to https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

War crime on Geneva protocol.
This is weight shown on warhead and these weapons are dangerous. The NRC does not endorse use of weapons on research or real time in War. This not intended as weight watcher diet either for Korea or Russia 75.166.35.145 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021
It is mentioned that India has tested thermonuclear weapons is controversial. It isn't controversial, it is true. India tested thermonuclear weapon (Shathi 1 ) fusion along with other fission devices. So please make the changes & publish it. thanks 2001:16A2:DE74:8600:15D4:DEF9:9EB4:EB9A (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hating America: The New World Sport which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing pieces
Cruise missles and stand-off weapons (like Hounddog for B52) are another delivery method for nuclear weapons. These nuclear tipped cruise missles are destabilizing because like ICBMs and SLBMs are nearly invulnerable to interception.

China includes decoys in its MIRVs further hindering defense.

Russia/US now spending Trillion $ to upgrade nuclear weapons (current issue). Tritium half life is 12 yrs. Polonium (Polonium-Beryllium neutron sources for Uranium 235 bombs) half life is <one year. Plutonium over time becomes contaminated with decay products and less reliable as a nuclear weapon. Result is after a decade, current nuclear weapons require replacement or at least refurbishing. Separating contaminating Plutonium isotopes is difficult.

U235 has a very high cross-section (probability) for absorbing low energy neutrons. Result is U236m (or U236 at a higher energy level) which usually fissions (breaks apart) and gives off 2.4 fast neutrons (to continue reaction) but 18% of reactions (fusion of U235 + neutron) only emits a gamma ray. Hence, with no moderator, nuclear bomb reaction is propagated by high energy (high MeV) neutrons, which split U235 & U238 at near the same lower probability rate. The higher loss of high MeV neutrons and gamma rays results in unreacted fuel hence lower than ideal yields.

Re largest bomb, each fissile material has its own critical mass (& volume) such that enough neutrons are retained to propagate a chain reaction. Minimum size bomb just larger than critical mass formed from one or more subcritical masses. Limit for larger bomb is number of subcritical pieces kept apart. (Imploding a hollow sphere of Pu239 with explosives, also.)

Re “Tamper”: Could use Thorium? Thorium (and Bismuth et al) also fission from impact of high MeV neutrons and gamma rays. Shjacks45 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

After the use of Nuclear Weapons in World War II, it showed the world why these types of bombs should not be used in war again. If these bombs were used today, there very well may be a nuclear fallout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyonsJ7 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Only Six Countries?
The section on Fusion Weapons states that only six countries have tested thermonuclear weapons. This does not include North Korea. Shouldn't it? The balance of opinion seems to be that the 2017 test was thermonuclear. NPguy (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Recent qualitative edits
I'm finding the following edits by to be unencyclopedic and oddly qualitative:  and. What do other editors think? Attic Salt (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree --Ita140188 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree as well. Looks like unsourced personal opinions, we should remove the text and should have started the discussion here instead of reverting to re-insert their first change. --McSly (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the material. Attic Salt (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Now I know who the assholes are. Retribution forthcoming. BTW how old are you ??? do you read books ??? Wikkileaker (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jleavitt07.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

SI units
It would be good if at least some of the energies quoted were in joules. 86.129.195.92 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Almost all energies in this article are already followed by conversions to J, GJ, TJ or PJ. Fbergo (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment
— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

German
Put IT in German 195.8.226.76 (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Kernwaffe. VQuakr (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change for clarity
Currently, the text includes,

most of these are for non-strategic (decisively war-winning) purposes

As there is ambiguity whether the parenthetical definition applies to "strategic" or "non-strategic", I would change this to state,

most of these are not for strategic (decisively war-winning) purposes

If I have misunderstood the difference between strategic and tactical, then swap out those terms. In any case, the revised sentence seems less ambiguous than the original. 194.25.174.98 (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extinction
The new section on effects of nuclear war gives far too much weight to the unlikely prospect of human extinction. Nuclear war could have a range of effects, from highly localized to widespread catastrophe. Focusing on the most implausible extreme is both biased and undermines the credibility of the section. NPguy (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's two sentences, which appear to be backed up with sources. Do you have sources for the implausibility of human extinction? John (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was the first thing that came up: Nuclear war is unlikely to cause human extinction. NPguy (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Sylwester Kaliski
Poland (from the 1980s to 1993) - there were three Soviet bases (facility 3001 - Podborsko, facility 3002 - Brzeźnica-Kolonia, facility 3003 - Templewo), where about 180 warheads were stored[34]. Some of them (for R-17 missiles in four tactical-operational missile brigades) and air bombs for modified Su-7s were planned to be handed over to the Polish Army shortly before the launch. There was a rumor that the Russians were offering Jaruzelski nuclear weapons to directly equip the Polish Army, but there is no contemporary evidence of such information. It is possible that this was an attempt to mask the fact that in the 1960s the command of the Polish Army and the leadership of the state did not oppose the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons on the territory of the People's Republic of Poland. It is also known that in the 1970s Edward Gierek patronized the work of the rector of the Military University of Technology, General Sylwester Kaliski, on inducing a chain reaction with a laser. Gierek thought about possible nuclear tests in the tunnels in the Bieszczady Mountains. Ultimately, only experimental reactors were built in Poland at the institute in Świerk. Kaliski himself died in unclear circumstances. 5.173.140.182 (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022
209.174.65.194 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)i belive i should be able to edit be i am a history teacher who has studied bombs.
 * The usage of this template is to request changes to the article. The easiest way to get access to semi-protected articles like this one is to create an account. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023
no where in this article does it say that nuclear weapons were developed and invented in Los alamos national laboratory by J. Robert Oppenheimer and tested 210 miles south of Los Alamos, New Mexico, on the plains of the Alamogordo Bombing Range, known as the Jornada del Muertos also known as the trinity site Memerman42069 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC) New Mexico history textbook and New Mexico history class at Rio rancho high school
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This article only covers the history briefly. See History_of_nuclear_weapons for more detailed history.  RudolfRed (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)