Talk:Pure fusion weapon

Untitled
''Some researchers have examined the use of antimatter as an alternative fusion trigger, mainly in the context of antimatter catalyzed nuclear pulse propulsion. Such a system, in a weapons context, would have many of the desired properties of a pure fusion weapon. The technical barriers to producing and containing the required quantities of antimatter appear formidible, well beyond present capabilities.''

Do you have a reference for this? If not it will have to go --DV8 2XL 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Did you bother reading the linked articles; see also antimatter weapon. --Robert Merkel 12:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Or this link. --Robert Merkel 12:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then those external links should go in the main article. The ones that are there are silent on anti-mater weapons, and by policy you shouldn't use wikipedia articles as primary references. -DV8 2XL 13:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skylab1995.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pure Fusion weapons and Terrorism
I deleted all the material about Pure fusion weapons and terrorism. There is no evidence that technologically advanced countries have ever been able to produce one, despite spending huge amounts of cash, so how are terrorist organisations meant to produce a pure fusion weapon? Enriching uranium is a trivial task compared to producing a pure fusion weapon. Wikipedia is not the place to try to make the case that pure fusion weapons might increase the terrorist threat: there needs to be a reference. I also reduced the section on "red mercury" to a link, because this is already discussed there, and doesn't seem to merit extensive discussion. --Dashpool 15:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed uninformative statement
I removed the phase "The successful creation of a pure fusion weapon would be a worrying development.". Wether development of such devices would be a good or a bad thing is a matter of pow, and as such something that articles should be neutral about. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Howard from NYC (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Q: what is "pow"?

Nomination for deletion
This article consists of non-verifiable speculative contents. Even the single referenced material discussed new laws or regulations to control non-verified weapon systems. Summary: Non-notable result, non-verifiable statements, and POV assuming existence of such weapons. MegaHasher (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be deleted, it is a notable subject IMO. A Google search gives lots of non-WP results for it (e.g. ). But the statements do indeed need to be referenced (or removed). I don't see a POV since it's called a "hypothetical" weapon from the start, it's not assumed it exists. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source
I just noticed the articles cites from www.nextbigfuture.com. I can't believe this is accepted on wikipedia. All these years (a decade) that site never ever posted a reference or even reference link. All the pictures and images were taken from their original documents and manipulated to support their articles. That site can't be more fake. Check for yourself. Mightyname (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

possible typo
Howard from NYC (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

text = "approximately 3 tonnes of TNT"

Q: was this supposed to be "approximately 3 kilo tonnes of TNT"...?