Talk:United States and weapons of mass destruction

/archive1

"Use of Chemical weapons in Vietnam"
The Introduction suggests that the United States used chemical weapons in Vietnam. However this is not supported by the article or the sources listed. Can this be verified? Should this line be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.251.254 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Added info about use of chemical weapons in Vietnam from existing pages. Apoorv020 (talk) 11:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"it is generally agreed"
. . . is weasel wording, especially when many people say otherwise; even the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey (hardly the work of "limp dicked western historians", neh?) says "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender." (p. 46) though it does say that "they did foreshorten the war and expedite the peace."(p. 47)&mdash;which is an ambiguous conclusion, and arguments continue over just how necessary the bombings were; look through a decent bibliography or two. What's necessary, rather than a lot of argument and insults, is either a full description of the controversy in this article or else a wikilink to that description; the Hiroshima article has fairly extensive discussion, and there's enough information available, I think, for a separate Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings article, if anyone cares to write it. &mdash;No-One Jones 18:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I did not even know about the other article. This one is redundant and needs to be deleted then. as far as your argument goes (if that is what you call that trite piece of commie propaganda), the most complete investigation and study of the Japanese perspective on the surrender: Japan's Longest Day: The Pacific War Research Society ISBN: 4770028873, categorically refutes the claims that they were on the brink of surrender. TDC 18:57, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * So say that, if the book actually says that the atomic bombs forced the Japanese government to accept plans for surrender, that nothing else could have done so, and that their decision mattered. (I have yet to read the book, but thanks for the reference.) &mdash;No-One Jones 21:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC) (trying hard not to feed the troll)

Various
Please read the Chemical Weapons Convention before chaniging the deadline -the deadline is 2007 (i.e. ten years after entry into force (1997) for total destruction). Also if you want to start adding weasel words you had better start adding reputable sources which claim that the U.S. stockpiles and programs are not as the U.S. claims them to be. There may be such sources. I haven't seen anything at OPCW or IAEA, maybe a group like Greenpeace? Rmhermen 15:14, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * You can not present the US version as a fact, that is not neutral. And why do you delete the information that the US did not meet a deadline while you insist that Russia only destroyed 1% of its chemical weapons? Get-back-world-respect 15:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I get that information from the OPCW and the text of the treaty. Your website citation incorrectly interprets the signing date (1993) as the entry in to force date (1997 when the 65th country signed). And then claims that the U.S. missed a ten year deadline which is actually 2007 not 2003. Russia met the 1% deadline (1999 plus an extension for technical and financial difficulty). Rmhermen 20:06, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete sources, even if you question the accuracy of their information. I do not know if you are right to say that the US did not have to destroy its chemical weapons by 2003, but what you say does not seem conclusive to me given that the Nuclear Threat Initiative writes "Under terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), which the United States ratified in April 1997, the United States has committed to destroying all chemical stockpiles by April 2004. However, in September 2003, the Pentagon announced that it would be unable to meet this deadline and would ask for an extension at the Fall 2003 CWC meeting." I can imagine that they erred about the treaty's deadline although I regard it unlikely that you know better than an initiative that is only there for research about the topic. But I cannot imagine that they made up a Pentagon announcement just to support their version. Get-back-world-respect 00:28, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Read the treaty yourself and learn what the people in charge of the Convention say - don't base your comments on some unknown group's random interpretations. The OPCW has never said that the the U.S. violated any part of the treaty. Removing erroneous information is a normal part of editing a page. Rmhermen 17:57, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because you do not know them does not mean they are "unknown". I stick to my claim that such a group has most likely more expertise on the issue than you have and that the alleged error in the interpretation of the deadline does not explain why they write "In September 2003, the Pentagon announced that it would be unable to meet this deadline and would ask for an extension at the Fall 2003 CWC meeting." I will restore the information as a quote and search for more sources. I repeat that you should not delete sources. Get-back-world-respect 23:55, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vfd
Including something to vote for deletion without even bringing it up at talk is a gross breaking of wiki etiquette. Get-back-world-respect 15:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * you mean like you did to oil for food allegations? TDC 15:50, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I had discussed with you about the allegations before. Plus I had not known of the policy before while you have a recent experience. Get-back-world-respect 16:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Too bad. Almost all the info in this article is present in other articles. The VFD request stays. TDC 16:07, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Where do you see the information? Why do you not discuss before you list for deletion? Do you think the five related articles all have to go as well? And Iraq and weapons of mass destruction? Get-back-world-respect 16:09, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has been very successful in collecting information, which is why this should remain.


 * The United States have the biggest arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in the world, deleting this and keeping Iraq and weapons of mass destruction would be infamous. The fact that information was collected about Iraq just shows a disequilibrium in wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Russia does. TDC 22:52, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Russia's arsenal is out of date and they have a smaller arsenal of nuclear weapons, which is the most important part. Get-back-world-respect 16:54, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Depending on what you mean by nuclear arsenal, Russia has larger throw weight for example. And probably more warheads in reserve. but in any case, throw weight is what's important, because after a nuclear exchange, all facilities will be destroyed and there will be no way to use your remaining warheads. That is, if you want to talk about that really matters. Pavel Golikov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.63.253 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bias
Rmhermen, although I see your point about "anti-US bias" in the way I wrote things like "officially admits possessing," I think your corrections swing too far in the other direction. And I don't mean that as an insult, just a question asking how we can find some middle ground.

The fact of the matter is that countries and governments lie, not just the U.S., but all of them. If we take your stance ("weapons programs cancelled", "possesses") then it would only be fair to apply the same standard to Iraq and weapons of mass destruction -- if the Iraqi government said they didn't have them, they didn't have them, right? Well, no. Iraq was under added scrutiny because the U.S. (its enemy) held most of the geopolitical cards, but who knows what would be found if similar random inspections were held in a random Western country of your choosing? The Anthrax spores that were sent to Congress were traced to a U.S. facility, didn't the news say? And isn't having samples "for research" all that's necessary to develop bio weapons if needed? You know what would have happened if "samples" had been found in Iraq.

So I'm looking for some common ground -- some words that will make us both happy. What would make me happy are words that could be applied equally to allies and enemies, so there isn't blind acceptance of "our side" and blind condemnation of "their side." Rjyanco 17:33, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)What is UTC?
 * I simply rolled back the changes. If you want to claim or imply that the numbers are not correct, then you need to supply some group which makes counter-claims. It is easy to say that this is what the government claims and then go check it. If you want to claim someone else disbelieves this tell us who they are so we can go verify it (links are good, too). The statement "The U.S. claims that Iraq possess WMD" would be incomplete in the Iraq article without the added facts that "Iraq denies having WMD" and the "IAEA claims Iraq has no WMD". But which organizations, NGOs or countries claim otherwise about the U.S.? Does anyone? Rmhermen 22:57, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a misunderstanding. "The U.S. claims not to have biological weapons" does not imply that this is wrong, it is just neutral because given the US does not allow inspections we cannot know. I added a link for the deadline you did not believe me. By the way, NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs." Get-back-world-respect 23:20, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The program written about in the Times was a DOD project to determine the difficulty of building a biological weapons facility using off the shelf components that could be purchased through catalogues, in stores, and online with a limited budget and only a few technicians and not raise any suspicions. It was a feasibility study to determine if properly trained terrorist organization could do this. This was not an attempt by the DOD to re constitute a BW program. Anything to the contrary is ridiculous. TDC 16:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * GBWR has indentified my point. The US typically refuses to allow inspections on US soil.  When we sign treaties, typically we (the US) want a clause saying certain provisions don't apply to us.  So, Rmhermen, what would you think about the following, provided that it was backed up:  "The U.S. claims to have dismantled its biological weapons program, but would not sign the XYZ treaty that would have confirmed this. [1]"  Mind you, I'm not writing that at the moment, but if that were written, would you find it to have an anti-American bias?  Because that's not what I'm trying for, but I also don't want to come across as blindly accepting what the government says.  As GBWR says, the best we can know is that the US has claimed it, because it hasn't been confirmed independently. Rjyanco (forgot to sign)


 * It is not only that "The US typically refuses to allow inspections on US soil." None of the permanent members of the Security Council allow regular inspections, the only case I know of is Russia when they wanted financial support for destroying their costly arsenal. In my eyes it is a scandal that such countries are allowed so much power. Get-back-world-respect 15:35, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What evidence, if any, exists that the US is currently operating a covert BW program? If none exists, and I think that is the case, then a purely speculatory statement like that should not be included in the article. TDC 16:01, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. It is factual that the US says that it does not have biological weapons programs.  It may or may not be factual that this is the truth.  It would be speculative if we wrote "but they're lying," but no one is saying that they're lying, only that we can't know one way or the other.


 * Perhaps "claims" has a connotation of deceit. I don't necessarily mean it that way.  Perhaps we can settle on "says," i.e., "The United States says that it dismantled its ... programs in 197x by executive order."  But I don't buy "The United States dismantled its ... programs in 197x by executive order" which, as I say, is taking a government at its word.

If you have any information that can verify that the DOD did not dismantle its BW program in 1973, then by all means provide it. If not, then the article will reflect the facts, (the US dismantled its BW program in 73), unless evidence to the contrary can be provided.

Remember, Iraq not only has WMD's, but "We know where they are." We didn't trade arms for hostages, and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Rjyanco 16:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Each of the following statements is easy to verify the factual accuracy of.

The U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973.

The presidential order for this decision can be seen. Unless you have any evidence what so ever that the US did not end its offensive BW program, provide it or the statement will be modified.TDC 16:55, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * TDC: You really are missing the point.  We can't prove the weapons were destroyed (although you seem to think that they were).  We can't prove the weapons weren't destroyed (although I would tend to think that most of them were).  Since we can't prove anything one way or the other, the best we can say is that the government says they destroyed them. Rjyanco 21:38, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course you can prove that the wepons were destroyed. File a FOIA request for the information.TDC 22:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not know what FOIA means, but I very much doubt that the US administration does not allow weapons inspections. Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

FOIA Freedom of Information Act. TDC 00:08, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You just do not want to see it, TDC. Just because there is a presidential order does not mean that it actually happened. Many governments are accused of lying on this subject. We cannot align this article with the official US announcements just because most wikipedians are Americans. Plus, as you might have seen above, NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs." So your statement that "The U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973."  is in fact easy to verify the factual controversy of. Get-back-world-respect 17:02, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, there is no evidence to dispute the claims. Research for defensive purposes, like vaccines or production feasibility studies is not banned by the treaty. The Times article does not indicate that the activities were illegal under the treaty. Put up or shut up. TDC 17:14, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * If NTI writes: "A September 4, 2001 New York Times article identified previously undisclosed U.S. government biodefense projects involving a model of a germ bomb, a factory to make biological agents, and the development of more potent anthrax. The United States denied allegations that this research was anything other than defensive in nature and asserted that it did not violate any BWC provisions or CBMs."


 * that means 1) There are people doubting that there is no bioweapons program - which you denied,

Please read the entire article as well as Judy Miller's book on the subject. Miller does not assert or imply that the US has an offesive BW program in violation of the treaty.TDC 20:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

and 2) The US denial seems to imply that there was indeed research going on, contradicting your statement that the biological weapons program was cancelled, even if only a defensive program remains. Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, all BW related programs in the US are defensive in nature, and unless you can show otherwise, it stays as is. TDC 20:38, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I might also point out that no (that’s zero, nada, zip, zilch, nothing) weaponized biological agents were ever actually produced at the facility. The Pentagon actually invited Judy Miller into the facility and gave her a grand tour and allowed her to interview every scientist and technician working there. TDC 17:25, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I am sorry that you wasted your time with this statement but at least I learned a new word (zilch). Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

LOL, chuckle, grin -- how many was that again? ;-) Could you be more specific? Er, let me see if I got this now: are you saying that they didn't make any bio agents there? --Uncle Ed 17:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, they claim that they made no weapons, but I am sure that someone (GBWR) is in contact with some wise and all knowing sources which can dispute this claim with documented proof that the Bush Cheny Junta used weaponized agents to kill the children and pets of liberal dissidents. TDC 17:58, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * If I had contact with an all knowing source I would claim that the US, like Iraq, not only has WMD's, but "We know where they are." Get-back-world-respect 20:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is necessary to refer to sources in controversial questions when writing an encyclopedia. In this case, the source is the US government. Therefore, we must state that the source for this information is the US government. Fredrik 20:40, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, then, how about "According to the U.S. government, the U.S cancelled its biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) and destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973"? I think that's perfectly neutral, and I'm fine with it.  (Of course, I believe it's functionally the same as "The U.S. government says it cancelled...")


 * How about you have no evidence that the US gov't did not cancel its offensive BW program. The inclusion of According to the U.S. government means that the statement is disputed by someone. Either provide a source which disputes the fact that the US Gov't cancled its offensive BW program or it comes out. and as an FYI, Judy Miller's article and the NYT's never implied that there was an active offensive BW program.TDC 22:49, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to the U.S. government means that the statement is disputed by someone? For me English is only a second language but I am sure that you are wrong. You only read it into it because you want an article about the biggest arsenal of WMD in the world deleted. According to just gives the source and implies that it is unconfirmed. It will stay unconfirmed until the US allow weapons inspections, which will most unlikely happen in the next ten years, unless all presidential candidates but Dennis Kucinich will be assassinated. Get-back-world-respect 23:29, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, since english is not yor first language, then we should defer this matter to those people whose first language is english.TDC 00:08, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it to you like this: My wife had a child. There are two ways to state this:

1. According to my wife, she gave birth to our first child on August 22 2001.

or

2. My wife gave birth to our first child on August 22 2001.

Now, statement one implies that someone is in doubt as to my wifes claim that she gave birth on August 22 2001. Statement 2 implies that no one is in doubt that she gave birth on August 22 2001. TDC 00:21, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * But there's a big difference here. (1) Your wife has no reason to misrepresent the truth; (2) it is easy to confirm that your wife's statement is the truth (birth certificate, hospital records); (3) because of (2), your wife has a reason not to misrepresent the truth, lest she be seen as a liar.


 * On the other hand, (1) a government (not just the US) has every reason to misrepresent the truth about WMD, because having a specific type of potent weapons potentially gives that country an advantage in a conflict; (2) it is very difficult to confirm a government's statement without inspections, which the US will not allow; and (3) because it would be difficult to catch a government that doesn't allow inspections in a lie, there is not much fear of discovery (unless a whistleblower like Vanunu comes forward). Rjyanco 12:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Now, with no evidence to the contrary that the US has an active offensive BW program, the current phrasing is inacurate. Unless you can show otherwise, it should be removed. BTW, as I have explained, the NYT article does not allege that the US has an active offensive BW program.

According to the United States government, the U.S. cancelled its offensive biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) and destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973.

This statement implies that we have to take the US's word that that in November 1969 and February 1970 there was an executive order to end the offesnive BW program. These executive orders are easy enough to research and we can verify that in fact they were issued.

As to the second portion of the claim, that in fact all offesnive BW's were destroyed, there is no evidence contrary to this and a FOIA request could easily verify this.

But once again, no one that I know is disputing either of these two claims. TDC 00:21, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * We should provide information on the source so the reader doesn't get the impression we made it up. If there is no reason to dispute the US government's assertions then where is the problem? Worded this way, both people who believe and disbelieve the US government can draw their own conclusions; based on pure fact provided from Wikipedia's side. Fredrik 00:33, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the current wording is rather neutral, and I think if TDC wants to tell me it is because English is not my first language that I cannot share his opinion that reporting who says something automatically means that there is doubt about the truthfulness he makes a fool of himself. Get-back-world-respect 13:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dear TDC. You have a bit funny logic here. First you write in article that USA has abandoned its BW-program and take this statement as it is indisputed fact (The United States does not possess biological weapons), but as soon as someone cites the source that in this case it is US authorities (According to the United States, it does not possess biological weapons), it suddenly becames claim that is disputed by some. If you have such a strong trust for US goverments word, so that their statement can generally be taken as a fact, why it is not acceptable to mention source in the text then? Kulkuri (Forgot to sign)

What source are you refering to? TDC 15:34, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

He's referring to the U.S. government as a source. To paraphrase him: If you think that statements from the U.S. government are generally facts, why do you find it unacceptable to cite the U.S. government as a source for those facts? (Of course we both know the answer -- you think the need to cite a source for something means that that something isn't indisputable fact. And you're 100% right.  And that's why we need to cite a source here.)  Rjyanco 20:14, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We could take the phrase the U.S. cancelled its offensive biological weapons program  and source it from many places (like the UN or the FAS), all of which have seen the executive orders to cancel the BW program. So there are multiple sources for the first statement. We could link the executive order showing this, or link a site.

Point being that there is more than one source that several executive orders were given to cancel the offensive BW program, not just the US government. If we site one, then we site them all, and that would make the opening sentence about 900 words long. But if that is what you want....... TDC 17:20, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * This seems pretty straight forward to me - we just need to state the facts.

Those are all NPOV facts that don't seem to be in dispute. What are we missing? Mark Richards 16:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The US govt claims not to have BWprograms, and to have destroyed its stocks.
 * 2) There is no strong evidence that this is not true.
 * 3) There is no independent verification that it is true, nor will the US govt allow any.

The original line I agreed to was this.


 * The United States cancelled its offensive biological weapons program by executive order (November 1969 and February 1970) and appears to have destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973.

Now, once again, the first line is from several dozen sources, so if we list one, (i.e. According to the U.S. government) then I say we list them all. The second point of contention and appears to have destroyed all biological weapons by February 1973 can be verified via a FOIA request. I would not object to leaving that in. TDC 17:20, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

TDC, I just wanted to say that the document you found and provided (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB58/RNCBW9.pdf) is really great -- if you find anything else like that, it definitely belongs in this article. Rjyanco 18:09, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ahh yes, praises and salutations to TDC, aka el magnifico :) TDC 18:15, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the FOIA isn't really very compelling, it is not independent verification, which is really what you would want to corroborate these claims. In Iraq, for example, the equivalent of an FOIA request to the Iraqi govt was not considered enough to verify claims ;). Mark Richards 18:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh like what, UN weapons inspectors. After all Hans Blix did such a good job of uncovering Iraq's clandestine nuclear program in the 1980's didn't he? And how truly moronic of you is it to compare the level of governmental transparency and accountability in the United States and Iraq in manner in which you did? TDC 18:40, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hans Blix's effectiveness has nothing to do with it, nor do the relative merits of the US or Iraqi governments,


 * It has everything to do the continual references to ‘’independent verifications’’ that seem to be the holy grail of disarmament claims. If a government is not serious abut disarming, like say Iraq for example, then it wont. If a government is serious about it, like Ukraine, then they will TDC 18:59, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * the point is that in matters military, governments are notoriously secretive. A govt simply saying that they have destroyed a type of weapon carries little credability in and of itself.


 * The executive order I cited was not willingly declassified and was obtained through a FOIA request. TDC 18:59, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * It doesn't mean they are lying either, the only information that we have is that they say they have done it. Let's just report that. Mark Richards 18:48, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, it is not just one source saying that the US no longer has an offensive BW program, but dozens of other sources. It one source is stated or implied, i.e. the US govt, then I will give all sources which corroborate this, no matter how many I am able to dig up. Do you really want to go down that path? TDC 18:59, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

If another revert is made again, then I will have no other choice than to compile a list of more corroborating sources and include them in the statement. TDC 18:59, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I think rather than threatening to make the article unworkable, you should bear in mind that we are both working to try to make the article as acurate as possible. The fact that a memo exists does not prove that the decommissioning happened. If you have independent sources who can provide evidence or first hand testimony that the bio-weapons program was completely dismantled. Ukraine allowed independent verifiaction, the US has not. We should just state the facts. Let's calm down a little though, we're both on the same side! ;) Mark Richards 19:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mark, the reversion that you made is exactly what was agreed to earlier, and I have absolutely no problems with it. TDC 19:43, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Great! I thought we were probably both trying to be reasonable! See you around, Mark Richards 19:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD Archived debate
Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 22 to Apr 28 2004, consensus was unanimously to keep.

Begin archived discussion:

This page seems redundant as all information here is in various other articles. This should be either deleted and/or all relevant materials be merged in their appropriate places. TDC 15:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - TDC did not even bring this up on talk. There is no other article covering the information about the weapons of mass destructions of specific countries, only a list about countries with nuclear weapons. If this article goes, all other articles covering specific information about countries with weapons of mass destruction would have to go as well given that the US arsenal is the biggest. Get-back-world-respect 15:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly valid topic. What place is more appropriate for details about the WMDs of the US than an article about the WMDs of the US? Fredrik 16:02, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only a perfectly valid topic, but as I understand it this was created because Iraq and weapons of mass destruction has done a fantastic job collecting all of the information about that topic.  Give these pages time to grow.  By the way, not only do I like this topic, I think that it would be worthwhile to have a page for each country that has had WMD, now or in the past.  Often information like this is ignored by the media, and/or those who attempt to expose it are silenced.  Wikipedia is a fantastic place to collect accurate information that often cannot be found elsewhere (easily, at least). Rjyanco 17:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid topic. Not POV AndyL
 * Keep. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Much data on Wikipedia is duplicated, triplicated, or even multiplicated (hehe) as is appropriate for similar articles that deal with similar topics. I don't really understand the objection to this article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:39, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. WMDs are a valid topic. It is in accordance with NPOV JoJan 20:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This whole VfD issue regarding this article seems more like TDC's personal (and very childish) paypack-attempt for Oil for food VfD, that he lost.
 * Keep. This is an important topic even if it may be controversial. Rmhermen 22:59, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm predicting a pretty active NPOV patrol on this one in the future, however.  Postdlf  00:06 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lefty 02:37, 2004 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Keep, but should it be United States and weapons of mass destruction instead (c.f. United States and the United Nations)? Radicalsubversiv 03:13, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pteron 05:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good article. Lots of our articles have overlaps with other articles, that's not a problem in itself. Well-organized, well-written. Not quite a candidate for "featured article," but certainly not a candidate for deletion. Even looks reasonably NPOV to me, but that may be my own POV. (The only thing about it that's not NPOV is the decision to have an article on this topic). Dpbsmith 00:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:24, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason for deletion.  --Daniel C. Boyer 23:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I can certainly think of valid reasons to delete. Cribcage 01:25, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 12:47, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion

Sales to Iraq
An anonymous contributor added this paragraph to the article:
 * However, this didn't stop US from selling biological weapons to Saddam Hussein: US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.

The link leads to an odd editorial about children's music. Rmhermen 23:37, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

When searching google for "Iraq AND clostridium" I foud those links: Between 1985-89, ATCC made 17 shipments of "attenuated strains of various toxins and bacteria" to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission. ("Center for Nonproliferation Studies") and In the 1980s, Iraq procured additional anthrax strains from three major sources: the United States (American Type Tissue Collection), the Pasteur Institute (France; two strains), and strains JB17 and Sterne 3452 from the Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Surry, UK. (Nuclear Threat Initiative) Get-back-world-respect 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

DU
Is depleted Uranium considered a WMD? If so, the USA certainly possesses the stuff, and have used it in three wars. If not, ignore me. Chewyman
 * Weapons of Mass Destruction are usually considered to be nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Neither of which DU is -- at best it is a slightly radioactive heavy metal whose main purpose is to penetrate armor rather than cause any mass destruction of human life (whatever you think of the putative long-term health problems). --Fastfission 12:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, no, DU is a nuclear weapon - it is used in weaponry, and is nuclear - it emits alpha and beta particles as well as gamma rays. Its effects on human health are considered to be large-scale, and so I think DU can be classed quite safely as a nuclear weapon, but whether it's a WMD or not is the question. Chewyman 15:02, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)
 * It is not a nuclear weapon -- such terminology refers to a weapon deriving its energy from nuclear fission or nuclear fusion, which it does not use. You are trying to say that it is radioactive, which is not the same thing as being a nuclear weapon (at best, you'd be better off arguing that it could be used as a radiological weapon), and it has a very low-level of radioactivity at that. Its effects on human health are extremely putative (and are based more on its heavy metal toxicity than its radioactivity). It is neither a WMD nor a nuclear weapon, you really should look up what those terms mean before using them, you look pretty silly asserting that depleted uranium is a nuclear weapon. --Fastfission 15:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chemical weapons destruction
Destruction of chemical weapons was supposed to start in "summer 2004" at Pine Bluff and Newport. Can anyone tell if it actually did start? Rmhermen 14:22, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Destruction began almost a year late at Newport, but it has begun. (See the Newport Chemical Depot article for more info.)  As for Pine Bluff, I have no information about them at this time. --Jpbrenna 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This means?

 * The U.S. ratified the Geneva Protocol on January 22, 1975.

I found this to be in the opening paragraph, may someone please explain what the ramifications are... thank you (why should 'I' the reader care?). ~ RoboAction 19:43, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rmhermen 14:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear missile subs
Form the article: "15 Ohio-class submarines deployed...eight with Trident I missiles, and ten with Trident II missiles." 8+10=18 not 15. Which is correct? Rmhermen 14:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

france: 1st gulf war & top secret base
"only known country": in the early 90s, french troops were contaminated during the first gulf war and got indemnification for that. also there is a persistant rumor about the top secret B2-Namous base located in the Sahara desert, French Algeria (map, Colomb Béchar) where chemical weapons (inc. gaz) were experimented in the 1960s. Cliché Online 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

agent orange etc
Aren't defoliants such as agent orange chemical weapons? Mike.lifeguard 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No because they target plants, not people. See explanation at Chemical weapons. Rmhermen 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biological weapons
To start only after the US entered the treaty is pretty non-neutral. How about the 20-30 years previous where they were doing research into offensive biological weapons? - Francis Tyers · 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please expand if you have more information. I don't have any myself but agree it is an important part of the article. Rmhermen 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"Iran has advanced biology and genetic engineering research programmes supporting an industry that produces world-class vaccines for both domestic use and export.[5] The dual-use nature of these facilities mean that Iran, like any country with advanced biological research programmes, could easily produce biological warfare agents."

"Iran is known to possess cultures of the many biological agents for legitimate scientific purposes which have been weaponised by other nations in the past, or could theoretically be weaponised, though they do not allege that Iran has attempted to weaponise them, Iran possesses sufficient biological facilities to potentially do so.[7]"

The above is used in article Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction. Could same wording be added to section on biological weapons here? 172.159.69.47 14:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The US has Nuclear Chemical and Biological Weapons?
YOu guys are smarter than me, and I presume you have been going over this with a fine-toothed comb. But, I have a problem with the first sentence. The US has no usable chemical weapons. (Well, OK CS we got.) We have nasty old weapons that have no military use and are being destroyed. Same with biological weapons, but more so. The has some batches of nasty germs. We have no way to deliver them. So, no weapons.

I will take no action, as this is not my area of expertise, but still, that first line is just misleading and wrong. Paul, in Saudi 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, China has been said to have the largest chem, bio, and nuke weapons in the world (remember, they weren't effected by the downgrading and removal that the US and USSR/Russia did). Leobold1 (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To add to...the US does have an active program into bio and chem weapons, but strictly for "how to deal with it when some other group hits us with it" purposes.


 * The US is believed to have used chemical weapons in Iraq. http://www.wikileaks.cx/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention.
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-forces-used-chemical-weapon-in-iraq-515551.html Randaly (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

second largest in the world; depending on the definition...
"The U.S. arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is the second largest in the world; depending on the definition."

Depending on the definition, the U.S. arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is either the second largest in the world, or the second largest in the world? SalineBrain (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Reserve bombers
Ok, it has been wrote that there are 94 B-1s, when it is 64. So, either we include in Russia's article the aircraft that are in reserve (those 90 Tu-22M3 to those 160 allready listed and some Tu-95), or we don't add inactive reserve aircraft to US strategic bombers article. It is one or the other, because if we include reserve aircraft in to US fleet, it makes it look like US has larger strategic bomber fleet, while in fact it is quite the opposite, Russia has largest. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

To User 85.232.205.214 -- Discussion on US and New World Order
I removed the following section from the article itself as it does not meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Neutral Point of View policies.


 * Since the United States of America is the World's leader, a superior country, having the most advanced army, the most advanced democratic system,..., it is the only country that has the right to control the development and who owns the WMD. The New World Order(TM) (US's shadow goverment) can decide which country can own them (i.e. Allies) and which not (i.e. the rest). The US goverment can easily accuse a country of owning/developing WMD by using news agencies (also known, by the NWO, as brainwashing agencies), for example, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, ... The US is the only country that have the absolute right to use WMD whenever the NWO wants to (example Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

The information is not factual, is not referenced, is original research, and has no place in an encyclopedic discussion of WMD. If you would like to include such information, then you need to clean it up according to accepted standards. If you insist on a third revert, you could be locked out of editing for this article. Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Don&#39;tKnowItAtAll, and have reverted the most recent attempt by User 85.232.205.214 to reinstate that information, and will try to keep an eye on this page for a little while. &mdash;Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Biased lead?
What is the reason for having the following in the lead:

1. ''The United States' attitude towards these weapons has been claimed to be primarily defensive, and the actual use of such weapons seen as inhumane unless first provoked. As President Roosevelt stated during World War II:''

2. ''“ Use of such (biological and chemical weapons) has been outlawed by the general opinion of mankind. This country has not used them and I hope we never will be compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies. ”''

3. ''Since Roosevelt's statement, the U.S. has destroyed its biological weapons and begun destroying its chemical weapons. The U.S. is a participant in the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention which ban the production, possession or use of those classes of weapons. The U.S. retains a large arsenal of nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent, limited by several international and bilateral treaties.''

to 1: "attitude towards these weapons has been claimed to be primarily defensive" - Sure they are only for defense. But I'm also sure that each and every country possessing WMD would say the same. So what is the point of having this sentence here?

to 2: "I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies." - still, the next president used them first anyway. So what is the point of having this old sentence from Roosevelt here? Is the statement somehow especially important to the US doctrine or what?

to 3: "Since Roosevelt's statement, the U.S. has destroyed its biological weapons and begun destroying its chemical weapons." - great news, but still, "has begun to destroy" is different from "has destroyed." Russia is doing the same - started to destroy them - but still this is not mentioned in the lead of Russia's corresponding article

"The U.S. retains a large arsenal of nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent, limited by several international and bilateral treaties" - "they are only for defense!" gets repeated here again. But I think we already understood it the first time. Besides, "it's a defensive deterrent" is not really a fact, but a claim, so why is this unsourced statement presented here as a fact?

This whole lead doesn't sound very NPOV to me. I'd like to especially point out, that the leads of the corresponding articles for other countries, France, Russia and India for example, only mention what they have and do not provide explanations/justifications "they're only for defense!", "we are already destroying our chemical weapons!", etc. at all. Why does the US article receive a different treatment? Offliner (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since seems to have any objections, I have decided to remove this offending part of the lead. Offliner (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Second largest ???
5800 nuclear warhead USA vs 3081 Russia

chemical weapon to Russia is liquidated to 2012 and is already liquidated 80 %

bacteriological weapon is forbidden beside all

US mass destruction weapon arsenal the largest in world Gnomsovet (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the source for this claim? Offliner (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, says the US has 4,075 warheads (plus additional 1,260 in the reserve.)  says "In January 2009 the Russian strategic forces included 678 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3081 nuclear warheads." Offliner (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * From : "The American stockpile is believed to be about 2,300 warheads, and the Russians' even lower." Offliner (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should remove the claim, that US stockpile of WMD is the second largest. There are contradictory sources, and the sources used for that claim only count nuclear warheads anyway, not all WMD. Also note, that this source points out the uncertainty: "The estimate for the size and composition of the total Russian inventory comes with considerable uncertainty but is based on Cold War levels, subsequent dismantlement rates, and official Russian statements. Perhaps as many as a quarter (~3,000) of the weapons listed may be awaiting dismantlement."


 * I'd say we should definitely remove the claim. Even the FAS source does not directly claim, that the Russian stockpile is the largest, given the uncertainty. Offliner (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that all reputable sources which give both counts give a higher count to Russian nukes (your second link doesn't work anymore, Offliner so I can't see who was making that claim) Nuke counting is one strange game. You can count operational weapons, or START treaty "weapons" or operational plus reserve, or operational plus reserve plus non-dismantled or operational plus reserve plus nondismantled plus nondestroyed casings, etc. You wouldn't think counting how many bombs are around that can make a really big boom would be so hard. That is why it is important to use a source which gives a comparison using the same counting method. That is why we tend to rely on the non-governmental Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The fact that the Russian chemical stockpile is larger is undisputed. Neither country claims any biological weapons. Rmhermen (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a working source for the claim "The American stockpile is believed to be about 2,300 warheads, and the Russians' even lower.":
 * In short, the sources are contradictory. Therefore, the claim that Russia has the largest stockpile must be removed, since there is very high risk that the claim is simply false and that we are presenting misinformation here. Also I'm not sure why we doing the comparison anyway. Offliner (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really a contradiction. The sentence before mentions the START treaty. START counting is just bizarre. The U.S. counts some empty missile silos as one warhead, each B2 bomber as one warhead (although they can't carry any nukes now), each B52 as one - even though they carry up to 16 bombs. The Bush administration was planning on lowering its treaty total by keeping one nuclear missile sub in the repair dock at all times - even though the missiles themselves would not be removed. Rmhermen (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I jumped into conclusions too fast. Most sources indeed seem to claim that the Russian stockpile is larger. Another question is: why do we have to make the comparison in this article in the first place? What purpose does it serve and is it really necessary, especially given the relatively large uncertainty about the numbers. Offliner (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What about proposed and threatened nuke attacks?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war#Proposed_use_of_nuclear_weapons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#French_Exit_and_proposed_US_nuclear_strikes.2C_1950.E2.80.931954

And at the beginning of the Persian Gulf war, Bush Sr. threatened Saddam that if he used his Chemical weapons on US troops that he would retaliate with nuclear strikes against Iraq.

It just seems to me that an article on the USA and WMDs should included incidences of Near-Use and Threatened-Use of them.

BillyTFried (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the threatened attacks by North Korea should be mentioned in this article. Kevinmon (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think those should be mentioned. However, I don't think North Korea's threats have got anything to do with "United States and weapons of mass destruction." Offliner (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

History of CW in the US
That section is so large that it should probably be spun off into its own article. The following material was added by another editor to another article, where it was too general to be germane. It may be of use for expanding the aforementioned history though.

BEGIN PASTE

Cold War Exposures
In order to understand the rationale for chemical and biological research from World War II until 1975, it is necessary to examine the history of the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and to understand the perceived threat to the Free World during the Cold War.

In 1915, during World War I, the Germans released chlorine gas at Ypres. Gas warfare quickly proliferated on the battlefield. Both sides introduced phosgene (choking gas) and a vomiting gas in late 1915, followed by blood agents in 1916 and mustard agent (a blistering agent) in 1917. By the end of the war, chemical agents caused more than one million casualties and 90,000 deaths. Neither side used biological agents during the war although they did investigate plant and animal diseases. At the outset of World War II, the United States moved to protect its food supply from biological pathogens by setting up an extensive surveillance program. The Army established Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 as their primary research and development center for biological agents. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland was the Army’s principal research and development center for chemical agents. Dugway Proving Ground, Utah was the main testing area for both chemical and biological weapons. At the conclusion of World War II, the United States was surprised to discover that the Germans had developed a new class of chemical agents – nerve agents. The Soviets captured a German tabun (nerve agent GA) production plant, moved it to Russia and made GA their standard nerve gas. The United States adopted sarin (nerve agent GB), also discovered by the Germans, as their standard nerve agent. By the early 1950s, the United States believed it lagged behind the Soviet Union in the development of chemical agents. It was in this context that the United States accelerated its chemical warfare research and development efforts. As part of this accelerated program, experimenters used Service members as human volunteers to determine the effects of chemical agents, as well as to develop therapeutics and prophylactics.

After World War II, the United States sent teams to Germany and Japan to determine the status of their biological warfare programs. While Germany’s program was not very advanced, Japan had an extensive program. During the war, Japan’s principal biological research element, UNIT 731, released biological agents in China and performed experiments on prisoners of war. After the war, pressures of the Cold War and fear of the Russian program led the United States to expand its biological warfare program. This program examined the effective prevention and treatment of biological warfare casualties, determination of minimal effective doses of pathogens, and the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs. Fort Detrick established Project Whitecoat, a human volunteer program to support its efforts. While the Medical Research Volunteer Program conducted at Edgewood Arsenal collected information on the effects of psychochemicals (hallucinogenic drugs) on individuals, there was no information on how these drugs would affect groups of people. Specifically, would they produce disorganizing and disruptive effects on military units? In order to gather the required information, personnel from Edgewood Arsenal conducted field testing of LSD at Fort Bragg (1958) and Fort Benning (1960). See also: Project Delirium, Project DORK, MKDELTA

Precise information on the number of tests, experiments, and participants is not available and the exact number of veterans exposed will probably never be known. DoD’s current effort to identify Cold War exposures began in 2004 and is endeavoring to identify all non-Project 112/SHAD veterans exposed to chemical and biological substances due to testing and accidents from World War II through 1975. As information on specific tests and testing programs is identified by the Office of the Special Assistant, Chemical and Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs, along with the names of military participants, the information is provided to Force Health Protection & Readiness (FHP&R) to validate. It is then provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs, who notifies the veteran of his exposure. As of June 30, 2008, FHP&R had identified approximately 10,500 veterans involved in Cold War testing or other events that may have resulted in an exposure. Testing did not necessarily involve exposure to a harmful substance. Many veterans participated in performance or equipment tests that did not involve biological or chemical substances. Others received medicines (e.g., Benadryl). For completeness and to be able to respond to veteran’s questions, FHP&R decided to include all veterans associated with testing in their database whether these veterans were exposed to chemical or biological warfare agents or not. Completion of the investigation is schedule for 2011. DoD will then continue to pursue any leads or information that is provided from any source.

END PASTE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

this article is part of a series all of which, by design, discuss all three WMDs
A recent edit summary said  this article is part of a series all of which, by design, discuss all three WMDs. This of course is entirely untrue: it is actually part of a series of articles which jam nuclear, biological and chemical weapons into one article without any attempt to link them or justify placing them in one article. For WMD-type articles to serve an encyclopedic purpose, they would need to attempt to relate C/B/N weapons to each other for the relevant country, eg in terms of strategic decision-making or deployment. Without that, it's a purposeless collection of superficially related information. Podiaebba (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Gravity bomb" vs "Unguided Bomb"
In an article primarily about nuclear weapons employing such colorful concepts as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and the like, the term "gravity bomb" sounds like some kind of science fiction contraption - I initially clicked the link thinking "what could this be?", only to be reminded that "gravity bomb" is another name for "unguided bomb". In my experience, "unguided bomb" is the far more common usage (your mileage may vary). So, I boldly adjusted the wording here. If that is disagreeable, feel free to revert my edit and leave a message explaining why (so I can make more agreeable edits in the future). 199.33.96.209 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20040513064851/http://www.state.gov:80/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/30816pf.htm to http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/30816pf.htm

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 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on United States and weapons of mass destruction. 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://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124747/http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf
 * Added tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_06/Belgium_Germany_Tactical.asp,
 * Added tag to https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm,
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060813164326/http://gulfweb.org:80/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm to http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090114042000/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4718.htm to http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4718.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040311171221/http://www.opcw.org:80/synthesis/html/s6/p4prt.html to http://www.opcw.org/synthesis/html/s6/p4prt.html
 * Added tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/j8v4421j728q2v76/?p=24edc9d2b50845cb9e7b9442befb4c31&pi=0
 * Added tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/j315pu1670282723/?p=405bbf40fda94354acd3a0ec9e416f32&pi=1
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920033652/http://www.ifri.org/downloads/prolif_11_Potter.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/downloads/prolif_11_Potter.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing content
Why is there no mention of Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war? Agent Orange - Use in the Vietnam War or the White Phosphorus attacks in Iraq? or when the US authorities continually use tear gas on its own citizens. Eck (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they are not WMDs or are not covered by the relevant treaties. Rmhermen (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States and weapons of mass destruction. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gulfweb.org:80/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112101131/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20100506022327/http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-nuclear-arsenal-revealed-5000-plus-warheads/19463888 to http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-nuclear-arsenal-revealed-5000-plus-warheads/19463888
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409024709/https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm

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) 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)