Talk:United States chemical weapons program

Necessary?
I already have to try to synchronize edits about demilitarization across the articles: and possible others (military base, sometimes base and activity both have articles) Strangely the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons doesn't have details. Do we really need another article yet? Rmhermen (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * United States and weapons of mass destruction
 * Destruction of chemical weapons
 * Chemical weapon
 * Chemical weapon proliferation
 * Chemical Weapons Convention
 * United States Army Chemical Materials Agency
 * Agreed. United States and weapons of mass destruction is only 35kB, so as per WP:SIZERULE "Length alone does not justify division".  I don't see any other reason to split the article, so I'm going to WP:BOLDly revert pending a consensus to do so.  TDL (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of those articles are generic and should have little overlap - a brief summary and a link to the specific article if necessary. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I started a discussion about these types of article at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history. The reason for the split is not length, it's that there is little overlap between WMD types; a CW article gives a better link target; a standalone article is easier to grasp for those interested in the subject; and a standalone article is more likely to be expanded. It's just all round better. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree with User:Podiaebba... Both US BW & US Nuc weapons have their own stand alone articles, so why not US CW? I have boldly made it so... BTW, the article is still woefully puny. There's alot of history that can still be put there. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States chemical weapons program. 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/20080910072816/http://www.opcw.org/docs/csp8_nat_statements/USA.pdf to http://www.opcw.org/docs/csp8_nat_statements/USA.pdf

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 16:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on United States chemical weapons program. 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 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

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) 14:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Claim that US didn't use chemical weapons in WWI
Several Wikipedia pages have statements similar to the one here: "Although the U.S. in fact never deployed chemical weapons in the front..." in World War I. However, the following account of the United States 1st Gas Regiment states that when it served in France, it used phosgene gas. See: Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)