Talk:Weapon of mass destruction/Archive 4

By Country
Why no Italia? Are we sure that there is no Weapon of mass destruction in Italia? 60.250.158.7 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a good cite for Italian nuclear SLBM Alfa (rocket) http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/alfa.htm  Italy also used mustard gas in Ethiopia, cite also has info on nuclear and missile programs http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/italy/79.177.107.73 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The first says Italy "flirted with" the idea of nuclear SLBMs and even tested missile stages, but abandoned them in favor of the NPT in the 1970s. I'm not sure that merits mention here, but interested in other editors' views.  The reference to actual use of mustard gas in Ethiopia probably does deserve mention. NPguy (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Egypt also neds a page, well documented use of mustard gas stocks in Yemen Civil War, also had a unsucessful nuclear and rocket delivery program. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/egypt/nuke.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/nuke/ http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/egypt/cw.htm http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/cw/ http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/egypt/ http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/shoham53.pdf http://aces.nmsu.edu/ces/nmhs/chemical-weapons.html79.176.147.15 (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Broken links
Under Public Perceptions, the PIPI site is broken. Also, WMD.com is no longer relevant and the site is for sale. Brian Pearson (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ref #27: Certificate has expired, the page will not load.
 * This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Template
Perhaps a template for "Weapon of mass destruction"?
 * timestamp to facilitate archiving.MrBill3 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated Definition
The intro needs to be updated to include the new the definition of any small bomb. This does not mean that WMD's weren't found in Iraq because at that time a different definition was being used. It would be rewriting history if the article was updated to claim that WMD's were in fact found in Iraq. Sadam never had WMD and for the US to claim that he did, according to the new definition, would be misleading. QuentinUK (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was quite surprised to hear "WMD" used to describe the Boston bombs. I think this usage is very recent, and not yet common. If it becomes common, the term loses much of its meaning. I think the article does do a pretty good job of describing the different meanings, and the evolution of the term. And I think the opening paragraph is ok for now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not at all new, either to the law or to Wikipedia. The definition of WMD was expanded in the US Criminal Code when the definition of destructive device from 18 USC § 921 was incorporated into the terrorism statute (18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction).  It may seem absurd, but lawyers and legislators have their own logic.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute that, just saying I don't think this is yet general usage. But that's all OR, it's the cited sources we should be using, and I think the article is fine as it is now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Was any (already non secret) law changes issued to twisting commonly perceptive definition of WMD issued before Iraq invasion or 9/11 to cover of GB bottom up to they courtiers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What about chemical weapons that were used in the Iran-Iraq war? Duncan4598 (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Military
A Question: Why is the link for proliferation in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Military go to a page about chemical weapons. Shouldn't it go to a page about proliferation in general? Thanks Duncan4598 (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Good point. How does the article stand now? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Still a problem (I just checked) FYI .!. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's your problem: "If you find WMD in Iraq, by definition, they are not WMD" says the Liberal mindset, because it doesn't fit their Agenda. Hence, when WMD were sent to Syria, and the current use of gas: that's not WMD use. -- AstroU (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC) PS: On the other hand, chemical weapons seem to be what went from Iraq to Syria in truck caravans, watched by US Army friends of mine.

Second-rate banished word list
As much as I despise and loathe WMD, the Lake Superior State University Banished Words List 2003 is a poor source, to go by the other entries listed there. Consider:


 * Concerning black ice

"Ice is ice. Watch your step."

No, what we call black ice in Canada is thin, shear, and visually hard to distinguish from ice-free road conditions. Craggy, dirty, crazed, or frost-covered ice is not the same beast. By analogy to "black body" the word "black" is not even conceptually much of an offense. The notorious slipperiness of ice remains poorly understood, but we do know to sharpen hockey skates and that an ice road constructed where the climate is sufficiently frigid to inhibit surface melt offers acceptable traction.

Explaining Ice: The Answers Are Slippery "We found the friction of ice to be very high," Dr. Salmeron said. That is, ice is not really that slippery, after all.


 * Concerning mental mistake

"What mistake is not mental?"

In sports, a "mental mistake" generally distinguishes a mistake where the player knew better, but had his or her attention fixated on something else, and then blew the moment. In hockey, there are sub-clauses concerning gloved pucks that even the hard-core fan only hears about once a season (if you watch all 1200 games). These are mistakes as viewed from the rule book (the choice made was not the best one available) but the players and coaches just accept these moments as collateral damage, since the cost-benefit of memorizing the 6-point font items just isn't there.


 * Concerning ____ in color

"As opposed to green in size?"

How about as opposed to red in temperature, or yellow in character, or green in maturity, or dozens of other metaphorical color projections?


 * Concerning undisclosed, secret location

"Undisclosed" means the media was not informed. "Secret location" mean that the paparazzi have never even heard of the place. If one truncates this to merely "secret location" one might suspect that it was a disclosed location of type secret (i.e. the media was informed that the person hived off to some secret place). The phrase is not beautiful, but it's not 100% vacuous, either.

———

I think this source is more for humour than authority and should be removed.

&mdash; MaxEnt 00:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Israel - US Nuclear Cooperation?
A recent edit added the "that Israel does indeed have thermonuclear arms, disclosing a decades-long collaboration on weapons technology development" between the US and Israel, citing a report entitled "Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations." I found a report with that title but could not find any indication in it of Israel possession of thermonuclear weapons or of any US cooperation with Israel on nuclear weapons. Lacking an exact citation to web site and specific pages, this claim is subject to deletion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * From looking at the document, I agree. In fact, the document contradicts this claim with the statement:


 * "They (Israel) are still hampered in being able to design and produce fusion weapons or other more complicated device utilizing fusion and fission in the same configuration. As far as nuclear technology is concerned the Israelis are roughly where the U.S. as in the fission weapon field in about to 1955 to 1960." (III-4)


 * To my understanding, this indicates they are not able to create a thermonuclear weapon. The document does imply that they can produce fission weapons (As the U.S. possessed fission weapons in the 1950's); however I do not think this should be included as it is not state that they possess nuclear weapons (note the difference between produce and possess). This document is also relatively out of date, being published in 1987 (and not 2015 as is stated in the article). For the reasons that the document contradicts this claim and that no alternative sources have appeared, I am taking action by removing this claim. --FactualCollector7d1 (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Weapon 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/20071011185538/http://ssl.tnr.com:80/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702 to https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702

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 10:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Weapon 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160106213644/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf to http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101214190555/http://www.bomb-shelter.net:80/nuc%20table.pdf to http://www.bomb-shelter.net/nuc%20table.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 17:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Science or Science Fiction?
There's nothing in the article to suggest why black holes, strangelets, or "gray goo" should be included as WMD types. Two are cosmological phenomena with no prospect for being weaponized by humans (or at least nothing that is discussed anywhere), and the other is outright science fiction. Is this page supposed to be informative, or is it a playground to speculate about fantastical ideas that might be good fodder for an upcoming paperback? 76.174.139.92 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point, but the problem is apparently with the template. Any edits should be made there.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed these three items and raised a discussion for further changes at Template_talk:Weapons_of_mass_destruction. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The speculative material has been restored to the template (which won't show up on the Watchlists of editors following this article). You may wish to add to the discussion at the link above.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and WMDs
Yugoslavia never had WMDs. Yet, it is yellow on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filip.vidinovski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Weapon 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://nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1_letter.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/message.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Shocking bias
Clearly this was written by some pro-Iraq war interested party. WMD in Iraq was fraudulently sold to the world public to justify a war now widely condemned as plunging the region into chaos -- but you find no mention took of that here. Great job Wikipedia. Wiltonhall (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about what information you think is biased? It is well-known that Iraq had WMD programs (nuclear & chemical) before the first gulf war (1990-1991) but very little remained before the second (2003). NPguy (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I cannot speak for Wiltonhall, but i suspect he may be alluding to the use of "weapons of mass destruction" as a term of propaganda in the United States during the 1990s (to justify a sanctions regime against Iraq that some have called genocidal, explicitly cited by bin Laden as a reason for 9/11) and in the build-up to the 2003 attack on Iraq. Again, not speaking for Wiltonhall, but perhaps like me he has only seen "weapons of mass destruction" used to allude to the hypothetical (and as it often turned out, nonexistent) foreign weapons programs, and never applied to any discussion of actual, domestic weapons programs, such as the remaining 3,150 tons of chemical weapons or the 7,650 nuclear warheads still in the possession of the Pentagon.


 * For this reason, to the reading public "wmd" is today synonymous with the term "propaganda" and a cause for embarrassment among commercial media and others who used it unthinkingly in their cheerleading for wars of aggression.


 * Incidentally, I don't think this problem is irremediable. Even a small amount of space under a new section (e.g., "As a term of propaganda") can attempt to catalog what commentators have explicitly said about "weapons of mass destruction" as a term of propaganda in the United States and elsewhere.


 * All of this is very much related, for example, to the 2003 Lake Superior State University addition of "wmd" to its list of banished terms mentioned in the main article. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"As a term of propaganda" section for further development?
This discussion topic is animated by the concern articulated by Wiltonhall (see the 'Shocking bias' bullet above).

Perhaps this article could use a new section or subsection called "As a term of propaganda" that cites published commentary devoted to use of "weapons of mass destruction" as a term of propaganda?

For much of the reading public, the term "weapons of mass destruction" is today synonymous with the term "propaganda," so I think it would be to the credit (and credibility) of this article if published comment about "wmd" as a term of propaganda were included in the article. An example of such commentary (albeit brief) is already included in the article: the Lake Superior State University banishment of the term.

Use of "wmd" as a term of propaganda is a major blind spot of this article that might be remedied moving forward, as this article develops. Alfred Nemours (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In what sense do mean to link "WMD" to "propaganda"? Do you mean that the very term is propagandistic?  That seems hard to support and POV.  If you mean that the term has been used in propaganda, that might be supportable if there were a reliable source making such an argument.  But "propaganda" is itself carries an implicit bias.  You may want to choose a more neutral term.


 * By itself, the cited Lake Superior State University action does not seem particularly notable, particularly given the widespread and not particularly controversial international use of the term. NPguy (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Weapon 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/20120213165520/http://www.hms.harvard.edu/orsp/coms/biosafetyresources/history-of-biohazard-symbol.htm to http://www.hms.harvard.edu/orsp/coms/BiosafetyResources/History-of-Biohazard-Symbol.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515100432/http://www.counterwmd.gov/ to http://www.counterwmd.gov/

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) 01:51, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Weapon 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/20061004011442/https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm to http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614110303/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 to http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.wmdawareness.org.uk/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120125920/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull482/pdfs/18RadSymbol.pdf to http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull482/pdfs/18RadSymbol.pdf

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) 19:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Weapons of mass destruction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Weapons of mass destruction is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Weapons of mass destruction until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 08:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Cluster bombs
Shall we add cluster bombs which are now forbidden by the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions ? If like says the article they "make massive damage on buildings" well it fits very well to a mass destruction weapon. "A cluster bomb can scatter bombs over an area a football stadium". There are many ways of "delivering" them. They are also very hard to clear, for the ammo that is left undetonated. (the number of sub-munitions (up to hundreds) makes it had to remove them). Among the nuclear states, several of them do still have them (Israel, US, India, Pakistan, North Korea).

--Joujyuze (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Add Cuba section and page to WMD
The two cites below from VX (nerve agent) claim to document a UN finding on Cuban use of VX nerve gas in Angola though web search comes up with nothing besides wikipedia links, also would be of interest to include the near transfer of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons to Cuba, pre & post 1963 missile crisis, the weapons withdrawal vs transfer to Cuba was negotiated by Anastas Mikoya. Cuba's WMD history is at least as noteworthy as the Mexico and weapons of mass destruction page(now that the conspiracy stuff has been removed) considering the published cold war history.

Hawk, Kathleen Dupes; Villella, Ron; Varona, Adolfo Leyva de (July 30, 2014). Florida and the Mariel Boatlift of 1980: The First Twenty Days. University of Alabama Press. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-8173-1837-6. Retrieved October 11, 2014.

Cuba's Pursuit of Biological Weapons: Fact or Fiction? Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs of the Committee of Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One hundredth and seventh Congress, Second Session, Jun5 5, 2002 (PDF) (Report) (First ed.). Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office. 2002. p. 22. Retrieved 28 March 2018. "Already in 1988, the United Nations Security Council has been informed of use of toxic weapons by Soviet-supported Cuba in Angola. Belgian toxicologists had certified that residue of chemical weapons—including sarin and VX gas—had been found in plants, water and soil where Cuban troops were alleged to have used chemicals against Savimbi's troops."

Cuba Almost Became a Nuclear Power in 1962, The scariest moment in history was even scarier than we thought. , https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/10/cuba-almost-became-a-nuclear-power-in-1962 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.109.170 (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Future or potential WMDs?
Could this article include a section that discusses speculative WMDs in the future? For example, artificial intelligence? MaxWestEsq (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to article
Why does "ABC weapon" redirect to this page, yet the term "ABC weapon" is mentioned nowhere in the text of the current version of this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ABC in this case stands for "atomic, biological, or chemical," but it is an abbreviation that is rarely used anymore. NPguy (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)