Template talk:Weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

Misc
Iraq has been proven to not possess nuclear weapons / "weapons of mass destruction" in this sense - should not be on this list. Somebody edit it to make it normal again haha

-Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.175.86 (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting your edit for three reasons, one, you broke a lot of formatting by throwing it to the left side. Two, this will conflict with existing see also / related changes sections in articles. Three, let's talk about it first. ;)

-~-Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Jiang is correct that this is technically not a series, since the articles are only loosely connected. However, if you do want to format it as a series, the box should at least be in the top right corner of the respective article, not at the bottom right (e.g. American Civil War).--Eloquence* 23:46, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I looked over the series page and didn't notice that... any tips on format, or is it all there? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:53, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The format seems to be OK, it's just the placement that's wrong.--Eloquence* 00:03, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is not a series and should therefore not be made one. IF you insist on keeping this, then at least make it into a footer. This, being placed at the bottom in vertical format, created extra white space on the left side of the page due to vertical expansion. But how is this different from an ordinary "see also" list? --Jiang 00:15, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize that the "top" of a series was supposed to be an overview. I'm in the process of creating such an overview page that would be appropriate to such a series. I have no preference as to a sidebar or a footer, I just stole the code from an existing "series" article. Votes on whether footer or sidebar is better? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:26, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan
Taiwan's government makes large weapons purchases from the United States and there is an article about its weapons program, including discussion of the PRC's assertion that it would invade if it thought Taiwan were developing or trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Whatever one's opinions about its legal status, one must admit that people in Taiwan claiming to be its government are buying large quantities of weapons under their own auspices, not those of the People's Liberation Army. It would be rather silly to change the article about that phenomenon (Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction) to "Taiwan (part of China) and weapons of mass destruction," wouldn't it? Yes, it would -- and it looks silly on the template, so I'm changing it back. --Jpbrenna 03:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Explosives
As of 2005, the Dept of Homeland Security is adding explosives to the Weapons of Mass Destruction curriculum that is being taught to emergency personnel. I added it to this list. If something else makes a better link (I couldn't find anything in the explosives article that dealth with weapons), please change it. But the category is now considered a type of WMD. Rt66lt 01:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we are just using DHS's definitions of these things. I don't think that is a standard definition of WMD. Anyway, the U.S. military uses explosives every day but nobody generally considers those WMDs. People use explosives for all sorts of civilian purposes as well and those aren't WMDs. Just because explosives are part of the training course doesn't mean they are part of the definition of WMD. --Fastfission 02:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Italy should be added
After all, Italy used poison gas against Ethiopia in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War. A2Kafir 00:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * But it is now a red broken link to Italy and weapons of mass destruction. I suggest Italy be deleted if no-one creates the article soon. Rwendland 16:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PRC and ROC
I think that People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) should be kept simply as "China (PRC)" and "Taiwan (ROC)" on this list. These are by far correlate with what English-speaking readers will recognize in an abbreviated form, and take up a lot less room that "People's Rep. of China" and "Rep. of China (Taiwan)". The latter approach doesn't seem to clarify anything to me and takes up a lot more horizontal room, making an already-big template even bigger. Just my two cents. --Fastfission 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
I removed the "nuclear weaponry" subsection, and created a separate template based on it (nuclear weapons). The reasoning was thus: not all WMDs are nuclear, of course, and there's no need to have a link to "nuclear weapons design" and other nuclear-specific articles from most of the WMD articles. Those that could use such links can use the new template. Simple as that, and makes the WMD template a much more manageable size. --Fastfission 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is Korea listed?
Like...why should it be on that list.


 * I should think the answer to this should be fairly obvious. You might have to try being a little more articulate if you want to suggest that it shouldn't be listed on this list. --Fastfission 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it the first poster isn't aware that South Korea did have multiple secret nuclear weapon development programs with the most recent one being 1992. All of them were small scale projects due to lack and strict international control of nuclear materials. --Revth 06:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Libya and Egypt
Both have chemical weapons to my knowledge, should they be added? raptor 09:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Adde Ukraine to the list they inherited lots of Nukes from Russia after the break up of the Soviet Union.OmegaGreg 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)OmegaGreg


 * If you create articles for Libya and weapons of mass destruction, Egypt and weapons of mass destruction, and Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction, then we can add them to the list. The template organizes articles which already exist, it does not point to articles which could exist. --Fastfission 20:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom/UK
I've changed "United Kingdom" to "U.K.", because "United Kingdom" is a long word and disrupts the flow of the box. Battle Ape 09:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Iran
Iran should not be on this list as there is no evidence that it is pursuing weapons of mass destruction; the country's nuclear program is designed to generate electricity for civilian use. Airwalk451 18:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * All countries with " and WMDs" articles should be listed here. Being included here does not indicate that one does or does not have WMDs, it is just a convenient place to find other WMD-country articles. Germany for example has no current WMDs at all, neither does Argentina or South Africa, etc. Iran at the very least has been accused of developing WMDs at the present, and so it certainly belongs here. --Fastfission 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Should Malta be on the list?
Today, and IP added Malta to the list. Does it actually have WMDs that it is able to launch independently? Since WP does not have an entry to Malta's WMDs, should it be on this template? Count de Chagny 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen any evidence of a Maltese WMD program. I'd take it down. CP Guy, 19 July

Switzerland
Switzerland should be in the list. It is well documented that a nuclear weapons program was running during the cold war until it became public knowledge and outcry called for it to stop. 

yes, their should be more European countrys in that list because there are nuclear weapons in all  western Europe. USA left alot of nuclear bombs in Europe after the cold war, I know Belgium got 20 BTW. Go to wikileaks and seach for nuclear bombs and you'll see what i'm talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.149.226 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bulgaria
Bulgaria should be added. It had chemical and biological weapon arsenals, as well as many types of missiles with range of up to 6000 km. Tangra680 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thermobaric weapons
considering that Russia has just demonstrated the "dad of all bombs", should thermobaric bombs be added to Weapons of Mass Destruction?(discuss here)--190.74.124.4 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. They're just big conventional bombs. They aren't really comparable to nuclear weapons except the tiniest types. They are WMDs by any definition. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

CUBA
Does cuba by anyhow posses technology that can make Nuclear Weapons? or maybe HAD in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homan05 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No and no. --Fastfission (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Come again?!
This article series sounds more like a series of B-movies than encyclopedia articles -:) Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate
The general warfare links at the top of the template are not subsets of WsMD. For example, many examples of Chemical warfare would not be considered as WsMD. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 02:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The whole category of chemical warfare is by definition a weapon of mass destruction. WMD are a category, containing Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiological weapons in toto.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. My problem is actually with Chemical warfare vert (and similar) being a "subset of Weapons of Mass Destruction" while also listing agents such as Pepper spray. Unless some peculiar governmental body classes it as a WMD. –OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a terminology fuzz; "Chemical Weapons" defined in warfare and banned are ones which can kill (asphyxiating or toxic, etc). Irritant gasses (Mace, Pepper Spray, tear gas, etc) are allowed for police and defensive purposes, and on the battlefield under some circumstances, though the latter is somewhat in dispute (strongly preferred not to to make things less ambiguous).  Other usage of "Chemical weapons", from a law enforcement or self defense point of view, will exclusively be talking about those irritant gasses, etc.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan
Should Pakistan not be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.142.179 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is on this template, and has been ever since they acquired nuclear weaponry. See this page.  bahamut0013  words deeds   12:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 87.113.180.235, 2 April 2010
There is Ionospheric/al weapon's of mass destruction now. Lookup HAARP.

87.113.180.235 (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reference and the exact text you would like added. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.236.43.124, 6 May 2010
Please create entry for electromagnetic radition as a category of weapons which do not strictly fall into nuclear radition, such a alpha, beta or gamma radiation.

70.236.43.124 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. The template includes types of weapons of mass destruction which each link to the article on that type of weapon. What type of weapon are you proposing to add? Thaniks, Celestra (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

unlisted countries
Currently the "by country" part has countries with current WMDs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but past WMD programs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but current WMD programs (announced or alleged); no WMDs, but having such in the past. I am not sure if the template is the right place to separate these groups, but maybe some table (like that here) could be added to the main WMD article.

Regardless, if we keep the "by country" part of the template as a single list without separations there are some issues:
 * Ukraine, Swedish, Saudi Arabia, Libya link only to respective country nuclear weapons article instead of country-name general WMD article, where Libya also had other programs (Biological, Chemical) and Ukraine has long range missile/space launch capabilities
 * missing from the template, but Biological: Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, South Korea; Vozrozhdeniya (former Soviet site currently in Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan)
 * missing from the template, but Chemical: Egypt, Libya, Vietnam, Serbia (Yugoslavia and weapons of mass destruction), Sudan
 * missing from the template, but Nuclear: Spain, Switzerland, Belarus, Kazakhstan; plus the Nuclear capable states without current/past WMD programs
 * I assume that country-name general WMD articles cover all related issues (nuclear, biological, chemical; missiles/indivisible means of delivery), but I haven't checked them all.

That's why I added the lists at the bottom of the "by country" part, but maybe we should make individual entries for these that are currently missing (especially Libya, Egypt, Vietnam that fall into more than one category).

About the general WMD table here is one proposal:

plus color coding for: current possessing, current program, past possessing, past program; and/or acknowledged/alleged/technical possibility (maybe one of current/past/program and acknowledged/alleged/capable should be as text and the other as color coding).

Similar table could be made for participation in the Arms control conventions (IAEA/NPT/CTBT, CWC, BWC) and export control groups (nuclear, chemical/biological, missiles). Alinor (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

See also here. Alinor (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 194.78.49.228, 25 November 2010
I would like to add Belgium to the list.

They have WOMD at army bases shared with the U.S. and they support the transport.

194.78.49.228 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. →Gƒoley Four   (GSV)  19:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Viwiki
vi:Bản mẫu:Vũ khí giết người hàng loạt? Newone (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

citation needed
This template needs additional citations. There is no verification for the countrys with WMD. Greetings --111Alleskönner (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture caption
The "WMD world map" caption is both misleading and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben.kenobi.wan (talk • contribs) 00:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)