From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weapons of mass destruction template.
|Archives: Index, 1|
|WikiProject Military history||(Rated Template-Class)|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Adding Egypt to the list int he template since starting the page Egypt and weapons of mass destruction so it now has somethign to point to. I am basing this off the conversation in the Archive 1 which raised this point. Dexcel (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I have deleted the recently added speculative headings for Gray Goo, Strangelets, and Black Holes per the discussion at Talk:Weapons of mass destruction#Science_or_Science_Fiction?. There are additional dubious headings for Antimatter weapons and Electromagnetic Pulse which are respectively speculative and one of the effects of nuclear weapons. I suggest that these also be deleted from the template which should be limited to the generally discussed Biological, Chemical, Nuclear, and Radiological weapons. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I note that @Oranjelo100: has restored the speculative material without explanation. I call upon the editor to justify his explanation on the talk page. Comments by other editors are always welcome.
- Lacking justification of these edits, I recommend a total cleanup to restore the template to its state before the recent edits, which introduced the speculative material. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Well perhaps gray goo and artificial black holes/strangelets are more speculative though plausible but antimatter, EMP and kinetic weapons aren't. EMP weapons already exist, antimatter can be produced, and if you can accelerate any object to a high speed it becomes dangerous. So in my opinion at least these three should stay as they're hard science.Oranjelo100 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply; I see where we disagree. Antimatter and relativistic kinetic energy weapons may be hard science, but they are not within the scope of current technology and don't fit within a discussion of existing weapons of mass destruction. Let's consider the articles currently linked by the template:
- The article linked by Antimatter opens with the phrase: "A relativistic kinetic kill vehicle (RKKV) or relativistic bomb is a hypothetical weapon system sometimes found in science fiction." That pretty much removes it from the scope of WND.
- The article linked by Kinetic opens with "An antimatter weapon is a hypothetical device using antimatter as a power source, a propellant, or an explosive for a weapon." Again the hypothetical nature of this device removes it from the scope of WMD.
- The third item, Electromagnetic pulse poses a somewhat different problem. EMP effects on an extended scale are produced by nuclear weapons and, as such, its inclusion becomes redundant as it is already covered in the nuclear weapons category. To the extent that EMPs of limited range and magnitude can be produced by non-nuclear sources, they are just another weapon and their inclusion invites a kind of conceptual creep of what is meant by WMD that verges on WP:OR.
- For these reasons, I would limit the scope of the template to those weapons that are discussed with proper reliable sources in the main article on Weapons of mass destruction: "A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- Over a week having passed without further objection, I will return the template to its form prior to the speculative additions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Should Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction be added to the list of countries? Currently no other former countries are listed (e.g. not the Soviet Union), and Rhodesia wasn't widely recognized even when it existed. On the other hand, it shouldn't be added as "Zimbabwe" since Zimbabwe had nothing to do with the weapons. Huon (talk) 00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
- Not done: It appears this list only includes pages that have "...and weapons of mass destruction" in the title. The page you provided falls out of that requirement. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
So why Sweden, Switzerland and many others are there?They haven't these kinds of weapons.That list includes all countries that developed a program of weapons of mass destruction.Italy developed these one and today has nuclear sharing that many others (like Sweden,Switzerland and so on) haven't.Do you know the subject?188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done Reversing my initial decision as I did not see how other countries' articles were titled. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
- Already done The addition is sneakily hidden away towards the right of the box. Please refresh your page or clear your cache if you still can't see it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
- Also, please do not continue to post messages on my Talk page. You are annoying me and clogging up my e-mail. It's just as easy to continue discussions on Talk pages like this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.