Talk:Cobalt bomb

message: That an article violates copyright is not a reason to delete the article entirely, but to FIX IT.
It's my experience that editors who just delete wholesale swaths of information on some technical wiki complaint oftentimes aren't so much worried about the technicality, but just don't want the information available at all. Kaz 21:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Censorship?

message: ~~MV~~
In order to make the article better, you could perhaps mention that cobalt bombs would be an extra and lingering danger in the area where they explode, but that however, the amount of cobalt required to cause the effect that Szilard described is enormous and not practical.
+besieged
"originally proposed by physicist Leó Szilárd, who suggested that it would be capable of destroying all life on Earth," is totally without reference (not to mention the idea is preposterous anyway).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Besieged (talk • contribs) 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Doomsday effect

message: I think that this article should be merged with the Salted bomb article.  This is on a subset of that article, and doesn't really need its own page. --Apyule 14:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Salted Bomb 

message: It appears that Salted bomb article doesn't exist anymore. Just wonderful. All info about non-cobalt (gold, zinc) bombs is deleted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree.  Most people enter memes as search terms.  "Cobalt bomb" is a much more prevalent such meme than "Salted bomb."  So from a viewpoint of "what serves most Wikipedia users best," I submit more of them will be searching for the term "Cobalt bomb" than "Salted bomb," since there is practically no popular literature reference to "salted bombs" by that name.  Herman Kahn and Leo Szilard, among others, made "cobalt bomb" a very well-recognized concept and our users will encounter it in movies, television (for example, one episode of Star Trek: the original series makes direct reference to it), novels and other literature.  It only makes sense to give them what they'll likely be looking for.loupgarous (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for giving us that link.loupgarous (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged? 

message: What is a salted bomb ? It's not explained here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.65.138.108 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the general type of bomb where elements are added to contribute to the fallout.  Cobalt bombs are but one example; other examples would be zinc, gold, or tantalum bombs.  Unfortunately, salted bomb redirects to cobalt bomb, which doesn't make this clear. Xihr 20:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salted Bomb ? 

message: I think the merge needs to be reverted (is this possible, I cant find much information on reverting merges) and the cobalt bomb article made a part of the salted bomb article as was stated earlier. Edd17 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The most sensible solution would be to rename Cobalt bomb to Salted bomb, keeping the #REDIRECT there.  Cobalt bomb is the most commonly discussed type of salted bomb, so it should also mention the other commonly-discussed types of salted bombs (e.g., zinc, gold).  The general concept is of a salted bomb; a cobalt bomb is just one instance. Xihr 01:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Salted bomb and Cobalt bomb, yes.  The bomb word shouldn't be capitalized, since it's not a proper name. Xihr 20:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert merge ? 

message: It appears that the statement mentioned here needs a fact check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cobalt_bomb&diff=250458634&oldid=250274935
I'm not sure about it.  Perhaps somebody knowledgeable about the topic and having lots of sources can go at it? Cornince (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The effects9.pdf is offline, we should replace it with another web links. `a5b (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry it took me so long to get back on this, I did find an alternate link for Chapter 9 of Glasstone and Dolan, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" and have altered the text.loupgarous (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: "Critics" of the bomb say it won't destroy all life on the planet? Seriously? Do they see the destruction of all life as a desirable goal? Serendipodous 09:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it. Serendipodous 09:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "critics" of the bomb?

message: present version cites Brian Martin. It seems to me though that the Martin article does not discuss the cobalt bomb, only "ordinary" nuclear bombs. — fnielsen (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no difference in the behavior of particulate matter from the fallout plume of a cobalt bomb compared to that from a more conventional nuclear weapon.  If your grounds for removing my reference to Dr. Martin's paper were his failure to mention salted nuclear weapons specifically, than you have made a destructive change to the article by removing reference to a major flaw of the cobalt bomb concept, the fact that nuclear fallout does not fall uniformly, but according to how the particles in the fallout are deposited by precipitation and other climate factors.  As Dr. Martin is a climatologist, he was speaking from expertise in his own field.loupgarous (talk) 11:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Martin 

message: I recommend this (pages 290-292) as the source for the article- it's evaluation of Szilard claims....
http://books.google.pl/books?id=_Q0AAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA290&lpg=PA290&dq=Hydrogen-Cobalt+Bomb+in+bullletin+arnold&source=bl&ots=_W7CkxJQRk&sig=MWKbUTyq3tOIbM7H5kaVcBsEMBU&hl=pl&ei=ofG5TbG_C4ODOruypP0O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.25.0.13 (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source=

message: It is necessary to write about the project "Status-6", is a full article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Статус-6, no accidental leaks do not happen, cobalt filling as one of the variants of the torpedo
:No, it's not. The only sources we have documenting that project are either primary "leaked" documents, popular-audience news reports which relay very sketchy details from those documents which fail under WP:SENSATION, or that wikipedia article, which is also not admissible as a source to document a statement in wikipedia. 
:If the Russian Ministry of Defense cares to publish documentation of this project which can then be reviewed by responsible secondary sources (such as Jane's or SIPRI), the secondary sources evaluating the report would be usable. But neither the wikipedia article or the sensationalistic BBC coverage are. loupgarous (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are "responsible secondary sources," which are needed to document a fact cited in a Wikipedia article. They are all primary sources, which cannot be used to document a fact in a Wikipedia article unless a good secondary source is given which can support the fact without the primary source.  While I do read, write and speak Russian acceptably well, I defer to the editors in wikipedia.ru who maintain the page to which you refer. Unless you can produce an secondary source not controlled by the Russian government and specializing in weapon systems to document the statements you wish made here, they won't survive review by editors familiar with Wikipedia guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status-6 

message: The statement "In a fission bomb, it has been suggested, the weapon's tamper could be made of cobalt. In a fusion bomb the radiation case around the weapon, normally made of 238U, could be made of cobalt. These changes would reduce the explosive power (yield) of the weapon somewhat." is unsourced. 
Unless someone can supply a secondary source for this statement (which makes assertions not common knowledge) I'll remove it after a few days. loupgarous (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence (lack of the requested source for this statement) gives assent; I've removed the unsourced statement mentioned above. loupgarous (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced Statement in "Mechanism" Section of Article  

message: I'm pretty sure "overkill" refers to the diminishing returns from more fire, or larger shells, at the same targets. For example, Clark, Keefer, and Walton, "Foe: A Model Representing Company Actions" uses "overkill" in that sense in 1960. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Overkill" - that's not what it means. 

message: Would it be worth mentioning that the Cobalt bomb has been used as a doomsday bomb in fiction? --2606:A000:7D44:100:1C02:4825:EBE2:C72C (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered already in the bottom of the article, feel free to edit the article to make it clearer. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doomsday Bomb 

message: SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead section here is hardly just a summary, containing mostly exclusive information not found in the article body