Talk:United States and weapons of mass destruction

message: The Introduction suggests that the United States used chemical weapons in Vietnam. However this is not supported by the article or the sources listed. Can this be verified? Should this line be deleted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.251.254 (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Use of Chemical weapons in Vietnam"

message: . . . is weasel wording, especially when many people say otherwise; even the 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey (hardly the work of "limp dicked western historians", neh?) says "The Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs did not defeat Japan, nor by the testimony of the enemy leaders who ended the war did they persuade Japan to accept unconditional surrender." (p. 46) though it does say that "they did foreshorten the war and expedite the peace."(p. 47)—which is an ambiguous conclusion, and arguments continue over just how necessary the bombings were; look through a decent bibliography or two. What's necessary, rather than a lot of argument and insults, is either a full description of the controversy in this article or else a wikilink to that description; the Hiroshima article has fairly extensive discussion, and there's enough information available, I think, for a separate Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings article, if anyone cares to write it. —No-One Jones 18:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So say that, if the book actually says that the atomic bombs forced the Japanese government to accept plans for surrender, that nothing else could have done so, and that their decision mattered. (I have yet to read the book, but thanks for the reference.) —No-One Jones 21:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "it is generally agreed"

message: Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 22 to Apr 28 2004, consensus was unanimously to keep.  
Begin archived discussion:
This page seems redundant as all information here is in various other articles. This should be either deleted and/or all relevant materials be merged in their appropriate places. TDC 15:33, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
*Keep - TDC did not even bring this up on talk. There is no other article covering the information about the weapons of mass destructions of specific countries, only a list about countries with nuclear weapons. If this article goes, all other articles covering specific information about countries with weapons of mass destruction would have to go as well given that the US arsenal is the biggest. Get-back-world-respect 15:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  VfD Archived debate 

message: An anonymous contributor added this paragraph to the article:
:However, this didn't stop US from selling biological weapons to Saddam Hussein: US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Snr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene. 
The link leads to an odd editorial about children's music. Rmhermen 23:37, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
When searching google for "Iraq AND clostridium" I foud those links: Between 1985-89, ATCC made 17 shipments of "attenuated strains of various toxins and bacteria" to Iraq’s Atomic Energy Commission. ("Center for Nonproliferation Studies") and In the 1980s, Iraq procured additional anthrax strains from three major sources: the United States (American Type Tissue Collection), the Pasteur Institute (France; two strains), and strains JB17 and Sterne 3452 from the Central Veterinary Laboratory, New Haw, Surry, UK. (Nuclear Threat Initiative) Get-back-world-respect 00:57, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales to Iraq

message: Destruction of chemical weapons was supposed to start in "summer 2004" at Pine Bluff and Newport. Can anyone tell if it actually did start? Rmhermen 14:22, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
:Destruction began almost a year late at Newport, but it has begun.  (See the Newport Chemical Depot article for more info.)  As for Pine Bluff, I have no information about them at this time. --Jpbrenna 17:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chemical weapons destruction

message: "only known country": in the early 90s, french troops were contaminated during the first gulf war and got indemnification for that. also there is a persistant rumor about the top secret B2-Namous base located in the Sahara desert, French Algeria (map, Colomb Béchar) where chemical weapons (inc. gaz) were experimented in the 1960s. Cliché Online 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: france: 1st gulf war & top secret base

message: Aren't defoliants such as agent orange chemical weapons? Mike.lifeguard 05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No because they target plants, not people. See explanation at Chemical weapons. Rmhermen 05:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  agent orange etc 

message: To start only after the US entered the treaty is pretty non-neutral. How about the 20-30 years previous where they were doing research into offensive biological weapons? - Francis Tyers · 07:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please expand if you have more information. I don't have any myself but agree it is an important part of the article. Rmhermen 00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Biological weapons

message: "The U.S. arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is the second largest in the world; depending on the definition."
Depending on the definition, the U.S. arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is either the second largest in the world, or the second largest in the world? SalineBrain (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  second largest in the world; depending on the definition... 

message: Ok, it has been wrote that there are 94 B-1s, when it is 64. So, either we include in Russia's article the aircraft that are in reserve (those 90 Tu-22M3 to those 160 allready listed and some Tu-95), or we don't add inactive reserve aircraft to US strategic bombers article. It is one or the other, because if we include reserve aircraft in to US fleet, it makes it look like US has larger strategic bomber fleet, while in fact it is quite the opposite, Russia has largest. 99.231.63.253 (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reserve bombers

message: I removed the following section from the article itself as it does not meet Wikipedia's Manual of Style and Neutral Point of View policies.    
::Since the United States of America is the World's leader, a superior country, having the most advanced army, the most advanced democratic system,..., it is the only country that has the right to control the development and who owns the WMD. The New World Order(TM) (US's shadow goverment) can decide which country can own them (i.e. Allies) and which not (i.e. the rest). The US goverment can easily accuse a country of owning/developing WMD by using news agencies (also known, by the NWO, as brainwashing agencies), for example, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, ... The US is the only country that have the absolute right to use WMD whenever the NWO wants to (example Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
The information is not factual, is not referenced, is original research, and has no place in an encyclopedic discussion of WMD.
If you would like to include such information, then you need to clean it up according to accepted standards.  If you insist on a third revert, you could be locked out of editing for this article.  
Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Don'tKnowItAtAll, and have reverted the most recent attempt by User 85.232.205.214 to reinstate that information, and will try to keep an eye on this page for a little while. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To [[Special:Contributions/85.232.205.214|User 85.232.205.214]] -- Discussion on US and [[New World Order]] 

message: What is the reason for having the following in the lead:
1. The United States' attitude towards these weapons has been claimed to be primarily defensive, and the actual use of such weapons seen as inhumane unless first provoked. As President Roosevelt stated during World War II:
2. “ Use of such (biological and chemical weapons) has been outlawed by the general opinion of mankind. This country has not used them and I hope we never will be compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies. ” 
3. Since Roosevelt's statement, the U.S. has destroyed its biological weapons and begun destroying its chemical weapons. The U.S. is a participant in the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention which ban the production, possession or use of those classes of weapons. The U.S. retains a large arsenal of nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent, limited by several international and bilateral treaties.
to 1: "attitude towards these weapons has been claimed to be primarily defensive" - Sure they are only for defense. But I'm also sure that each and every country possessing WMD would say the same. So what is the point of having this sentence here?
to 2: "I state categorically that we shall under no circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first used by our enemies." - still, the next president used them first anyway. So what is the point of having this old sentence from Roosevelt here? Is the statement somehow especially important to the US doctrine or what?
to 3: "Since Roosevelt's statement, the U.S. has destroyed its biological weapons and begun destroying its chemical weapons." - great news, but still, "has begun to destroy" is different from "has destroyed." Russia is doing the same - started to destroy them - but still this is not mentioned in the lead of Russia's corresponding article
"The U.S. retains a large arsenal of nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent, limited by several international and bilateral treaties" - "they are only for defense!" gets repeated here again. But I think we already understood it the first time. Besides, "it's a defensive deterrent" is not really a fact, but a claim, so why is this unsourced statement presented here as a fact?
This whole lead doesn't sound very NPOV to me. I'd like to especially point out, that the leads of the corresponding articles for other countries, France, Russia and India for example, only mention what they have and do not provide explanations/justifications "they're only for defense!", "we are already destroying our chemical weapons!", etc. at all. Why does the US article receive a different treatment? Offliner (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since seems to have any objections, I have decided to remove this offending part of the lead. Offliner (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased lead? 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_war#Proposed_use_of_nuclear_weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#French_Exit_and_proposed_US_nuclear_strikes.2C_1950.E2.80.931954
And at the beginning of the Persian Gulf war, Bush Sr. threatened Saddam that if he used his Chemical weapons on US troops that he would retaliate with nuclear strikes against Iraq.
It just seems to me that an article on the USA and WMDs should included incidences of Near-Use and Threatened-Use of them.
BillyTFried (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think those should be mentioned. However, I don't think North Korea's threats have got anything to do with "United States and weapons of mass destruction." Offliner (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about proposed and threatened nuke attacks? 

message: That section is so large that it should probably be spun off into its own article. The following material was added by another editor to another article, where it was too general to be germane. It may be of use for expanding the aforementioned history though.
BEGIN PASTE
=== Cold War Exposures ===
In order to understand the rationale for chemical and biological research from World War II until 1975, it is necessary to examine the history of the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and to understand the perceived threat to the Free World during the Cold War.
In 1915, during World War I, the Germans released chlorine gas at Ypres. Gas warfare quickly proliferated on the battlefield. Both sides introduced phosgene (choking gas) and a vomiting gas in late 1915, followed by blood agents in 1916 and mustard agent (a blistering agent) in 1917. By the end of the war, chemical agents caused more than one million casualties and 90,000 deaths. Neither side used biological agents during the war although they did investigate plant and animal diseases. At the outset of World War II, the United States moved to protect its food supply from biological pathogens by setting up an extensive surveillance program. The Army established Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 as their primary research and development center for biological agents. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland was the Army’s principal research and development center for chemical agents. Dugway Proving Ground, Utah was the main testing area for both chemical and biological weapons. At the conclusion of World War II, the United States was surprised to discover that the Germans had developed a new class of chemical agents – nerve agents. The Soviets captured a German tabun (nerve agent GA) production plant, moved it to Russia and made GA their standard nerve gas. The United States adopted sarin (nerve agent GB), also discovered by the Germans, as their standard nerve agent. By the early 1950s, the United States believed it lagged behind the Soviet Union in the development of chemical agents. It was in this context that the United States accelerated its chemical warfare research and development efforts. As part of this accelerated program, experimenters used Service members as human volunteers to determine the effects of chemical agents, as well as to develop therapeutics and prophylactics.
After World War II, the United States sent teams to Germany and Japan to determine the status of their biological warfare programs. While Germany’s program was not very advanced, Japan had an extensive program. During the war, Japan’s principal biological research element, UNIT 731, released biological agents in China and performed experiments on prisoners of war. After the war, pressures of the Cold War and fear of the Russian program led the United States to expand its biological warfare program. This program examined the effective prevention and treatment of biological warfare casualties, determination of minimal effective doses of pathogens, and the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs. Fort Detrick established Project Whitecoat, a human volunteer program to support its efforts. While the Medical Research Volunteer Program conducted at Edgewood Arsenal collected information on the effects of psychochemicals (hallucinogenic drugs) on individuals, there was no information on how these drugs would affect groups of people. Specifically, would they produce disorganizing and disruptive effects on military units? In order to gather the required information, personnel from Edgewood Arsenal conducted field testing of LSD at Fort Bragg (1958) and Fort Benning (1960).  See also: Project Delirium, Project DORK, MKDELTA
Precise information on the number of tests, experiments, and participants is not available and the exact number of veterans exposed will probably never be known. DoD’s current effort to identify Cold War exposures began in 2004 and is endeavoring to identify all non-Project 112/SHAD veterans exposed to chemical and biological substances due to testing and accidents from World War II through 1975. As information on specific tests and testing programs is identified by the Office of the Special Assistant, Chemical and Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs, along with the names of military participants, the information is provided to Force Health Protection & Readiness (FHP&R) to validate. It is then provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs, who notifies the veteran of his exposure. As of June 30, 2008, FHP&R had identified approximately 10,500 veterans involved in Cold War testing or other events that may have resulted in an exposure. Testing did not necessarily involve exposure to a harmful substance. Many veterans participated in performance or equipment tests that did not involve biological or chemical substances. Others received medicines (e.g., Benadryl). For completeness and to be able to respond to veteran’s questions, FHP&R decided to include all veterans associated with testing in their database whether these veterans were exposed to chemical or biological warfare agents or not. Completion of the investigation is schedule for 2011. DoD will then continue to pursue any leads or information that is provided from any source.
END PASTE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of CW in the US 

message: In order to understand the rationale for chemical and biological research from World War II until 1975, it is necessary to examine the history of the use of chemical and biological agents in warfare and to understand the perceived threat to the Free World during the Cold War.
In 1915, during World War I, the Germans released chlorine gas at Ypres. Gas warfare quickly proliferated on the battlefield. Both sides introduced phosgene (choking gas) and a vomiting gas in late 1915, followed by blood agents in 1916 and mustard agent (a blistering agent) in 1917. By the end of the war, chemical agents caused more than one million casualties and 90,000 deaths. Neither side used biological agents during the war although they did investigate plant and animal diseases. At the outset of World War II, the United States moved to protect its food supply from biological pathogens by setting up an extensive surveillance program. The Army established Fort Detrick, Maryland in 1942 as their primary research and development center for biological agents. Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland was the Army’s principal research and development center for chemical agents. Dugway Proving Ground, Utah was the main testing area for both chemical and biological weapons. At the conclusion of World War II, the United States was surprised to discover that the Germans had developed a new class of chemical agents – nerve agents. The Soviets captured a German tabun (nerve agent GA) production plant, moved it to Russia and made GA their standard nerve gas. The United States adopted sarin (nerve agent GB), also discovered by the Germans, as their standard nerve agent. By the early 1950s, the United States believed it lagged behind the Soviet Union in the development of chemical agents. It was in this context that the United States accelerated its chemical warfare research and development efforts. As part of this accelerated program, experimenters used Service members as human volunteers to determine the effects of chemical agents, as well as to develop therapeutics and prophylactics.
After World War II, the United States sent teams to Germany and Japan to determine the status of their biological warfare programs. While Germany’s program was not very advanced, Japan had an extensive program. During the war, Japan’s principal biological research element, UNIT 731, released biological agents in China and performed experiments on prisoners of war. After the war, pressures of the Cold War and fear of the Russian program led the United States to expand its biological warfare program. This program examined the effective prevention and treatment of biological warfare casualties, determination of minimal effective doses of pathogens, and the effectiveness of vaccines and drugs. Fort Detrick established Project Whitecoat, a human volunteer program to support its efforts. While the Medical Research Volunteer Program conducted at Edgewood Arsenal collected information on the effects of psychochemicals (hallucinogenic drugs) on individuals, there was no information on how these drugs would affect groups of people. Specifically, would they produce disorganizing and disruptive effects on military units? In order to gather the required information, personnel from Edgewood Arsenal conducted field testing of LSD at Fort Bragg (1958) and Fort Benning (1960).  See also: Project Delirium, Project DORK, MKDELTA
Precise information on the number of tests, experiments, and participants is not available and the exact number of veterans exposed will probably never be known. DoD’s current effort to identify Cold War exposures began in 2004 and is endeavoring to identify all non-Project 112/SHAD veterans exposed to chemical and biological substances due to testing and accidents from World War II through 1975. As information on specific tests and testing programs is identified by the Office of the Special Assistant, Chemical and Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs, along with the names of military participants, the information is provided to Force Health Protection & Readiness (FHP&R) to validate. It is then provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs, who notifies the veteran of his exposure. As of June 30, 2008, FHP&R had identified approximately 10,500 veterans involved in Cold War testing or other events that may have resulted in an exposure. Testing did not necessarily involve exposure to a harmful substance. Many veterans participated in performance or equipment tests that did not involve biological or chemical substances. Others received medicines (e.g., Benadryl). For completeness and to be able to respond to veteran’s questions, FHP&R decided to include all veterans associated with testing in their database whether these veterans were exposed to chemical or biological warfare agents or not. Completion of the investigation is schedule for 2011. DoD will then continue to pursue any leads or information that is provided from any source.
END PASTE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cold War Exposures 

message: A recent edit summary said  this article is part of a series all of which, by design, discuss all three WMDs. This of course is entirely untrue: it is actually part of a series of articles which jam nuclear, biological and chemical weapons into one article without any attempt to link them or justify placing them in one article. For WMD-type articles to serve an encyclopedic purpose, they would need to attempt to relate C/B/N weapons to each other for the relevant country, eg in terms of strategic decision-making or deployment. Without that, it's a purposeless collection of superficially related information. Podiaebba (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is part of a series all of which, by design, discuss all three WMDs 

message: In an article primarily about nuclear weapons employing such colorful concepts as nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and the like, the term "gravity bomb" sounds like some kind of science fiction contraption - I initially clicked the link thinking "what could this be?", only to be reminded that "gravity bomb" is another name for "unguided bomb". In my experience, "unguided bomb" is the far more common usage (your mileage may vary). So, I boldly adjusted the wording here. If that is disagreeable, feel free to revert my edit and leave a message explaining why (so I can make more agreeable edits in the future).
199.33.96.209 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gravity bomb" vs "Unguided Bomb" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States and weapons 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/20040513064851/http://www.state.gov:80/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/30816pf.htm to http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2004/30816pf.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States and weapons 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  tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140413124747/http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/documents/Fact-Sheet-on-US-Nuclear-Force-Structure-under-the-New-START-Treaty.pdf
*Added  tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_06/Belgium_Germany_Tactical.asp,
*Added  tag to https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm,
*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
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040311171221/http://www.opcw.org:80/synthesis/html/s6/p4prt.html to http://www.opcw.org/synthesis/html/s6/p4prt.html
*Added  tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/j8v4421j728q2v76/?p=24edc9d2b50845cb9e7b9442befb4c31&pi=0
*Added  tag to http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/j315pu1670282723/?p=405bbf40fda94354acd3a0ec9e416f32&pi=1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110920033652/http://www.ifri.org/downloads/prolif_11_Potter.pdf to http://www.ifri.org/downloads/prolif_11_Potter.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why is there no mention of Agent Orange used in the Vietnam war? Agent Orange - Use in the Vietnam War
or the White Phosphorus attacks in Iraq?
or when the US authorities continually use tear gas on its own citizens. Eck (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are not WMDs or are not covered by the relevant treaties. Rmhermen (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing content 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States and weapons 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://gulfweb.org:80/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112101131/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq104-4.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) 12:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on United States and weapons 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/20100506022327/http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-nuclear-arsenal-revealed-5000-plus-warheads/19463888 to http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/us-nuclear-arsenal-revealed-5000-plus-warheads/19463888
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150409024709/https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/bw.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/rockrep.cfm
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) 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified