Talk:United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction

message: I'm considering add this sentence to the intro, based on the info at CBRN, but since I know very little about the subject I'll float the idea here first:
:While the British media and most lay people use or recognise the term "weapons of mass destruction", the British military and security services prefer the term "CBRNs".
Joe D (t) 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read that the UK military don't like the "WMD" term, as it requires subjective judgement about when battlefield munitions become numerous/large enough to do "mass destruction". A few (or more) chemical shells aren't really "WMD", even though the press/politicians would use the "WMD" phrase. Must admit I've not come across CBRN before instead of NBC. Rwendland 13:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Article should be named "...and its weapons...".  That is, unless all other information about the UKs dealings with WMD (e.g. the Iraq dossier etc..) is to be included.--jrleighton 13:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid "X and weapons of mass destruction" is the Wikipedia convention, applied to 18 states. Changing one would be confusing. For better or worse we're stuck with it - unless you really want to try to convince editors of all 18 to change! Rwendland 16:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "X and weapons of mass destruction" is the convention for good reason - the articles don't simply cover the WMDs of that country, but its capabilities and stance toward both its own WMDs and those of others.  This article is a good example - it has a section about US WMDs deployed in the UK (which would be at odds with an "and its weapons" name).   There's no reason why every country in the world couldn't get a "X and WMD" article - Brazil and weapons of mass destruction being a good example: calling it "Brazil and its weapons of mass destruction" would be silly, because it hasn't got any. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of Article Proposal 

message: "Historically, the United Kingdom used biological weapons in Canada in the eighteenth century. During the Pontiac rebellion in 1763, the army commander Sir Jeffrey Amherst arranged for smallpox contaminated blankets to be distributed amongst the hostile Native American tribes, which had a devastating effect since they had no natural immunity.
They may also have used smallpox during the American Revolutionary War. Following the capture of Montreal by the rebels, the British commander in Quebec reportedly had civilians in the town immunised against the disease and attempted to infect American revolutionary troops. A smallpox epidemic broke out amongst them, affecting around half of the 10,000 troops."
There is considerable material around about immunisation (variolation) in the American Revolutionary war.  Immunising a civilian population would be sensible.  Gen. Washington decided to immunise his army.  Midgley 20:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  uncited and conflicts with [[Smallpox]] 

message: UK Rule—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.138.236 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass Destruction with "conventional weapons".. 

message: It is untrue to state that Britain has not developed independent delivery systems since cancellation of the Blue Streak missile in the 1960s. Britain did seek the Skybolt missile from the US until it too was cancelled, and then bought the ageing Polaris system. However, Britain continued to develop both warheads and delivery systems for the strategic, tactical and anti-sub versions of WE.177, which was deployed first in 1966 and not retired fully until 1998. Britain also developed a unique-to-Britain Chevaline warhead delivery system to extend the capability and life of the Polaris system, hardening it against possible ABM interception. There was also development (later cancelled) of a replacement warhead and delivery system for WE.177 in the 1990s, and numerous other cancelled delivery systems for tactical nuclear warheads. So it is untrue to say that Britain ceased to be a developer of delivery systems. 86.149.111.214 (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery Systems 

message: I don't think it should be used without another word at the end like army or government as it is nearly never used as such within Britain. I'm replacing them with 'Britain' for now, though I think The UK would also be acceptable. No other article of this set uses the same system as is currently here (Ei, No use of 'the Chinese', 'the Americans', 'the Swiss' ect).(82.8.219.159 (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, it is inconsistent and also un-used in this country. Willluckin (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of 'the British'. 

message: Removed the claim of UK cooperation with France on patrols pending credible/verifiable evidence that it exists. The cited reference (retrieved 6/Aug/11) does not contain any such claim; The reference in the original 23/Jan/05 insert of the claim that predated the most recently cited publication is no longer available. Cooperation has been publicly rejected within this timeframe (The Independent 30/Sep/10 )  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandvika (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooperation with France. 

message: I left the following comment on the talk page of User:Nick Cooper who deleted it without explanation. I leave it here for interest. The background is that the warhead count had been stated as '3225', I corrected it to '160+', and he "reverted" my edit to '225' as "vandalism":
"Hi, with reference to the edit which prompted you to "revert vandalism". First, you did not revert it. The previous warhead count was 3225, obviously wrong, not matching the source, and probably a typo. You "reverted" the number to 225. Second, and more importantly, a careful reading of the source article shows that the British government did not state it had 225 warheads! It stated that 225 is the maximum it had while refusing to state an exact number. The article also states that the British government previously stated it had at least 160. So my "vandalism" writing that UK possessed 160+ warheads is strictly correct and what you wrote instead is not. "160-225" would also be correct, if you insist including the 225 number. To simply state that the UK possesses 225 warheads, the maximum possible, is not justified by the cited source.
"I realise this is wikipedia and if I change it back you will just keep reverting it to infinity without again reading what you're doing. But if you feel like correcting the article yourself, that is how to do it."
I have little interest in this site primarily because of people like the aforementioned Nick Cooper. I leave it to the admins and other powerful editors to decide how to amend the article. 141.53.251.71 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you get all prissy, what I did was revert back to Jonesey95's edit of 21 November, before the figure of 225 was vandalised by IP 213.106.178.148 to 3225. I reviewed the BBC story, from which it was clear that the 225 is more accurate than your later change to 160+. The source clearly states that 160 is the number of "operationally available" warheads, and that 225 is the total number. I deleted your comment from my Talk page because I have no interest in entertaining people who get the wrong end of the stick and then start beating about the bush with it. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The source specifically states that the 225 number is a maximum, not the exact figure, "But it goes on to reveal that the total number of warheads will "not exceed" 225". Your snideness would be more tolerable if it were justified by competence. 141.53.251.71 (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An IP user changed it from 225 to 2225 today;  I reverted it and changed the reference to one from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which stated 225. SkoreKeep (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Warhead count

message: I don't think the use of blankets infected with smallpox in 1763 belongs in the scope of this article  - other encyclopedias would not cover it here. Happy to discuss further though. Whizz40 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does stick out like a sore thumb, doesn't it? But it isn't just a 1763 incident, so would you be adverse to a more rounded paragraph about multiple incidents of bio-warfare during that colonial era? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, and it is important the information is readily available and people learn about what happened, but I came across the same text in multiple articles which all seemed to be written from a POV and lacking due weight. Britannica wouldn't cover it here and neither should we. If you can find tertiary sources which cover it under this topic/heading I am happy to be proved wrong. Whizz40 (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siege of Fort Pitt