Talk:List of nuclear weapons

message: Why is there no category for Russia? They have the most nukes on the planet.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.84.134 (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The last missile under the list of Indian munitions is the Nag, but that appears to be an anti-tank (presumably non-nuclear, unless we are talking about very big tanks...) missile. Is there a nuclear Nag?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltondaniel (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: Night Gyr is asserting that W refers to the physics package in any warhead or bomb; I would like to ask if anyone has a source for that.  I've been researching this for 20 years and have never seen that; the usage is very consistently W for warheads (of missiles or rockets), B for bombs, Mk/Mark for oddball stuff (Mk 54 SADM) and older designs before they introduced the B/W notation.  If there is evidence for W as the physics package, I would like to see it.  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B vs W designators for US weapons 

message: Something that has occurred to me... do we want to have articles for cancelled american weapon designs?  There are a whole bunch which got designated and then cancelled prior to introduction.  Do we want to just make a list of them?  An article covering all of them, each one briefly?  Separate articles for each?  Your inputs desired... Georgewilliamherbert 07:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for cancelled American nuclear weapons 

message: I think that I finally completed the list for US weapons last night... I will verify tonight and ask for other editors to review the list for completeness and accuracy.
My priority items at this point:
* Articles (at least stub) for all modern US weapons of any type, cancelled or not
* Articles (at least stub) for all deployed US weapons of any type, regardless of age
* List completeness for USSR missile warheads (currently have several gaps in timeline)
* List completeness for UK weapons of all types, primarily from source http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/nukes.htm.
Other stuff is at a lower priority, including better intro blurbs for all the national program sections.
Georgewilliamherbert 21:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: I've found a good reference here, though that only covers current arsenals, it's got summarized information on yields and deployment. Night Gyr 01:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dead link NYE ROBOTAYET!
-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.141.76 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian nukes 

message: I noticed that some nations possess nuclear weapons and others have WMD in the article headers. Would it not be more appropriate to describe them all as Nuclear Weapons and let public opinion decide who the bad guys are going to be? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.82.105 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nuclear weapons articles are subarticles of the WMD per country articles, for those which have large enough arsenals that we need to split it further. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've edited the US and UK links for consistency, the previous implication being that WMD was a deliberately derogative term applied to certain nations. BeL1EveR 14:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WMD v Nuclear Weapons 

message: I find the section on Iran to be almost tabloid stuff. The IAEA has issues outstanding which preclude it declaring that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but they are minor issues, and the IAEA states that they have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program.Mark Lincoln 22:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are more reasons than the IAEA inspections to suspect it, and it's widely discussed in the nonproliferation literature.  Please leave that alone; it's well sourced.  Georgewilliamherbert 22:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Iran

message: There is a BIG problem with the list of US nuclear weapons. The name MK-II links to a nice article on the "thin man" plutonium gun device investigated by the Manhattan Project. The "Mark" nomenclature was not evolved until after Thin Man was terminated because of predetonation.
The Mk-II was a levitated core design development of which was discontinued due to problems with the implosion geometry. The Mk.-II much changed, emerged as the Mk-IV after the war. I would recommend that the article on Thin Man be unlinked from the Mk-II designation.
No complaint with the Thin Man article, but it simply was not the "Mk-II."Mark Lincoln 13:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is historical evidence that the Mk-II was the Thin Man design.  What's your source on this?  Thanks.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thin Man not Mk.-II

message: Ya gavuretie po Russki ploha!Mark Lincoln 05:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NYE ROBOTAYET!

message: I see no info on the Mk 101. I'll attempt to obtain it. LorenzoB (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mk 101 

message: I think that maybe User:georgewilliamherbert may be able to help. I am trying to get some data for the Demon core article as per where a 6.2kg core used in two accidents in the '40s and where/what weapon the core ended up in. Does anyone have any idea?--Read-write-services (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on pit/core used in the Slotin/Dahglin criticality accidents. 

message: How come it skips from 8 to 10?
209.134.115.5 (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mark 9? 

message: I removed the Iran section because there is no evidence of Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Also the section is entirely unsourced. Ojoc (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No sources that say Iran possesses nuclear weapons 

message: [EDITED:] One of the two HEU links points to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HEU, which is about Harbin Engineering University, but HEU in this context means Highly enriched uranium, so the correct URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Highly_enriched_uranium_.28HEU.29 . The other link is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.73.128 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEU wrong link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of nuclear weapons. 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/20070707104517/http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____4657.aspx to http://www.foi.se/FOI/templates/Page____4657.aspx
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) 01:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not one wikilink was included for the battlefield Lance missile, the MGM-52 Lance, which had nuclear-armed and conventional versions.
Also, nothing at all was said about the completely different Sea Lance missile, which was intended to have a version that carried a nuclear warhead.24.156.78.205 (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lance missiles 

message: This term is used once in the article, but there is no such term in the references cited.  What does it mean? Charles Juvon (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatf-I SkoreKeep (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "hatf" ? 

message: Might these be worth mentioning in the article?  Or even having articles of their own?  Seems there has been recent evidence that the USA developed designs as large as 100 Megatons following the Tsar Bomba test in the event that the Soviets violated the Partial Test Ban in the 1960s, likely having to do with Flashback.
https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=3266
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-story-of-the-b-52-stratofortress-that-carried-the-flashback-test-vehicle-the-nuclear-bomb-bigger-than-the-soviet-tsar-bomba/ 64.73.231.202 (talk) 21:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flashback Test Vehicle and Big Test Vehicle 

message: "North Korea in 2023 unveiled Hwasan-31 nuclear bomb with ten warheads shown, estimates of dimensions vary between 40 and 50 centimeter diameter along 90 centimeter to 1 meter length. It's affectionately called the "painted propane tank" as they took the parts from villagers barbeque pits."
The grammar is terrible and there's no source. Should this be gotten rid of? ExtragalacticXG (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found a reputable source. I'm updating the information. ExtragalacticXG (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the heck is this