Talk:Intermediate-range ballistic missile

message: The article lists a whole host of current operators of IRBMs that dont match the criteria listed in the start of the article.  How on earth do either the US or the UK qualify as current operators of IRBMs?  America's only current ballistic missiles (I'm excluding the various MLRS missiles here, since they're extremely short range and non-strategic) are trident 2 and the minuteman 3, both of which are clearly of intercontinental range.  The only thing they have that could be accused of being an IRBM or even MRBM is a target missile that doesnt have a warhead.  Britain only operates the trident 2.  Come to that, Russia doesnt operate any missiles in that range either afaik, they were forbidden from doing so under the terms of the intermediate range forces treaty, and I dont believe they've actually deployed an IRBM despite recent threats to leave the IRF treaty.  
Does anyone have a definitive list of those countries that actually still operate IRBMs?  The same complaint applies to the SRBM and MRBM articles.
Quadbox (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NOBODY operates IRBMs. IRBMs are there only because of their deterrant value when they are armed with nuclear warheads. No country has ever used an IRBM with either a nuclear, conventional, chemical, or bacterological warhead. If they ever did, retaliation would be swift, sure, and fatal.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I think by "uses" we don't mean "fires" or "has fired". I think we mean "use" as in "maintaining an active force" that is potentially useable. North Korea might qualify as a "user" in this sense.
Feldercarb (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Users 

message: If we look at ICBMs we have a careful count of missiles deployed, both historically and currently. However, for this class of missiles, there is very little info on force sizes. Anybody run across anything?Feldercarb (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantities? 

message: Whether the British and Irish like it or not, these are the correct spellings:
antiship missile and antiship ballistic missile.
The prefix "anti" does not require a hyphen. See these phrases and words:
antiradiation missile, antitank weapon, antisubmarine warfare, antipersonnel bomb (a fragmentation bomb), antiaircraft gun, antimissile missile, the antinuclear movement, anticommunist, antifascist, antiballistic missile, antisemitic, antivenom, antibacterial, antivirus, antimatter, antiproton, antineutron, antineutrino, antielectron, antiscientific. 
The exceptions are anti-American, anti-British, anti-Irish, anti-French, anti-Castro, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiship missiles 

message: Why is it in the table? It's an ICBM, not an IRBM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jericho III 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intermediate-range ballistic missile. 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/20130121132332/http://missilethreat.com/missiles/jericho-123/ to http://missilethreat.com/missiles/jericho-123/
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) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion