Talk:Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

message: Changes 20:02, 22 Jul 2004: 
*Revised line on Minuteman configuration and added link.
*Sentence "The most powerful MIRV developed by the USA was the Peacekeeper missile, which could carry up to 10 re-entry vehicles, each of which with a maximum explosive power of 300 kilotons." deleted as as the D-5 Trident II carries more powerful bombs (475 KT) and the C-3 Posiedon carried up to 14 warheads.  By which measure is the Peacekeeper more powerful?
*Revised section on MIRV's and ABM's.
*Added section on the ability of a MIRV to attack multiple targets.
Elde 04:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisions 

message: Does anybody know, how far appart can be the targets of a MIRV attack?
It's possible to make some guesses, but the actual figures are classified.  If I had to guess, I think some tens of miles.  Note: It's traditional to 'sign' your entries with four tildes which creates a signature like this: Elde 21:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIRV target 'spread' 

message: Second sentence makes no sense. syndicate 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second picture description 

message: Something about the dates of deployment should be added. Also what "drives" the individual warheads?
-Pietas
*The first MIRVed missile was the Minuteman III, and was first deployed in 1970. Each warhead is kept in a re-entry vehicle, which has it own motor. I imagine though that the motor is just used to get it into position and that much of its speed comes from gravity. I do think adding a history section would be appropriate. --Fastfission 18:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  When were they first deployed? 

message: I made multiple changes to the article, mainly correcting obvious errors, adding internal links, and clarifying wording. Discuss here if any issues with the changes. Joema 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article revisions 

message: There should be a "demise" section in the article since MIRV are finally outlawed by treaty. 195.70.32.136 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not correct. The START II treaty which outlawed MIRVs was never activated, hence never a factor. Russia withdrew from the treaty on June 14, 2002. The current SORT treaty (also known as the "Moscow Treaty") does not restrict MIRV warheads. Joema 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good riddance 

message: The scenario this article give for explaining why mirvs give a first strike advantage is wrong.  The multiplications and mathematics do not help illustrate the point and are misleading.  The mirvs gave the US a first strike advantage simply because it increased the number of usable weapons they had in a very short timespan.  If the US had suddenly received 1000 new missiles and launchers the same result would have applied.  Once the SU got mirvs then the first strike advantage was no longer applicable.  Thus the mathematics in the example are not helpful and actually misleading.
page 224-227
http://www.jstor.org/view/00438871/di971185/97p0244n/0
A better explanation is this:  MIRVs threatened to rapidly increase the US's deployable nuclear arsenal and thus the possibility that it would have enough bombs to destroy virtually all of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons.  Later on the US feared the Soviet's MIRVs because Soviet missiles had a greater throw weight and they could thus put more warhead on each missile than the US could.  Thus for example the US MIRVs increased their capacity by a factor of 6 while the Soviets increased their by a factor of 10.  Furthermore, the US had a much smaller proportion of its nuclear arsenal in ICBMs than the Soviets.  Bombers could not be outfitted with MIRVs so their capacity would not be multiplied.  Thus the US did not seem to have as much potential for MIRV usage as the Soviets.  However, the US had a larger number of SLBMs, which could be outfitted with MIRVs, and helped offset the ICBM disadvantage.
If you guys agree with my alterations then perhaps they should be applied to other articles about MIRVs (such as the MX and Minuteman III) where the former passage is repeated instead of my new one. 128.12.77.97 09:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking first advantage 

message: There is no information as to which or how many nations deploy MIRVed warheads. The United States and the Soviet Union/Russia are obvious, but is there information about other nations? Does Great Britain or France have MIRV capacity? What about China, India, or Israel? Intrepidsfsu 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the United Kingdom and France have MIRV capability, with the Trident and M45 systems respectively. I'm unsure about the other three, although I would put money on at least India and China. Mothball (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have the date when the Soviet Union deployed MIRVed missiles?   And what was the designation of their first MIRV  missile?  This had a big effect on arms control treaties and perhaps should be added to the article. --ChetvornoTALK 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nations? 

message: Hey MIRV friends, I just uploaded some great pics I don't have time right now to incorporate, but I thought someone else might like to.  Nothing can match this reentry pic, but there's still an interesting night-time reentry shot and a bus-assembly shot more detailed than the old one we have now.  Cheers. --Sean 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIRVy pics 

message: In light of a very recent episode of the American television drama Mad Men which depicted the development of MIRV research in the early 1960s, I wonder if the page would not benefit from a section listing significant portrayals or references to MIRV in narrative or non-narrative media? Armadillo01 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MIRVs in Media 

message: In this article, this image  has the caption:
Testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons.
In this other article LGM-118_Peacekeeper, the same image has the caption:
Testing at the Kwajalein Atoll of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile. With live warheads, each line would represent the explosive power of twenty Hiroshima-sized (Little Boy) weapons.142.55.138.53 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing of the Peacekeeper caption. 

message: I'm a little confused at why the acronym is MIRV, when the full name is "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle". Is there any information on why the "T" was left out? The main reason I wonder is if there was another name from which the acronym is derived. (If so, it should probably be listed). I also question the grammar on that name: "a multiple ... vehicle" (singular)? A quick browse through the references provided shows that they all use "reentry vehicles" (plural). -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it is from Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle(s).--Patrick (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Not only that is screwed up, but the title is as well. No capitals. Facepalm. Decent_of_Darkness (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did "targetable" go? 

message: The images and captions appear to take up most of the space. I suggest we shorten the caption on the Minute Man III operation image, and/or cut and past the following information into the article. 
Jake M Ingram (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minute Man III Mode of Operation sequence 

message: 103.255.6.87 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017 

message: Pakistan has for the first time successfully test-fired its surface-to-surface ballistic missile capable of delivering multiple warheads, using Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” The missile, called Ababeel, has a maximum range of 2,200km and “is capable of delivering multiple warheads, using Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media branch of the Pakistani armed forces, said in a press release on 24 Jan 2017. https://www.rt.com/news/374946-pakistan-tests-ballistic-missile/ 85.132.8.24 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017 

message: Add Pakistan in the list of countries possessing this technology. Thehammadumar (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017 

message: Until a missile is tested, missile and nation cannot be included in the list Faizankhan919 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure by this logic we will have to remove all missiles without proven MIRV capability. These include Agni VI, Ababeel, and Khorramshahr. Other editors had removed these missiles but these edits were reverted. Happy to remove them and keep the list only with missile with proven MIRV capability. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All the missile are included when it’s presence is declared by the country. Further demonstrations and test are choice of the country, not Wikipedia administrators. So Ababeel deserves to be included without any unproven explanations with it and Agni VI should be removed till missile is tested with India claim of MIRV, no need for MIRV demonstration. Faizankhan919 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This not about deserving or not. Content on Wikipedia is added per references. There are independent references which have stated that Abadeel has not shown MIRV demonstration. We have to keep this list consistent. Either it contains all missiles with demonstrated and declared MIRV capability or only with ones with demonstrated capability. But this has to be decided with consensus from other editors as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  so, based on your point of view sensitive informations like missiles, etc should be removed from wikepedia, because no verification of missile range and its success are witnessed by independent sources especially Wikipedia administrators.
Faizankhan919 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can only add information on Wikipedia which is reliably sourced and meets the standards per WP:RS. The missile was added here since Pakistan claimed that missile had MIRV capability but other independent sources raised doubts about this capability. Thus, the addition in the brackets. Wikipedia publishes all points of view not just the view of the country. If there are reasonable doubts raised about something, that is also mentioned to maintain NPOV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agni VI and India 

message: Hi , I did notice that you removed Agni VI from the list. I was trying to understand the rationale behind it. Was this for the lack of a WP:RS which states that it would be MIRV capable or because the missile has not even been tested yet? There are WP:RS which indeed state that is going to be MIRV capable here (,). I don't feel strongly about its removal, just trying to establish criteria for inclusion of any missile on the list. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Agni VI