Wikipedia

Talk:CBRN defense

Latest comment: 9 months ago by ReadOnlyAccount in topic Euphemism treadmill?
Learn more about this page

Merge with WMD

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Per WP:NCA, the article title should be expanded to Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapon, and as such, is clearly a synonym for weapons of mass destruction. —Michael Z. 2006-10-07 21:26 Z

I also disagree with the merging, however, a link should be established and the difference explained. I have made a first try at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljambonsen (talk • contribs) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with the merging of this article into the WMD page. CRBN and CNRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High Order Explosives) are doctrinal terms used by the U.S. Military and other nation’s militaries. Although they refer to activities and items that may involve WMD topics, they are separate doctrinal concepts.
CBRNE tasks are primarily concerned with conducting military operations within various hazardous environments (or the elimination or mitigation of those environments). These environments can be generated via the use of WMDs, or they can be the result of the unintentional contamination of the environment from otherwise benign facilities or stockpiles.
Example of a non-WMD CBRNE operation: Soldiers conducting operations near a water treatment facility. There is an accidental release of chlorine from the facility. This is not a WMD. Yet the Soldiers will have to perform CBRNE tasks to continue to operate in the area until the chlorine can be mitigated or eliminated.

131.92.100.60 19:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

MichaelZ is out to lunch. Pepper spray calls for a CBRN response also, but that is hardly a weapon of mass destruction.139.48.25.61 (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply


I've got to agree with 131.92.100.60. There is a distinct difference between CBRN/E and WMD. Although sometimes used interchangeably by non-experts, they are NOT the same thing. A CBRN/E device may be a WMD, but the CBRN/E field encompasses much more. I doubt the WMD page discusses protective measures, for example. I'd like to expand this page, since it's a hot topic and getting a lot more press. Recent FISA passage, etc. I'll keep coming back for more editing, but I changed up some of the wording and definitions to make it a little more accurate.

Also, I don't think the definition of CBRNE as primarily a protective category is accurate, and that's a very narrow view of the field (131.92.100.60). Yes, protective measures included, but there's so much more that we haven't discussed in this page (counter/non-proliferation, classification of CBRNE, fields included, etc.). I suggest we all keep adding, adding, adding, because we've barely hit the tip of the iceberg.TehGus (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Section Headings

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about re-doing the headings. It seems a little odd that we have Canada and USMC as similar headings (if you get my drift...country/mil. branch). What does everyone think we should do? If we get this page a little bigger, we could do country sections at the bottom, leave the top to US-specific, and make that much more broad. Ideas?TehGus (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. US is the main head, USMC and US Army are now sub-heads.139.48.25.61 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Might it be an idea to add headings for history, types of agents, military use, terrorist use, delivery methods/systems, counter measures, decontamination and social/psycho impact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljambonsen (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Added a heading References. Problems with CBRN is that the number of reliable online sources is nothing compared to the offline sources. Jane's is a good one and more should follow. The heading references helps to give these offline references a place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljambonsen (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Things to do

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I hit this looking for a wiki link from another article for either CBRN/E or B-NICE. I think B-NICE should be listed in the related acronyms at the top of the article. I also think a little explanation of the categories (particularly the difference between Nuclear and Radiological, and Incendiary vs Explosive in B-NICE). Use of the term should be expanded to be inclusive of other disciplines (emergency management for example, not just military). References to its worldwide use would be handy. Also, when the term was coined, why it replaced NBC, etc. Will do what I can as I have time. --Parradoxx (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I need to have another card ordered the one have is faded and it is hard to see my name and card number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.17.129.22 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Confusion

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is fatally muddled. It defines "chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear" as meaning weapons or incidents. That is illogical enough. CBRN, or more usually NBC or NBCR means, exactly what it says - it does not mean weapons or incidents. That requires a different title - like "CBRN weapons"! From that muddled start the article declines further. India has apparently ordered 16 CBRN incidents or weapons, or both!

I suggest that the article should refer only to the term CBRN, and discussion of the different terms for essentially the same topic, NBC etc. There should be separate articles on NBC weapons/incidents/protection.

Agreed. But wasn't the CBR abbreviation used in the 50's and 60 followed by ABC and NBC? Also don't forget T for toxins (possibly around 1970?)!71.47.124.243 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

CBRNE vs CBRNe

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi there, why is that "e" for "explosives" written with a small letter in the acronym while all other letters are majuscules? In other languages (which have adopted this abbreviation), it is usually written "CBRNE". Best, --Bahrmatt (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Euphemism treadmill?

edit
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any point in referencing ABC → NBC → CBRN → CBRNE as being somewhat of a euphemism treadmill at least partially also driven by obscurantism and sense inflation? Has there been citable, sourceable discussion of it beyond informal grumblings? (My google-fu doesn't really turn up much on that point, and I realise that whatever I may or may not feel I'm aware of doesn't count here.) —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CBRN defense. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CBRN defense. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CBRN_defense&oldid=1206679649"