Talk:Nuclear arms race

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emaitt0316.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Page has no references... Kyle sb 12:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Many new references have since been added to the article -Enlightenedment

Note: Vandalism?

I am only a guest, however, I am gay. When I go to the "Edit" window, though, they do not appear. Either this is an account vs. guest issue, or there is some error/hacker behind it. Does anyone else know what is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.19.164 (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djkinney (talk • contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Chart depicted in upper right does not align with table below; they depict completely different escalation timelines both in numbers of warheads and by year

Focusing needed

The current page overlaps a bit too much with history of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare to be useful -- it should be focused inward specifically on the arms buildups, the factors that affected them, the overall effects of them, the criticisms of them, etc. --Fastfission 16:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.200.149 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of UK/France/China data

I think it is important to add the data on the three other Cold War nuclear powers, the UK, France, and China, and the "Initial Nuclear Proliferation" section should not be removed. First of all, the article intro before I edited it had (and still has) a mention of nations other than the USA and USSR having nukes but didn't really talk about it. In addition, the nuclear stockpiles of the three other nations, while far smaller than USA/USSR stockpiles, had a major impact on nuclear strategy. The nuclear programs of the other three nations should be given at least an honorable mention in the article. -Enlightenedment

Agreed, especially given the political impact and destruction potential of a single nuclear weapon. Quantity is not important when dealing with thermonuclear weapons.

Graph meaning unclear

I would like to propose that the graph of American and Soviet stockpiles that is at the top of the article be revised to include axis labels. While a label saying "Years" might not be quite as necessary, the y-axis values are unclear and lead to confusion. For example, in 1987, the USSR had 40,000 what? Warheads? Megatons? C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.19.136 (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to know where the data for the graphic came from. I agree with the above comments. This graph needs to be substantiated and referenced for accuracy. I have now seen this graphic on 20 different sites and not a single reference is given for the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.97.70.139 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've found an archived version of the PDF file that's mentioned in the graph's source. I believe that, for the sake of accuracy, the graph's caption should indicate that these are estimates as the Soviet Union hasn't released much information about their nuclear stockpiles. 86.123.40.58 (talk) 09:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear arms table?

The table on the page is totally nonsenical, someone please place the appropriate disclaimer tag.

The table is indeed confusing, and the source is unclear. I believe that this is a table of ICBMs, since the data in the table is completely at odds with the graph at the beginning of the article.

This article should reference Historical nuclear weapons stockpiles and nuclear tests by country. Michael-Zero (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Space Race?

Many of the rockets used in the space race required extensive launch facilities, long preparation, etc. which were at odds with the pressures of the arms race for hidden and/or well-protected launch facilities, milinal preparation, etc. So I'm not convinced that the space race showcased the same technologies, despite the original military mission for the R-7, use of Atlas, Titan, storable propellants for Proton, etc. Didn't Korolev and Glushko fight over the use of cryogenic propellents vs. storable ones? 74.96.172.110 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Reagan and the Strategic Defense Initiative

The article has a problem with failure of WP: NPOV. I find this sentence particularly egregious: "Towards the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and continued strongly through the subsequent presidency of Ronald Reagan, the United States rejected disarmament and tried to restart the arms race through the production of new weapons and anti-weapons systems."

What do you mean "restart"? When did it stop? The Russians of course continued "the arms race through the production of new weapons and anti-weapons systems" all through the 1970s and 1980s. And Reagan may have "rejected disarmament" during his first term, but he initiated the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty during his second, which was explicitly disarmament-- notice in the graph the huge drop in weapons occurring at the end of the Reagan presidency.

Also, the Russians had their own missile defense program. Michael-Zero (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I deleted these two sentences: "During the second part of the 1980s, the Soviet economy was stagnating and unable to match American arms spending. The Soviets feared the SDI because the U.S. would have an edge if it ever came to nuclear war.

This is unsupported opinion. In fact, the Soviet response to U.S. missile defense was that they could build more offensive missiles and put multiple warheads on each missile and thus overwhelm any defenses; their economy may have been "stagnating" but the part that was very good at building weapons wasn't. Since they thought that no missile defense could stop a first strike, they viewed the missile defense program as an offensive weapon, designed to stop retaliation after the U.S. struck first with an attack on the Soviet ICBMs. But the whole history of SDI is far too complicated to discuss here, so just cutting out the opinions given without substantiation is probably best. Michael-Zero (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)