This is an archive of past discussions about Nuclear weapon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are you referring to a specific person or asking whether there were such people? Likely the people closest to a nuclear blast to ever survive it were the [[Hibakusha)
Nuclear weapons cover a huge size range. Obviously you could survive much closer to a small one. The Davy Crockett (nuclear device)W54 warhead had a selectable yield as low as 10 tons. At that setting you could probably survive (though injured) in open air 400 or 500 meters away from ground zero. If you were shielded behind a bunker or underground, you might survive 20 meters away. Many W54 warheads were detonated in tests, but I don't know if human or animal tests were done. Joema06:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
One should consider the different scalability of bomb effects. Smaller bombs will have a lethal radioactive emission field larger than the lethal blast radius, while for large bombs the effects are the other way around. Armoured vehicals provide good protection but will be vulnerable at high over pressures and high neutron fluxes.--ManInStone11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ewlyahoocom quoted an entry on the Super page. (An entry that was adjusted by you, Fastfission.) Two days later, he deleted that entry from the Super page, with no hint of explanation. Evidently, "From" shifted in meaning -- at first it seemed to mean "quoted from" -- and then it seemed to mean "ripped out of".
On the Super page (a disambiguation page), I've added back a version of that entry:
The concept of the hydrogen bomb was called the "Super" or "Superbomb" when it was first conceived of during the design work on the original atomic bomb.
Do you think The Atomic Cafe might have any nfo on that? I remember those soldiers running towards the blast, that's it though.
Strategic weapons
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
From Nuclear strategy section: "Note that weapons which are designed to threaten large populations or to generally deter attacks are known as "strategic" weapons." Good point, but is this the right definition? What about strategic bombing during WW2 on infrastructure (factories, oil)? Encyclopædia Britannica defines strategic weapons system as: "any weapons system designed to strike an enemy at the source of his military, economic, or political power" (britannica.com). Is Nuclear weapons the only type of strategic weapons? Maby someone could create an article on strategic weapons? Zarniwoot01:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the key aspect there is the "economic", which means "civilian" (see strategic bombing). And the threat of strategic weapons, as such, is much more than "tactical" and thus they play a far greater role in nuclear strategy per se. But we could clarify that, yes. --Fastfission02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is a difference between stratigic bombing and stratigic nuclear weapons(not). The simple difference that stratigic bombing is that designed to cripple the enemy amd reduce their abbility to fight while stratigic nuclear weapons are those that are intended to produce casualties to an unacceptable degree, that in that the enemy would not risk them being used against them. I think that from the start of the cold war, both sides hoped that no ICBMs would ever be fired (unless their nations tactical nukes had first decimated their enemies ability to fire their stratigic weapons first :P)Pissedpat07:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Problems with second paragraph
Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The primary purpose of this article is to discuss what a nuclear weapon is, how it was developed, and how it works. Therefore this sentence placed in the second paragraph seems out of place:
The use of the weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of at least 120,000 individuals (mostly civilians) and about twice that number over time, was and remains controversial — critics charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war. (See Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion.)
Neither Encarta NOR Britannica have verbiage like that in their articles on nuclear weapons. Why? Because the primary purpose of an article is to describe the topic, not to pass judgment on it. Whether people find it controversial is not relevant to describing the topic. That's why neither Encarta nor Britannica, nor other encyclopedias do this, and certainly not in the second paragraph.
Encarta has a sidebar on the morality of using nuclear weapons against Japan, but it is merely a link, without the POV verbiage that this Wikipedia article has.
All Wikipedia writers should take note of this and learn a lesson from how other encyclopedias handle topics involving controversy. Always remember -- the primary purpose of an encyclopedia article is to merely describe the topic, not pass judgment on it. An encyclopedia is essentially a more elaborate dictionary. It is not a forum for pro/con debate, however minor. If there's a controversial aspect to a topic, it should be included in another article, WITHOUT a summary of that in the 1st article. Any such link should be well down in the article body, NOT in the second paragraph.
By contrast the Wikepedia article Bombing of Tokyo in World War II is about an ACTION, not about a technical device. It therefore is more appropriate in that article to include some information on the pros/cons of the action, since that is the topic. However even that article initially focuses on describing the topic, reserving the pro/con coverage until toward the end.
Note that the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Yet that article doesn't include POV verbiage in its second paragraph. Why? Because that action, however brutal, is less politicized today. But whether a topic is politicized should have no effect on an encyclopedia article's factual description or article structure. Joema13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're objecting to -- the fact that it notes that their usage has been controversial and quickly glossing over the controversial issues? What exactly do you find POV about it? You surely cannot deny that much of what people associate with nuclear weapons is the debate over the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, whatever one thinks about their uniqueness or not. This paragraph was the result of many edits by people who thought that a discussion of the "device" was dehumanizing to the effects of the device, especially the two times they were actually used in combat. I personally think it is very concise, succinct, and NPOV. It states the two major positions very clearly and fairly and then shunts off to another article for further discussion. --Fastfission14:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
You described the problem: many people associate with nuclear weapons the debate over Hiroshima, thus it was included in the Wikipedia article. That is NOT the purpose of an encyclopedia article -- rather it is to describe the topic. That is why neither Encarta nor Britannica have similar statements in their articles on the same subject.
You also describe another problem: the current wording was a result of compromise with people wanting to inject their personal feelings into an article which should factually describe the topic, and nothing more.
The purpose of an encyclopedia article isn't to state opposing state points of view in a crossfire-style fashion, however abbreviated. It is to describe the topic. That is why Encarta and Britannica do it that way. Joema05:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fastfission; the current version is concise yet appropriate, and is likely to give users who search for this topic the information they are looking for, or point them in the right direction. What Encarta and Britannica do is not necessarily relevant for a mature Wikipedia article; I would consider the lack of discussion in those sources a shortcoming compared to this article. They don't have the benefit of continual user feedback to identify the important missing elements. The article describes important positions without advocating them; while the topic is a magnet for emotion and personal feelings, that doesn't mean the issues aren't important enough to be in the article. They are part of the topic, broadly construed.--ragesoss06:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a gross problem or a factual error. It just seems putting it the 2nd paragraph is out of place for a reference work. This is obvious from comparing to other Wikipedia articles, as well as common sense:
The Wikipedia Automobile article doesn't say in the 2nd paragraph: "Automobiles have killed 30 million people. Some people feel that's an unjustified loss of life. Others feel it's an accepted cost of the benefit provided". No, it describes what cars are and how they work.
Even the V-2 rocket article doesn't say things like that. It doesn't say in the 2nd paragraph: "The V-2 killed many innocent civilians in World War II. Critics say this was unjustified. Others say it was a warranted wartime action." No, it describes what the V-2 is and how it works.
Re Encarta, Britannica, etc not including it, that's not due to lack of discussion. They get plenty of feedback, just not real time. I'm sure lots of people with strong feelings have requested they add similar statements on many different controversial issues. But the editors don't do it because they have a more scholarly, unbiased perspective. They understand the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide information on the topic, not include pro/con positions of politicized viewpoints. Joema14:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a carbon-copy of Britannica. Should WP users desire this, they may purchase a copy of another encyclopedia on CD. WP covers many subjects not found in other encyclopedias, and often in greater depth; this is a -strength- and not a weakness. CRW 213.86.59.9217:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
H-bomb
Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
Shouldn't there be a separate article on the H-bomb? This article hardly has anything about the difference between a fission bomb and an H-bomb, and the redirects from H-bomb, hydrogen bomb, and thermonuclear weapon might lead readers to think all nuclear weapons are pretty much the same.--ragesoss20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're not going to split it, the intro should at least give an overview that mention the different types of nuclear weapons, so people who were redirected don't get the impression that all are synonymous.--ragesoss01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I put in (the A-bomb) and (the H-bomb) in the appropriate slots in the intro. That paragraph is a well written one and I hate to tamper any more than necessary with it. --DV8 2XL02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That helps a lot. It still leaves out other terms that also redirect here: thermonuclear weapon, Hydrogen bomb, atomic bomb, atom bomb. But I agree, the intro paragraph is nice, and I don't want to ruin it.--ragesoss03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put that sort of stuff in the types of nuclear weapons section, not in the intro though. "A-bombs" is really just an abbreviation for "atomic bombs" which is really just a word meaning "fission bombs" and so forth. I'm happy with listing all of them early on in the page, but putting them in the first sentence looks very amateurish to me. Calling nuclear weapons "the bomb" as a whole looks very, very silly, even though when people say "the bomb" they often are referring to the threat of nuclear weapons. I just don't think it works very well that way. --Fastfission02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought about this, but really we have an entire article for Teller-Ulam design and History of the Teller-Ulam design (I think they should be merged together like they originally were, but anyway that's neither here nor there). In effect we already have a separate article on the H-bomb though not under that name. The question I suppse is whether H-bomb should go here or there; I think in most cases people want a more general overview of nuclear weapons rather than a subject-specific approach, but that's just my guess. --Fastfission02:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The Teller-Ulam design page is impressive, and I think either H-bomb, etc., should redirect there with a see also for nuclear weapon at the top, or the nuclear weapon should have a prominent see also in the design section linking to Teller-Ulam article, instead of just the in-text link. The title of that article is not going to mean anything to many people; if someone knows an H-bomb and an A-bomb are different but doesn't know why, they have to follow a convoluted path to get the details they want. May the Wiki be with you--ragesoss03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think having a general article on nuclear weapons is a good idea, and I don't think the path to specific information is convoluted at all. I also think that all of the the Bomb/the A-bomb/the H-bomb stuff in the opening paragraph reads really badly, and it should either be moved to the Types of Nuclear Weapons section or a new paragraph should be written detailing some of the other names that nuclear weapons go by. TomTheHand13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Timely discussion (for me)! I was in the States last week and visited the Nevada Test Site museum in Las Vegas yesterday for a couple of hours before flying out. I left wondering what the distinctions were among h-bomb, a-bomb, and thermonuclear bomb. Your article answered my question to just the level I wanted, so thank you. Just one thing: there's a nice schematic illustration of fission bombs, but since that's only half the picture, it would complete the picture if you added the illustration for fusion bomb that's used on the Teller page. Just a suggestion from a user. Oh, and I hope you don't mind if I make a small grammatical correction while I'm in the neighbourhood. - Kkken13:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Glad it was of help! Yeah, I've thought about creating a picture that showed all three types at once -- it might be a good idea. --Fastfission14:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's really too bad you decided not to give Fission and Fusion weapons their own separate sections. This article on Nuclear Weapons is excellent but when a user types in specifically "Hydrogen Bomb" that's probably what they're interested in. There's so much information specific to H-bombs it would easily occupy it's own article. Perhaps you have a certain idea of who your audience is, i.e., most people who consult an encyclopedia don't know the difference between the two types of bombs and "what they really want to know is what nuclear weapons are." I think you are either underestimating your audience or deliberately designing this section around some pop culture ideal. No, Wikipedia is not meant to be Physical Review Letters but neither should it be Popular Mechanics.
I would never have guessed that the information I was interested in could be found primarily in the Teller-Ulam article--and scattered around in other places--without coming here and reading this discussion first.
This is not a criticism of the Nuclear Weapons page--it's excellent--but it *is* a criticism of the decision to redirect searches from "Hydrogen Bomb," "Fusion Bomb," et al, as well as the puzzling stubbornness here to create an article specifically for hydrogen bombs.
Hmm, well, that's a legitimate criticism. It might be worth being a little more clear about the differences and where one might find the details, as well as things which contextually related the different weapons to different contexts (i.e., h-bombs are what people are talking about when they refer to the arsenals of the major nuclear powers, but when talking about proliferation it is usually in reference to fission weapons). --Fastfission21:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that it is a good decision to redirect hydrogen bomb, fusion bomb, etc here, because I think the majority of readers simply want to know generally what a nuclear weapon is. However I also agree that it's difficult to find specific, detailed information if that is what the reader is looking for. In my opinion, the redirects should continue as they are but we should make an effort to improve accessibility of detailed articles.
Here's a thought: what if we had a page that listed the articles on nuclear weapons and gave a two sentence summary of what each article covered? Then at the beginning of nuclear weapon, we could have a notice that says "This article briefly summarizes many topics related to nuclear weapons. For a listing of detailed articles on various aspects of nuclear weapons, click here." and then link to the listing.
Right now a reader who is looking for the main article on the design of modern thermonuclear weapons would start here, read the Types of nuclear weapons section, and be unsatisfied. The reader would then need to click on the link to Nuclear weapons design and read that article, or at least the Fusion weapons portion. Still unsatisfied, they would need to click Teller-Ulam design to get to article they wanted.
I think with the summary page, someone could immediately realize that this page is not the detail page they want. They'll go to the article listing and scan it briefly, finding a link to Teller-Ulam design with a description like "The Teller-Ulam design is a design of staged nuclear device which uses a fission reaction to ignite a fusion reaction. It is the design used in modern large nuclear weapons. Devices using the Teller-Ulam design are known as hydrogen bombs or thermonuclear weapons."
I don't think I've seen anything quite like this on Wikipedia before and it might simply go against Wikipedia style and be a bad idea. I think it's most like a disambiguation page but more detailed. TomTheHand22:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I think this article is already as much of an "intro summary" as one should do (it is an attempt to implement good Wikipedia:Summary style. Teller-Ulam design is linked to in the "types" section here, but I'm not sure that's what people want out of an H-bomb article (sure, they want the design, but not the gritty details and the history of knowledge about the design). Perhaps what we need is some sort of short article on the Hydrogen bomb itself, and have everything except a direct search for "hydrogen bomb" and "h-bomb" link to this page? The H-bomb page could very quickly say it is about particular type of nuclear weapon, but could then itself be a summary style of the design, history, effects of the h-bomb, as well as a section comparing fission and fusion bombs, etc. --Fastfission22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea for "thermonuclear weapon" and "fusion bomb" to link to the proposed "hydrogen bomb" page as well? TomTheHand00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
It is a mockup in a display case, obviously. I don't think it's a very good picture to illustrate the Trinity bomb with in any case, compared to the many actual pictures of the device which are available (see [1]). In any case, I don't think we need another Manhattan-Project-centric link in the history section, and another Manhattan-Project-centric image on the page (there are already three!). I'm not totally opposed to having another picture in the "history" section but it would be nice to diversify a little bit on what we were considering "history" here rather than just sticking to 1945. --Fastfission05:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
And by "fake" -- I should clarify. I don't mean that it is not a scale model of the bomb. I mean that it is not a picture of the actual bomb, and does not look like a real bomb at all in its case. Compare it with this or this photo, for example. One is clearly a plastic model, the other is the real thing. --Fastfission05:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The critics are right. A-bomb needs to be a separate article on fission type nuclear weapons and not a redirect. H-bomb needs to be a separate article on fusion type weapons and not a redirect.****************
tmayes1999
Auto reversion of edits
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hey, fastfission, before you simply revert somebody's edits wholesale, why don't you have a look at them? If you don't like extra content, then take it out, but don't revert all changes also, just because you're lazy. For example, the original article states that a tertiary stage is used for "multimegaton" devices, but that's simply wrong. A tertiary is used in all modern thermonukes (save neutron bombs), for reasons I explained. This is a more important point about what modern nuclear weapons actually are (what they are composed of), than much of what is in the article. Anyway, if you think my explanation is long winded, feel free to just leave my conclusion. Sbharris01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I went through most of them and implemented them when I thought they were good, but of course we always miss a few, especially when the amount of text to look at is large. In any case this is not a page to go into any sort of detail about the composition of nuclear weapons; we have other pages for that. The goal of the design section here is just to give an overview of the basic types and their basic differences. --Fastfission02:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Inaccuracy
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article
"he use of the weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of at least 200,000 individuals (mostly civilians) and about twice that number over time"
Another article
78,150 killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in August,1945
I know I'm not mentioning Nagasaki but I'm 100%less people died in that bombing. Also twice that number over time is a rather disputed figure. I'd be inclined to change it unless I got some good points otherwise.
I just visited the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima and the number they are quoting at and around the Memorial Museum is about 140,000 killed by the end of 1945. A tour guide told me that the number of actual victims is quite higher given that many others would succumb to cancers and leukemia after the end of 1945, but the exact number is far more controversial because whether or not the death can be attributed to the atomic bomb is uncertain in many instances.
Vandalism protection
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Anyone else tired of imbeciles inserting junk here ten times a day? Could we petition for protection from edits by anons and new users? - Emt147Burninate!06:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
By all means try, but when I asked for semi-protection for another page with a similar rate of vandalism, I was told that 10-20 per day wasn't enough to warrant it. --Christopher Thomas07:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Imbeciles vandlize many Wiki articles many times a day. IMNSHO, this is one of the two top problems that must be solved before anyone can claim that the Wiki model of collaborative editing works in the real world. (The other problem is, of course, that fact that a vocal, motivated minority can sway the content of an article far from NPOV and get away with it.)
I listed it on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The problem with Wikipedia is that the rights of a moron with an internet connection are valued higher than those of respected contributors. I thought that crap was restricted to Democracies and Wiki is not one. :\ - Emt147Burninate!12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yup, the semiprotection request was nixed because "it's within the ability of users to revert" (meaning, if you spend an hour a day reverting instead of contributing we don't give a shit as long as Jimmy Retard from Junior High can write profanities all over the place). I encourage everyone to assume bad faith, start with high level warnings (blatantvandal or test3), and quickly list at WP:AIV. I certainly will continue to do that. - Emt147Burninate!18:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm tempted to just silently semi-protect it and keep it that way unless anyone seriously protests. Any objections? --Fastfission17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think "F****** History" ... is inadequate or could someone please explain why it should be called like that? I'll edit that.
You had the bad luck to see the article during one of the three brief periods, totalling four minutes, when an anonymous user had made that edit. It's unfortunate but vandalism of this article is common. TomTheHand20:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protection
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Because this article is relatively stable in terms of content and has a high-enough profile that it is vandalized by unregistered users on an almost daily basis, I'm going to put it under semi-protection (can't be edited by unregistered users or new accounts). If you are someone who can't edit it, you may feel free to leave any comments or suggestions for changes on this page. If anyone has a problem with the semi-protection, feel free to contact me via my talk page.
--Fastfission13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Move "Nuclear weapon" to "Nuclear bomb"!
Latest comment: 16 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
(This idea came as a byproduct of a discussion about the advisability of replacing occurences of the old and common name, "atomic bomb" with the article's current name, "nuclear weapon". There's a mini-consensus to leave most existing references to "atomic bomb" as they are.)
"Nuclear" might be more correct than "atomic", but how did "bomb" get laundered into "weapon"? "Nuclear weapon" is doublespeak. Every nuclear "weapon" IS A BOMB. "Nuclear bomb" is an honest name. "Nuclear bomb" doesn't sound as smooth as "nuclear weapon". Maybe those who coined "nuclear weapon" were also considering how it sounded.
I would like to move "Nuclear weapon" to "Nuclear bomb".
Interestingly, "atomic bomb" way outnumbers "nuclear weapon". "Atomic" sounds better, but it is regarded as an alternate form, nuclear being "more correct".
"Nuclear bomb" is a distant third, but it is way more honest than "nuclear weapon".
Google is not the arbiter. Who knows if those numbers are accurate. But there is more information there than just numbers. Look who uses which terms:
"Nuclear bomb" seems to get the top news sources nd science organizations: CNN, Washington Post, PBS, Guardian, MSNBC, Slashdot, BBC, howstuffworks, livescience, Bloomberg, USAToday, Seattle Times, Time, newscientist, fourmilab, ABC, NASA, LATimes, FOXNews, ...
"Atomic bomb" gets more historical content.
"Nuclear weapon" gets IAEA, UPI, Washigton Post, NASA, Telegraph, some historical, educational, PBS, ICRC, Encyclopedia Britannica, ...
I would move the "Nuclear weapon" article over to "Nuclear bomb" RIGHT NOW, but unfortunately the "Nuclear bomb" page is a redirect page that has been edited. I cannot up-and move this page with the Move button. (It fails.) (I'm guessing that I am not the first to discover this problem.) I don't want to butcher up the page with a cut-and-paste move. (The History stays behind.) So I need administrative help to get this move.
I don't know if my humble opinion counts as consensus enough to get an admnistrator to move this page.
Let's call a straw poll. Obviously, I voted MOVE. -Whiner0101:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, fast responses and all opposing. I wish I saw a Reason that I agree with. Maybe I am wrong, but I at least have a point. Maybe the euphemism really has worn off and people already know to be scared of nuclear "weapons". Still, I'll indulge in some dissent, rebutting the recent strong support of the Status Quo. -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Such a strong, fast response, unanimously negative, from long-time Wikipedia contributors and some admins, and you're convinced that none of us have a point? You remain convinced that you're dealing with doublespeak here, and not the more correct term used by scholars and professionals? Please step back a moment and think that perhaps you might be entirely wrong. The term "nuclear bomb" is correct under some circumstances, but it is a specific term and this is a general article. We're not going to revert to layman's terms and call anything that explodes a bomb. TomTheHand16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't advocate "calling anything that explodes a bomb". (Though at one point I came pretty close to it.) I proposed renaming THIS ARTICLE! (Please, somebody, LOOK at the article.) THIS ARTICLE deals EXCLUSIVELY with nuclear bombs (in the correct usage) and then links to ways of delivering those bombs. Maybe I should not have led with the doublespeak argument. But I am still challenged to guess how an article about nuclear bombs (a key component of all nuclear weapons) came to be mis-named "nuclear weapons"! -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Scholars and historians and anti-nuclear activists all use the term "nuclear weapon" over that of "nuclear bomb". It is puzzling to me that you could insist this is a euphemism and that the entire world of expert professionals, even dissidents, are somehow being duped. The only time where euphemisms creep in is when they are referred to as "nuclear devices" which is almost never done on Wikipedia except in the specific contexts in which they are not weapons (i.e. in Plowshares experiments). Even Greenpeace.org uses "nuclear weapons" over thirty six times more frequently than "nuclear bombs". Almost every use of "nuclear bomb" on their site refers specifically to gravity bombs. --Fastfission17:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
(I catch a lawyerly argument here.) Scholars and historians actively use BOTH terms, as shown by those counts. Instances of one outnumber instances of the other. But they are often talking about different things. Call a missile a weapon, YES, that is the only choice -- a missile is much much more than a bomb. But calling the bomb inside it a "weapon" -- that's what I don't understand. -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. "Bomb" would be less accurate. Read bomb, specifically the line where "the military mostly calls airdropped, unpowered explosive weapons "bombs." There are many different methods of delivering nuclear weapons that militaries would not call "bombs." Nuclear weapon is not doublespeak. It is a general term, and calling all nuclear weapons bombs is like calling all warships battleships, another common mistake. TomTheHand01:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhh... Bomb: a man-made weapon that does its damage by exploding. Bomb: "an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions". Calling all nuclear explosive devices "bombs" would be like calling all battleships "warships", which they are. Calling battleships "ships" would be kind of lame -- it's one step too general. Should I care what the military propagandistically calls something, or should I call it what I know it is? Military explosive devices that the military does not call "bombs" are called grenades, shells, depth charges, warheads when in missiles, or land mines. But there they are listed under the Wikipedia article Bombs because, you cannot escape it, they all ARE bombs. "Device" and "weapon" are too general. Every "nuclear weapon" explodes, so every one is a bomb. None have a risk of maybe hurting someone if you nick them with it, like most weapons. It is not a knife, sword, bullet, poison or lie. It is a specific kind of weapon that releases energy in an instant. It blows things to pieces, it vaporizes them, it ignites firestorms -- it is a bomb. Calling it a "weapon" is an attempt to soften that fact, conceal it in a polysyllabic euphemism. It is a gentle deception. Methods of Delivery?? If I deliver an "explosive device" in a car, it's not a car weapon -- it's a car bomb. No one air-drops a car bomb or a suitcase bomb. Just because some kinds of bombs with specific delivery systems happen to have names that do not include the word "bomb" -- are they any less a bomb? (Examples: explosive artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, explosive torpedoes.) There are "weapons" known as "missiles". At one point they were known as "rocket bombs". Did it suddenly become not-a-bomb when the name changed?? "A land mine is a type of self-contained explosive device" -- it's a bomb. Depth charges are dropped like air-drop bombs, but dropped in water. Some called it a "dropping mine". Under Depth charge: "The USSR, United States and United Kingdom developed anti-submarine systems using nuclear weapons (nuclear depth charges) sometimes referred-to as Nuclear Depth Bombs (NDB)." Hmm. -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I think that the current name is correct. There are several delivery mechanisms; bombs, shells and multiple types of missiles to name but a few mentioned in the article (Nuclear weapon#Weapons_delivery). The collective name for all of these delivery systems is weapons. Hence the article title. --GraemeL(talk)01:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Just that "weapons" groups nukes with slingshots and boomerangs. A nuclear bomb is a weapon because it is a bomb. Missiles, shells and torpedoes are delivery systems -- which deliver what? (Hint: Bombs.) -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose as well, for the reasons above. If we want to talk about "usage", I've done a very quick survey: "nuclear weapon" gets twice as many as "nuclear bomb" on Google, twice as many on Google Scholar, twice as many on JSTOR, eight times as many on a historical New York Times search and a historical Washington Post search. In my mind the only real competition would come from "atomic bomb" but that's a less accurate term, less encompassing, and is only used more than "nuclear weapon" because of historic reasons (sometimes it is better to use in articles than nuclear weapon, for reasons of style and context). --Fastfission02:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't I point out those statistics already? I declared up front that I was going against the preponderance of usage. I said to take a look at who used it and and how. I went for "nuclear bomb" because it's a known term that is honest, and accommodates the physicists and all those stupid news agencies and scientific organizations; or "atomic bomb", the oldest and still the most popular (except for the definition problem created by the "super"). Anything but "atomic weapon" -- it's like a nuclear box cutter or nuclear nunchucks. Isn't a nuclear submarine a nuclear weapon too? (It's nuclear and it's a weapon...) I noticed that the List of bombs includes "Nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb". Should I go correct that list? And what of the V-1 flying bomb -- is that now the V-1 trans-Europe winged grenade? -Whiner0105:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
You mentioned one of the statistics; I filled it out a bit more with a survey of many different types of sources, showing that "nuclear weapon" is used not only more generally on the internet, but by scholars and journalists as well. All relevant communities and even irrelevant ones use "nuclear weapon" to mean all of the variety of nuclear weapons, including scientists, historians, weapons designers, politicians, anti-nuclear advocates, etc. The term "flying bomb" is an obvious anachronism reflecting the fact that it was the first guided missile. It also reflects the fact that it is basically a gravity bomb with a jet engine attached to it, unlike something like the V-2 which is always called a rocket or a missile. Again, you seem to be suffering from a category error here: almost all bombs are weapons, but not all weapons are bombs. So of course a "list of bombs" would point to nuclear bombs as well -- there are nuclear bombs, but not all nuclear weapons are bombs (some are missiles, some are depth charges, some are landmines, some are artillery shells, etc.). And from what I can tell nobody is arguing for "atomic weapon". --Fastfission16:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm swayed. "Nuclear weapon" really IS the correct title for an article about nuclear bombs (fission and fission-fusion-fission), together with nuclear missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery, etc. A bomb by itself is a weapon, but not a very useful one. You have to deliver that bomb, or else build it into some kind of delivery system. A delivery system is not a weapon, it is a weapon component. A delivery system with a bomb installed is also a weapon, a much greater weapon than a bomb. I never advocated calling an ICBM a "bomb" -- that insults the marvelous delivery system. An ICBM is not a bomb (unless it explodes on the launch pad). An ICBM delivers bombs. Whether something is called "bomb" or not seems arbitrary at times, but I notice that complexity is the deciding factor, with pretty good consistency. If an explosive device sits somewhere and then blows up when commanded, it is a bomb. But if the same device has a long accurate timer in it, it is slightly more than a bomb; it is a "time bomb". If a pilot drops an explosive device from a plane, and it has an impact fuse, it is a bomb (or, more specifically, a gravity bomb, to remind us that it is passive or dumb). If a bomb has a radar proximity fuse, it starts to be more than a bomb; it wants to be a "smart bomb". If it has a camera in it and/or can I steer as it falls, it is a "smart bomb". If I waterproof a bomb and add a pressure sensitive fuse so that I can drop it on a submarine, it is a "depth charge". A bomb that waits patiently and tries to sense the enemy before exploding -- is a "mine". If I harden a bomb to launch from a cannon, it is a "shell". If I make a bomb safe to hold and throw a few yards, it is a "grenade". If I design a bomb to ride a missile, it is a "warhead". Distinct inventions tend to get special names; minor inventions seem to keep the name "bomb" (car-bomb, suitcase bomb). I think we are on the same page about bomb, not a bomb, weapons that are more than a bomb. That said, someone please LOOK at the article Nuclear weapon. The title implies that it is about nuclear weapons, but it is almost exclusively about nuclear bombs. The section Types of nuclear weapons lists 5 types of nuclear bombs (a-bomb, h-bomb, boosted a-bomb, neutron bomb, cobalt bomb). I see NOT ONE WORD there about the types of nuclear weapons (nuclear missiles, nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery, etc.) that are suggested by the article's title. Then there is a section, "Weapons delivery" that links to a "main(?) article", Nuclear weapons delivery. (And that article also uses the term "nuclear weapon" everyplace where it means "nuclear bomb". Example: "Nuclear weapons delivery is the technology and systems used to place a nuclear weapon at the position of detonation..." How does a ballistic missile place a ballistic missile at the position where the ballistic missile detonates? It's nonsense, isn't it. A ballistic missile places a bomb or a nuclear bomb at the position where that bomb detonates.) The articles and terms have undergone name shifts and content shifts that remain uncorrected, notwithstanding how closely the clergy might watch these articles. My initial disappointment remains. I expected a considered opinion, but what I perceived was collective whim, something quite different. I think that none of you evaluated the proposed title for the article aganst the content of the article. (I missed it too -- I now have a clearer view of what is wrong than I did when I started.) You defended against an imagined attack on sensibility. ((Maybe I need to start over in time, or research it from different angles. Several things probably need re-aligning, but the size of the articles might have them at an editing event horizon -- no one can fix anything unless they encompass the whole set of articles, which is large enough that it resists encompassing.)) -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Just because most other people are ignorant doesn't mean we need to be. Besides, I'll bet half of those "atomic bomb" references are to the Manhattan Project. Give Peace A Chance23:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Support. No one really seems to have countered the logic of Whiner01's argument.
If we use the term "nuclear weapon" for the "nuclear-explody-bit" of a weapon what do we call call the whole thing? The difficulty created by choosing to call the "explody-bit" a nuclear weapon to the exclusion of the whole device is, I think, demonstrated by the inelegance of the lines below.
"More preferable from a strategic point of view are nuclear weapons mounted onto a missile, which can use a ballistic trajectory to deliver a warhead over the horizon....Today, missiles are most common among systems designed for delivery of nuclear weapons"
My initial thought is to agree that calling the "explody-bit" a nuclear bomb and the device as a whole a nuclear weapon (cf. Blade weapon, gunpowder weapon etc) would seem the common sense/plain English way forward, and as this article does seem to be primarily about the "nuclear-explody-bits", "Nuclear Bomb" would be the appropriate name for this article.
Though I suppose it may often be appropriate to use the accepted terms within a field even when these are not the most logical or common-sensical ones available.82.47.203.151 (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
"Atomic bomb" is old but entrenched. "Atomic bomb" predates the Super, so it excludes the Super. Nuclear bomb is an "updated" "replacement" term that encompasses A-bombs and H-bombs. Nuclear bombs are the payload of nuclear weapons. The article (Nuclear weapon) is incongruous because it is actually about Nuclear bombs. It does not discuss any weapon other than the basic nuclear bomb itself. (Who's "other people"? What's "ignorant?" Who's "we"?) -Whiner0102:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Does a missile deliver a "nuclear weapon" OR is the armed missile a "nuclear weapon" that contains a "nuclear bomb"?
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
(A fresh take.)
For clarity, one little question. There are two ways to organize the terminology. Which scheme is the correct one? (Each scheme links articles that support it or should support it.) Scheme 1: The part that explodes is a not a bomb at all, it is a nuclear weapon. (There are two types of nuclear weapon: The first type is called a "fission weapon" (not as foremost in the text as it should be, and sadly a redlink as well), also "known colloquially as an atomic bomb". The second type is called a "hydrogen bomb" (which article is naturally a redirect to nuclear weapon). (I suppose we should correct "hydrogen bomb" to "fusion weapon", since a "hydrogen bomb" is not a bomb at all.) ) A nuclear weapon that is built into an air-droppable casing is called a "nuclear bomb", like the Mark 15 nuclear bomb, a "thermonuclear bomb" whose heart is "a staged weapon" (not a staged bomb -- again, there's no such thing). The air-dropped device, then, is a "bomb" which delivers the "weapon" inside it. The gravity bomb casing, missile, ICBM, cruise missile or torpedo that can carry a "nuclear weapon" (or other payload) is NOT a nuclear weapon; it is a "Nuclear weapons delivery system" (or method, mechanism, or technology). A missile that has a workable "nuclear weapon" installed in it is then -- a what? I don't see a set name for it anywhere. No article calls a loaded missile a nuclear weapon! We can't call it a nuclear weapon because we already gave that name to the little payload device that explodes (but is not a bomb). Is it an "armed missile"? A nuclear depth charge is not as separable. Its enclosure is a delivery system; inside it is a "weapon". What do we call the whole thing? A "weapon with a delivery system"? Or is it also a "bomb" which includes a "weapon" inside it? Scheme 2: The part that explodes is a "nuclear bomb". (A nuclear bomb is itself a "nuclear weapon", but not very useful without a means of delivery.) A nuclear bomb that is merely encased for dropping as a gravity bomb is also called a nuclear bomb, as is the Mark 15 nuclear bomb, a "thermonuclear bomb". The nuclear gravity bomb is a useful nuclear weapon, one which delivers the nuclear bomb inside it. The gravity bomb casing, missile, ICBM, cruise missile or torpedo that can carry a "nuclear bomb" (or other payload) is NOT a nuclear weapon; it is a delivery system for a nuclear bomb. A delivery system with the appropriate nuclear bomb installed becomes a nuclear weapon. Simple nuclear weapons retain "bomb" in their name, such as Nuclear Depth Bomb. The article "Physics package" also deems the explosive part to be PART of a "weapon": "Physics package is a euphemism for the portion of a nuclear weapon that includes the actual explosive portion of the weapon: the detonator explosives, the fissile material, and (for fusion weapons) fusion fuel." The physics package is "the actual explosive portion" (the complete bomb) "portion of a nuclear weapon". (But there the word "weapon" seems to refer to warhead: "... with the same physics package being used for several different warhead applications.")
I think Scheme 1 leads to more ridiculous self-contradictions, starting its refusal to call an explosive device a bomb.
Scheme 1 and Scheme 2 are contradictory and incompatible. I see clues that those who replied to the previous section do not all suport the same scheme, or are unclear about which terminology is preferred. Both schemes have some degree of support in Wikipedia articles, which means that the articles are in contradiction. That's the question. Which scheme shall we write to? --Whiner0109:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That info doesn't help decide the split, but warhead is one more layer that needs to be fitted into the schemes. Thanks for the reminder. (I omitted "warhead" initially because things were getting crowded.) "Warhead" is potentially euphemistic (used like "payload"), but it has a serious side (like "pointy end") A warhead is a module and there are different types. Scheme 1: A nuclear warhead is a package that contains a nuclear weapon plus a fuse. We may call a warhead a "nuclear weapon" because it is a mostly nuclear weapon (the part that explodes). We may never call a warhead a nuclear bomb because a warhead is not an air-dropped delivery system, it is a payload. A missile or bomb that carries a warhead is a delivery system. A complete missile with warhead(s) is more than a missile, but it is NOT a nuclear bomb, and it is a NOT a nuclear weapon. Scheme 2: The nuclear warhead is a package that contains a nuclear bomb plus a fuse. We may call the warhead a nuclear bomb because it is mostly nuclear bomb (the part that explodes). The warhead is also a nuclear weapon, but one which lacks a delivery system sych as a bomb or missile. A missile or bomb that carries a warhead is a delivery system. A complete missile with warhead(s) is NOT a nuclear bomb, but it IS a nuclear weapon.
Which scheme shall we write to? --Whiner0119:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The United States' Peacekeeper missile was a MIRVed delivery system. Each missile could contain up to ten nuclear warheads (shown in red), each of which could be aimed at a different target. These were developed to make missile defense very difficult for an enemy country I think the final sentence of the text below the image, as shown in the Nuclear_weapon#Nuclear_strategy section of the article, is partial, narrow and misleading. It could equally be surmised that MIRVs were developed and mass produced in a political strategy to 'win' the arms race or express some kind of dominance by maximising the number of targets. Slowman1 (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The caption explains the technical reason MIRVed warheads were considered better. There is no need for the caption to also explain why a country would want a better way to deliver nuclear weapons. By analogy, if I captioned a picture of a car, and said "This car has airbags, which inflate to cushion occupants in a crash", the caption doesn't need to also explain why someone would want a car to be safer. TomTheHand (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Kazakhstan
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
So Kazakhstan would not have the nuclear weapon? So, it basically transferred some of its stockpiles back to Russia?
Ha-ha, well, we'll see how far the American armament of Kazakhstan and previous soviets states will go. But no, Soviet nuclear weapons were transported to Russia.
-G
Misleading intro?
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
"from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion."
Last time I checked, D-T fusion is on the order of 10 times less powerful than Pu. Well I just checked now actually, it's 17.6 MeV (wiki) for D-T vs. ~300 MeV (did I convert correctly? 2-11 J/mol x 1.6-13 j/MeV) ([2]).
I was under the impression thermonukes are more powerful because they have more fuel, not because the reaction itself is more powerful. If so, the intro really needs to be re-written.
Atom for atom, fission produces more energy, but weight for weight, fusion does, if I understand correctly. This is consistent with your numbers (works out to 840 MeV for 239 AMU of D+T), but I haven't checked the fission energy value, which seems a bit high (though I could just be overlooking some constributions). An upper bound on fission energy can be found by comparing the mass per nucleon for Pu239 vs. Fe56. It might be worth tweaking the intro to make this distinction clearer.--Christopher Thomas15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, but that seems like a very fine point to make in an intro sentance. It seems all of this could be fixed simply by removing the term "more poweful". That makes the statement both factually correct under any interpretation, as well as being just as informative. In fact I'm just going to go ahead and make this change, it seems minor enough to avoid a rvt. Maury17:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Am I way out of date, thinking that fission bombs are called atomic, and fusion bombs are nuclear? This article seems to say (again and again) that there are two kinds of nuclear weapons: atomic and nuclear. Please set me straight or clean up the article. —MichaelZ. 2006-10-08 06:29 Z
"Atomic" refers exclusively to fission bombs; "nuclear" can mean either type (and the varieties of intermediate fission-fusion hybrids, such as boosters). The article almost exclusively uses the term "nuclear" for this reason. --Fastfission14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Recently someone vandalised this page by changing the 1st paragraph to some nonsensical stuff (see history).
I vote for this article to be protected or locked to prevent unregistered or newly registered users to edit.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by loongyh (talk • contribs) .
Nah, that stuff is par for the course. Nuclear weapon is a popular target for dumb kids, but it doesn't have anywhere near the amount of vandalism needed to trigger a semi protect. We try to avoid overusing those tools, they are anathema to the idea of the wiki. But thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
There is always vandalism going on - it's mostly not noticed due to editors and bots watching the pages and reverting vandal edits quickly. Some pages need to be locked because they are ripe targets for those with agendas or just wishing to have destructive fun (like the Tony Blair article) and if they weren't locked would likely become useless or misleading quickly or just a constant battle of reverts. Robovski01:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Difference between fission and fusion bombs; what does thermonuclear mean?
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
220.239.185.915:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC) NeilR: A fission nuclear bomb was the first type of nuclear device to be developed by the Los Alamos team of multinational scientists, including one Australian Dr Mark Oliphant who was later knighted and his title became Sir Mark Oliphant.
A fission device derives its energy from the splitting of Uranium nuclei into simpler elements, by the use of relatively slow neutrons.
In natural Uranium or Plutonium, nuclei are constantly splitting as slow moving neutrons from adjacent split nuclei induce nuclear fission in neighbouring nuclei. To make a fission bomb, you need to have a minimum mass of either Uranium or Plutonium, the value needed is referred to as the critical mass.
In a bomb, you need to have the critical mass divided until you want to detonate the device, in which case you ram the divided pieces together, to generate a runaway nuclear fission reaction resulting in a massive release of nuclear energy. To ensure reliable detonation in the largest possible scale, you need to have a source of slow moving neutrons located between the divided pieces, one such source may be the element Polonium.
Due to the nuclear physics involved in an Uranium fission bomb, the gun type design was the most efficient. The Plutonium fission bomb's physics demanded the implosion type design.
The Los Alamos team was divided into two groups, one group using Uranium worked on the gun type design, and the other team worked on the implosion type device. Due to technical problems with the gun type design, the implosion type device was finished first and was tested first in the Nevada desert. The gun type design was finished second, but it was first used untested in the Hiroshima bombing because insufficient Plutonium had been produced to have an implosion bomb ready by the time of the Hiroshima bombing on August 6th, and the implosion type of nuclear fission device using Plutonium was available by the time of the Nagasaki bombing three days later on August 9th.
A fusion nuclear device or thermonuclear device, uses a fission type of device to generate enough heat in the form of Gamma rays or X-rays to initiate fusion nuclear reactions in a deuterium/tritium mix. Fusion nuclear reactions generates much more energy than fission nuclear reactions, hence you can have a fission device small enough to initiate fusion nuclear reactions to get a larger yield, compared to a purely fission nuclear device, this accounts for a thermonuclear warhead having a thinner diameter, than a gun type "Little Boy" or "Fat Man" implosion type of fission nuclear device. The yield of a fusion or thermonuclear device can be adjusted by controlling the amount of tritium you pump into the thermonuclear warhead.
The fission nuclear bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a yield of approximately 10 kilotons each. A thinner looking thermonuclear warhead, as used in US strategic delivery systems such as the MX ICBM or Trident SLBM, or an US tactical delivery system such as a Tomahawk cruise missile, has a maximum yield of 200 kilotons.
What exactly is the above text supposed to contribute? And much—most?—of the information in it is quite wrong. Nagasaki had a yield of 22 kt. The MX warheads (W87s) had a max yield of some 300 kt and could be upgraded to 475 kt. The yield is not dependent on "the amount of tritium you pump into the thermonuclear warhead." The fact that they tested an implosion device at Trinity had nothing to do with "problems with the gun type design." The gun type design was not terribly more efficient than Fat Man (1% vs .9%, respectively). Etc. etc. --Fastfission00:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
