Talk:Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction

Untitled

Can someone point out a source for this?

Taiwan probably possesses some amount of sarin.

The briefest of searches on the Internet will reveal a half dozen sources. Stargoat 19:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I think that probably is too strong a word for what those sources indicate. Roadrunner 19:10, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

This is incorrect...

Taiwan probably does not possess any nuclear weapons, but certainly does have the technology to enriched uranium the plutonium or uranium necessary to construct such a device.

Taiwan does not have any indigenous capability to enrich uranium or produce plutonium. Now if you would argue that Taiwan has the technological level to develop a nuclear program, that's something quite different, and you need to rephrase.

Taiwan undoubtedly possesses the technology to enrich uranium, if not the capacity at present. It isn't that hard to do and they were looking into it during the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:f0fN_M5ZcrkJ:www.fas.org/nuke/guide/taiwan/nuke/+nuclear+weapons+Taiwan&hl=en

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:xW-JX-yonBsJ:www.isis-online.org/publications/taiwan/pr121997.html+nuclear+weapons+Taiwan&hl=en

I think there is a bit of confusion here. It is known that Taiwan had a program to produce plutonium through heavy water nuclear reactors, but as far as I know, Taiwan has never had a uranium enrichment program. As far as "possesses the technology" that needs to be phrased pretty carefully. Taiwan has the general technological level needed to built a bomb within a few years, but so does any reasonably developed area of the world. Taiwan *doesn't* have any of the specific technology needed to actively produces nukes (i.e. ultra-centrifuges).

Roadrunner 19:01, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I had previously written a more extensive discussion of the nuclear weapons program at Military_of_Taiwan#Nuclear_weapons_program. Should it be moved here? --Jiang 05:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Splits are en editorial decision that don't require a RM. Jenks24 (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction → Taiwan and weapons of mass destruction – This article only deals with Taiwan and not not pre-1949 Republic of China and Wikipedia guidelines say use Taiwan C. 22468 Talk to me 16:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support per consistency with parent article Taiwan. Consider multi-moves for such matters in the future. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
• Split the information on China prior to 1949 should be copied to an article Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction (1911-1949) and expanded on. The current title should be redirected to China and weapons of mass destruction ; or a History of China and weapons of mass destruction should be created, and Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction (1911-1949) would redirect there, and the current title become a disambiguation page between Taiwan and the history article. Since biological and chemical weapons have been used during the imperial period, we should have coverage on it. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Rename per Taiwan. Separate out any pre 1949 information where needs be. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disruptive editing by IP-hopping editor

This is starting to look like a repeat of what happened in the last few days at Hsiung Feng III, with disruptive editing by the same IP-based editor. That page is now Page Protected. There is no point in leaving messages on his/her talk page, because the IP address keeps changing. merlinVtwelve (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes and other articles like Brahmos,Brain size faced similar disruption today. Some of these pages were later SEMI Protected on my request. This page is not protected yet and thus continues to be disrupted. I have requested Page protection but an administrator has yet to respond on that. I think we can refrain from an edit war until then since this is currently going nowhere. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the IP user has clearly violated 3RR by reverting 3 times within a period of the same day. I am unclear how this rule applies to an IP editor but we should make note of this fact. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Noted, I've been hoping to steer clear of it myself, but it's easy to lose track. merlinVtwelve (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)