Talk:UGM-73 Poseidon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Reference material
This is a very unsatisfactory article as it currently appears. It makes a number of assertions that are apparently very POV backed up by references to a source at [[1]] that is itself very poorly sourced and outdated. Some of the source material cited is demonstrably inaccurate and speculative. The fifth paragraph in particular makes assertions that cannot be substantiated by any reference to official U.S. government sources, and these are likely to be the only sources of hard evidence in support of these assertions. The article is in severe danger of either generating or reinforcing false myths about the Poseidon system similar to those that have been well-documented in relation to other systems. A notable example is the British Chevaline system, where many distinguished academic writers described a system that we now know from archived declassified files to be completely untrue.
Another matter that troubles me is the use of material that ascribes a motive that cannot possibly be substantiated without access to official sources or other hard evidence. Examples are:
- (1) "The low-yield warheads were apparently selected ......." and
- (2) "Similarily a new more accurate celestial/inertial guidance system was not developed because it was felt ....." By who?
The fact that the reference source referred to above also uses these very same phases does not make them true or accurate. They are no more than an expression of some unnamed person's opinion unless some hard evidence is produced. So far there is none, and what hard evidence there is that has recently been declassified in UK archives suggests the opposite is true. The evidence in the UK archives is there because the US supplied it when the UK was considering Poseidon as an alternate to Chevaline.
I would very much like to hear some comment on these issues before plunging into a major re-write using verifiable source material. Brian.Burnell 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
