Talk:National technical means of verification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Intelligence task force

Contents 1 OOPS. Admin! Admin! Help! 2 Should this be under a more general heading of counterproliferation? 3 Possible source, to avoid original research 4 helpme moved from article

[edit] OOPS. Admin! Admin! Help!

This should have been titled "National Means of Technical Verification". I goofed. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should this be under a more general heading of counterproliferation?

Since the methods here are very relevant to monitoring missile and nuclear programs of nuclear states that have not ratified relevant arms control treaties, as well as development by non-national groups, should the focus be generalized, or should this article be closely linked with the now-stub article on counterproliferation?

Indeed, the principles and procedures here, if not the actual methods, could apply to counterproliferation of chemical and biological weapons, as well as verification of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible source, to avoid original research

In 1972, I was a member of the Young Republican National Federation Platform Recommendations Committee, Foreign and Military Subcommittee. For the record, I now consider myself a Recovering Republican.

Anyway, we had a number of private briefings, including by a member of the SALT team, whose name I forget. He indicated that the then-Soviets insisted on the phrase "national means of technical verification", because they believed their domestic politics could not tolerate that American "spy satellites" passed over the Motherland and the Red Army could not do anything about it. It was a seemingly small point to American ears, but our speaker insisted that the language was a deal-breaker for the USSR.

Does anyone know a reference that can support my memory? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I did find and cite a 1972 memo from the Secretary of Defense, recommending declassification, but it doesn't express the intensity of what I was told was the Soviet reaction. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] helpme moved from article

The page title is a typo. It should be national technical means of verification, not national means of technical verification. Awaiting an administrator fix ****

Will sort now I don't quite understand. Please can you give the exact name you want it to have? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole business has been messed up I think. I first encountered the request on the article national means of technical verification, and subsequently moved it into talk space. Then, Rjd0060 fulfilled the move request, and removed the helpme tag, after which, it appears he reverted his edit, which put the helpme tag back, and I then assume Tiddly Tom found it. That is a breif summary of the chain of events. :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)