Talk:Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed. This is a dispute over the neutrality of viewpoints implied by the title, or the subject matter within its scope, rather than the actual facts stated. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.(March 2008) |
Contents |
[edit] Add more Info
you guys had more information instead of the boring atomic agencies and stuff like that...can we show a bit more effort on this article.Tere naam 04:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Missile Table requires cleanup
The 'status' columns is particularly confusing. Status marked against every missile is different on every line. For example, is Hatf-III "under going production" imply it is not "deployed" like Hatf-IV? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adityagupta101 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Disagreement
There is a lack of agreement between the number of nuclear warheads Iran is said to have in this article and in the article List of countries with nuclear weapons.
[edit] Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb00/nb0025.htm|title=Uranium
- In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Mon Jul 17 15:37:32 2006, 404 Not Found
- In Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction on Thu Jul 27 00:51:15 2006, 404 Not Found
maru (talk) contribs 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quote
I can't find (online) any source for the main quote "We will defend our country using any means necessary and build a nuclear capability second to none. We will eat grass for 1000 years, if we have to, but we will get there." - the only time it come up is morrors of wikipedai and a very recnet US spectator article. [1] 160.5.247.8 21:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] recent developments
plz put facts not opinion (69.225.201.109 05:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
[edit] cruise missiles
No mention of cruise missiles.Pakistan has sucessfully reverse engineered American cruise missiles that accidently dropped into Pakistan.A few sources and we can create this section as it's important.-Vmrgrsergr 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NCA / National Command Authority: Links are bad
Article mentions but does not explicitly define "NCA". I assume this is "National Command Authority", but we need to define it explicitly in the article. NCA is a disamb page which does not mention any Pakistani organization likely to be the appropriate meaning here.
National Command Authority links to an article on the National Command Authority of the United States.
-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed!--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chagai / Chaghai / Chaghi
"Pakistan detonated 5 nuclear devices in the Chagai Hills in the Chaghai district, Balochistan. This operation was named Chagai-I by Pakistan.... the Directorate of Technical Development (DTD) .... carried out the Chaghi tests of May 28, 1998 and the Kharan test of May 30, 1998." -- Are "Chagai", "Chagai", and "Chaghi" the same here? Need to correct typo or regularize spelling? -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Requested Move
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was No move There is not a consensus for the move among established editors, and a quick Wikipedia search on weapons of mass destruction returns articles under that name for may states including India, Israel and the five members of the UN Security Council. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction → Pakistan and Nuclear Weapons The name of the article causes it to appear biased and requires a name that matches the information and shows a neutral point of view.(unsigned)
- Proposed title should be capitalised Pakistan and nuclear weapons per WP:NAME. I have no opinion otherwise. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The title of the article makes it seem biased. There is also no mention of chemical or biological weapons within this article and Pakistan has no developed biological/chemical weapons. It needs to be changed.--Always Ahead (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I do question the importance of "Pakistan is currently the only predominantly Muslim country with nuclear capabilities" would we put "Israel is currently the only predominantly Jewish country with nuclear capabilities"... I think it would be wiser to put this in the context of one of the Pakistani foreign ministers from the 1980's speech about if Pakistan got a nuclear weapon than the whole Muslim world would... that gives it some importance in the light of proliferation... gren
Wouldnt the title Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent be more apropriate? WMD is such a crap term only used to scare people by american news agencies.
- I agree, the topic should be "Pakistan and its Nuclear detterent". That is the official policy of Pakistan, and so must Wikipedia respect it.
Added some more info to the chart with respect to correct nomenclature, payload, status, alt. names, and range. Source: PakDef.info and Pakistani Defence.com
"Pakistan and its Nuclear Detterent" sounds like there is a pro-Pakistani agenda. Nuclear weapons are aggressive weapons we must not let a national opinion/policy take its own tone in a wikipedia article. the closest safest bet it to use the neutral terms and point of view as used by the United Nations [1] Izivkovi (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The term "weapons of mass destruction" was not invented by U.S. media as a scare tactic. It is a term used by the UN to describe nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. There is no bias in the term. There is bias - in the form of ofuscation - in the proposd title "Pakistan and its Nuclear deterrent." Furthermore, there are discussions elsewhere on the web of Pakistan having a chemical weapons program,[2] though not a biological weapons program.[3] Therefore, I think the best thing to do is keep the title and include sections ofn CW and BW (the latter would say that Pakistan is not believed to have a BW program). NPguy (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
