Talk:Russia and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Russia and weapons of mass destruction has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] old

Deadline extension for further deadlines? How can there be more than one deadline in advance? Get-back-world-respect 02:28, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Try reading the convention. The deadline is 2007, with each country able to get one 5-year extension if they apply for it before April, 2006. So the absolute final deadline is 2012 although no one thinks Russia can make it even with EU and US help and the US is sure it can make it because of environmental lawsuits at disposal locations. Not to mention that the US officially accused Russia of developing three-component chemical weapons to avoid chemicals restricted by the Convention. Rmhermen 15:20, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
Extension on further deadlines is actually correct as they requested extension of both the 2004 and 2007 deadlines. Rmhermen 15:22, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
So why don't you just write this? And why do you include the 1% without reliable reference nor up to date information? Get-back-world-respect 15:43, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Look of the Page

Is the page supposed to have so much empty space, or did this occur by mistake? If there is a way to fix this, could someone please do so, for the article looks very awkward with all the random spacing that it currently has. Thanx in advance, Homologeo 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral POV

The article states that: "Russia reluctantly signed the Chemical Weapons Convention". Is that a neutral POV at all? --JohnRubin 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right. Corrected.Biophys 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topol

I think that words like "which US air defence is unable to destroy" are useless, since US shield is not capable to destroy MIRV warhead or even warhead launched from beforehand unknown location, why are we even mentioning it with Topol?

Good question. Rmhermen 05:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia's nuclear capabilities - no RR warring please

Several anonymous users curently revert each other with regard to Russia's nuclear capabilities. But this is just a matter of sourcing. This most recent source [1] tells:

"Russia has the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, with an estimated total of 16,000 warheads, of which 7,200 are believed to be operational.

The Soviet Union had an estimated total of 35,000 warheads. The Americans have 9,960 warheads of which 5,735 are operational. Russia’s nuclear weapons can be fired from land-based silos, submarines and bomber planes.

This “nuclear triad”, as it is known, comprises Strategic Rocket Forces (land based): 489 missiles capable of carrying up to 1,788 warheads Strategic Fleet (sea based): 12 submarines capable of carrying up to 609 warheads Strategic Aviation Units: 79 bombers capable of carrying up to 884 Cruise missiles.

Under the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), better known as the Moscow Treaty, signed in 2002, the United States and Russia have agreed to limit their arsenal to 1,700-2,200 operational warheads by 2012. The treaty sets no limits on the size of reserve stockpiles, however.

Russia tested its latest generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, the RS-24, last month."

This source [2] gives "approximately" 20,000 (rather than 16,000) warheads and explains that ~7,000 are only operational strategic weapons, whereas there is no accurate count of tactical nuclear weapons". "It is estimated that Russia has between 735 and 1,365 metric tons (t) of weapons grade-equivalent highly enriched uranium (HEU) and between 106 and 156 t of military-use plutonium."

Do you think this information is wrong for some reason? Please tell.Biophys 19:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Russian version of this article makes a reference to this site: [3], which is created by someone who calls himself "Pavel Podvig". It provides different numbers. Any ideas who this "Podvig" is? I suggest to stick to most reliable sources.Biophys 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I got it. There is no contradiction here. This Podvig says: "741 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3281 nuclear warheads." Probably, it means that "3281" is a single load of these systems.Biophys 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV title

This title has a POV overtone, as if the author didn't like the fact that Russia has the weapons. Anyone want to try Russia and nuclear weapons or Nuclear weapons in Russia or Nuclear proliferation in Russia? The Evil Spartan 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

We have around 10-15 articles of this type : France and weapons of mass destruction, Germany, North Korea, etc. Does not seem to be POV at all. Something like Nuclear weapons of Russia or Russian program of nuclear weapons (does it include Soviet program of nuclear weapons?) can be created in addition to this article to describe situation in more detail.Biophys 01:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if they all shouldn't be renamed. Although I can't point to exactly why, it just seems to be WP:WEASELy in the titles. The Evil Spartan 01:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
We also have article and a category Weapons of mass destruction. This is well established terminology and tradition to combine chemical, biological and nuclear weapons into the same category. The usual rationale: each type of this weapons can theoretically destroy the entire human kind, which of course was disputed by some scientists, even with regard to nuclear weapons.Biophys 02:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As about "proliferation", this should be included here. See for example, [4]. This is huge topic and it is very poorly described in WP.Biophys 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction

The US WMOD article indicates the US Nuclear arsenal is 7K ready and 3K reserve, contradicting the prominent statement here that the 5K ready and 3.4K reserve of Russia are the largest. 74.78.162.229 (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)