Talk:Nuclear weapon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article Nuclear weapon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2004.

...render the planet uninhabitable...

This is a pretty big claim, not that I am for or against. Can such a claim be sourced? Discuss. Asgrrr (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons use would be horrible beyond imagination, but humans are a very adaptable species. "Uninhabitable" is an exaggeration, even taking into account nuclear winter models. I have deleted the claim. NPguy (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Ever since the 1970s, the USA and the USSR aka Russia have a combined nuclear firepower that could explode the planet into tiny pieces 40(!) times over. There's little chance for human survival on radiated debris floating in space, especially without any breathable atmosphere. -- (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
False.NPguy (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2017

Could someone fix the duplicate year that User:Headbomb added to the "The physics of antimatter induced fusion and thermonuclear explosions" citation? (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, good catch, my bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2017

Please change the link text "Charles DeGaulle" in the Nuclear Strategy section to Charles de Gaulle with a space and proper capitalisation. Firekraag (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Uglemat (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

  • Added {{dead link}} tag to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Section on public awareness

I feel what this article still lacks is a section on the history of public awareness of the bomb. Throughout the remainder of the 1940s, knowledge of the bomb was still highly classified. Throughout the 1950s, the public was told that "duck and cover" and brushing off one's clothes would be all that's required to weather a nuclear fall-out. Generally, it took until the 1970s until the public in many first and second-world countries got to know about the true horrors due to nuclear radiation. This is not exactly the same as the history of ban-the-bomb and pacifist movements, and I couldn't find this information in those articles either. -- (talk) 07:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What you're forgetting is that the technology changed over time, so what was an appropriate response in the 1950s was subsequently outdated. For information on this subject, I suggest Boyer (1985) By the Bomb's Early Light. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I pretty much doubt it was "appropriate" to try and find out how close you could get ground troops to the blast without them dying within days. There had been radiation deaths on the Manhattan Project, so scientists and the government knew how dangerous the technology was even without any explosions. And besides, I'm talking about what the governments let their people know: During the 40s, populaces didn't even know the bomb existed or what it was, and government agents would probably take you to be interrogated if you even just used the words "Manhattan Project" or "a-bomb" as late as 1949. In the 50s, people were told that nuclear power was safe and if the bomb blast didn't kill you, you could simply "duck and cover" and brush your clothes off, and it took until the 70s that the public actually received unbiased scientific information on stuff such as radiation poisoning, probably even by whistleblowers only. -- (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There were two radiation deaths on the Manhattan Project, of involving criticality experiments, out of the 24 deaths at Project Y. The Manhattan Project and atomic bomb were made public in August 1945. Details were published in the Smyth Report, which quickly became a best seller. What wasn't made public was that before 1949 you could have counted them on your fingers and toes. The bombs of the early 1950s were much less powerful and much less numerous than what my generation grew up with - this became reality only in the 1960s; but by the late 1950s, large numbers of bombs were being exploded in tests annually, and there was widespread discussion of the dangers of fallout. Popular movements to end atmospheric testing gathered momentum, resulting in the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1963. In the 1950s, scientists setting safety metrics for nuclear power copied those of the coal industry; but by the 1970s it became clear that the public would not tolerate nuclear power stations emitting radioactive nuclear waste at anything approaching the levels of coal-fired stations, nor would they permit the number of fatalities. (In the U.S., coal power has a fatality rate of 10,000 per trillion kWhr, whereas the corresponding figure for nuclear stations is 0.1.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
See, you already have all this knowledge which would be required for a sourced section on what the public knew. Just pointing me personally to a book is just not the same as actually having it in the article. -- (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


Just to be pedantic. Detonation is an explosion caused be a exothermic front. Should 'detonation' not be replaced by initiation of a chain reaction? In the Trinity test, the only denotations was those of the implosion shell, used to 'initiate' a chain reaction within the core. Nuclear bombs do not detonate - they get initiated. A fine line maybe for some but an important one. This factual inexactitude appears spread throughout WP articles on these subjects. Just a thought. Comments? Aspro (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

wikt:detonate: to explode. A nuclear explosion certainly involves a shock front as well. Given the ambiguity between the layman and technical definitions of "detonate", I think the proposed pedantic wording is unnecessary. VQuakr (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Nuclear weapon"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA