This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theWeapons of mass destruction template.

Put new text under old text.Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome!Learn to edit;get help. Assume good faith Be polite andavoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seekdispute resolution if needed

Archives (index):1Auto-archiving period:6 months

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Military history:Technology /Weaponry This template is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force

The image on the Infobox is incorrect, the skull stand for "toxic" not "chemical". I suggest we use a different image and change this image. ThanksIQ125 (talk)16:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the recently added speculative headings for Gray Goo, Strangelets, and Black Holes per the discussion atTalk:Weapons of mass destruction#Science_or_Science_Fiction?. There are additional dubious headings for Antimatter weapons and Electromagnetic Pulse which are respectively speculative and one of the effects of nuclear weapons. I suggest that these also be deleted from the template which should be limited to the generally discussed Biological, Chemical, Nuclear, and Radiological weapons. --SteveMcCluskey (talk)16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that@Oranjelo100: has restored the speculative material without explanation. I call upon the editor to justify his explanation on the talk page. Comments by other editors are always welcome.

Lacking justification of these edits, I recommend a total cleanup to restore the template toits state before the recent edits, which introduced the speculative material. --SteveMcCluskey (talk)14:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps gray goo and artificial black holes/strangelets are more speculative though plausible but antimatter, EMP and kinetic weapons aren't. EMP weapons already exist, antimatter can be produced, and if you can accelerate any object to a high speed it becomes dangerous. So in my opinion at least these three should stay as they're hard science.Oranjelo100 (talk)00:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I see where we disagree. Antimatter and relativistic kinetic energy weapons may be hard science, but they are not within the scope of current technology and don't fit within a discussion of existing weapons of mass destruction. Let's consider the articles currently linked by the template:

• The article linked byAntimatter opens with the phrase: "A relativistic kinetic kill vehicle (RKKV) or relativistic bomb is a hypothetical weapon system sometimes found in science fiction." That pretty much removes it from the scope of WND.
• The article linked byKinetic opens with "An antimatter weapon is a hypothetical device using antimatter as a power source, a propellant, or an explosive for a weapon." Again the hypothetical nature of this device removes it from the scope of WMD.
• The third item,Electromagnetic pulse poses a somewhat different problem. EMP effects on an extended scale areproduced by nuclear weapons and, as such, its inclusion becomes redundant as it is already covered in thenuclear weapons category. To the extent that EMPs of limited range and magnitude can be produced by non-nuclear sources, they are just another weapon and their inclusion invites a kind of conceptual creep of what is meant by WMD that verges onWP:OR.

For these reasons, I would limit the scope of the template to those weapons that are discussed with proper reliable sources in the main article onWeapons of mass destruction: "Aweapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere." --SteveMcCluskey (talk)21:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Over a week having passed without further objection, I will return the template to its form prior to the speculative additions. --SteveMcCluskey (talk)03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ShouldRhodesia and weapons of mass destruction be added to the list of countries? Currently no other former countries are listed (e.g. not the Soviet Union), and Rhodesia wasn't widely recognized even when it existed. On the other hand, it shouldn't be added as "Zimbabwe" since Zimbabwe had nothing to do with the weapons.Huon (talk)00:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Italy to be added at the list of countries.Italian nuclear weapons program.80.181.119.244 (talk)07:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It appears this list only includes pages that have "...and weapons of mass destruction" in the title. The page you provided falls out of that requirement.jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk)16:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So why Sweden, Switzerland and many others are there?They haven't these kinds of weapons.That list includes all countries that developed a program of weapons of mass destruction.Italy developed these one and today has nuclear sharing that many others (like Sweden,Switzerland and so on) haven't.Do you know the subject?80.181.119.244 (talk)20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reversing my initial decision as I did not see how other countries' articles were titled.jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk)20:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't it at all,i can't see Italy in the list.80.181.119.244 (talk)21:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

Redmary73 (talk)20:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Italy must be added to the list of "Weapon mass destruction".Italy in fact developed its nuclear program and has nuclear sharing.Italian nuclear weapons program.Redmary7320:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done The addition is sneakily hidden away towards the right of the box. Please refresh your page or clear your cache if you still can't see it.jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk)21:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please do not continue to post messages on my Talk page. You are annoying me and clogging up my e-mail. It's just as easy to continue discussions on Talk pages like this.jd22292(Jalen D. Folf) (talk)21:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking and refreshing but i can't see any change in the history of article and below "By country".Redmary73 (talk)21:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem already done at all.Israel Japan i read.I hope you didn't lie.Redmary73 (talk)21:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history tab. It was added at 20:49 over 25 minuets before this post so Jd22292 was clearly not lying.--76.65.42.75 (talk)21:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.

https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2023/06/14/09433301/soekarno-dan-mimpi-senjata-nuklir-yang-kandas?page=all (AND)https://journal.ugm.ac.id/lembaran-sejarah/article/view/69971/02001:448A:5065:3D20:CD57:36B0:6C90:76CE (talk)18:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a"change X to Y" format and provide areliable source if appropriate.LizardJr8 (talk)18:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template-Class military history pages
• Template-Class military science, technology, and theory pages
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Template-Class weaponry pages
• Weaponry task force articles