Talk:Strategic nuclear weapon
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theStrategic nuclear weapon article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
 | This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Addressing both "strategic" and "tactical" weapons in one article would be clearer and avoid duplication of terms - since there is no clear line between tactical and strategic weapons other than their (intended) use, each article needs to contrast with the other. --mcpusc (talk)11:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no merger of tactical nuclear weapons page with strategic nuclear weapons page. Both topics are capable of a full page on their own. Merging them would create a very long page with two distinct sections (tactical and strategic). The clear line between strategic and tactical weapons lies in their different, deployment mechanisms, destructive output and design. Tactical nuclear weapons do little contrasting with strategic nuclear weapons, relative to conventional weapons. As for the dupication of terms, it would be a small price to pay for better organized and shorter articles.91killer (talk)21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"since there is no clear line between tactical and strategic weapons other than their (intended) use" - not only is that a good enough reason to have 2 separate articles, but there is a difference in the size because of this very reason. Tactical= small, strategic= large. They are just fine being 2 separate articles and the only way I see merging them is making them both a section in the article onnuclear weapon -Eaglescout1984 15:32, 14 May 2010 (GMT)—Precedingunsigned comment added byEaglescout1984 (talk •contribs)
I agree with those who believe that there should be 2 separate articles. Merging the 2 topics into one single article will muddy the waters. It makes good sense to keep the topic of 'tactical nuclear weapons' in its own discrete article. There's no łogical or compelling reason to merge with strategic nuclear weapons.88.107.62.235 (talk)08:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 articles. The use, purpose and construction are all different. Ray Van De Walker 06:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep the 2 articles separate. Nuclear weapons is a broad category with plenty of room for separate articles on topics of interest. I found this article searching on "mini-nuke." Would have been less satisfied to find the article on strategic nukes.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.234.24.22 (talk)14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oppose merge - strategic nuclear weapons (i.eICBM withMIRV travelling halfway around the world) and tactical nuclear weapons (ie. artillery fired on a battlefield such as theW79) are different weapons with different purposes/yields/range and there is more than enough information on both to warrant 2 articles87.112.14.197 (talk)20:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
in conclusion Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Stratigic nuclear weapons are to entireley different topicsi dont think they should be merged.—Precedingunsigned comment added by24.131.90.68 (talk)18:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
