This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trident (missile) article. This is not 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The the fact that Trident is contraversial and details of the contraversy definately deserves a mention as it does in 1000s of other wikipedia pages. Wikipidea is not a sopbox - but it is not stalins russia either.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Content should be encyclopaedic, verifiable, and cited to its source. Opinions always influence a contributors efforts, but contributors should always strive to be NPOV. Sadly, some try harder than others, and a small minority use these pages as a political pamphlet. The Trident missile page is limited to a brief description of the missile system, its origins and history. More general articles about military stragegy, nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons etc can be found elsewhere, including in Wikipedia. Brian.Burnell 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The yield of missile is to be put in kg or tons, NOT megatons.
The range was stated as 12000 km, which is huge overestimation, the range is less than 8000 km, plese post real facts and not overestimations about the missile.
Ok, guys, here is the source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm
here is the quote: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km)
So, I am adding this instead of the moronic 12000 km, which is overestimation. 99.231.46.37 ( talk) 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Anyone have a CEP? Stargoat 20:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
According to
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html the UGM-133 has a "90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)." I will update the page with this information.
24.19.98.210 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
that is interesting quoting, the CEP of 90 meters is reached by using GPS. Here is full quote:
"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."
In terms of nuclear war GPS guidance will NOT be avaliable, since satellites will be destroyed, so, either put it as 380 meters, which is REAL inertial guidance, or mention in teh chart that CEP is GPS guidance. I will correct teh article, since it is confusing for people.
The Trident missile is the only remaining US SLBM not listed by it's proper identification. The problem arises because there are two different 'Trident' missles, the Trident-I (C4) UGM-93A and the Trident-II (D5) UGM-133A. I've edited the page for a first cut at a cleaner presentation that better differentiates the two. (Note: I like the picture where it is, we should seek out a picture of the -II and put it in the same relative location.) Elde 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Correction to myself - the picture is actually a -II, the longer first stage and larger nose fairing, plainly visible in the enlarged view, is a dead giveaway. Elde 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The link to the drag resistant aerospike at the front of the missile is a link to the aerospike engine so i'm taking it out. If someone could write a small piece about it would be great Cokehabit 16:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Such an article would get labeled a stub - even though it isn't. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, the missile does get wet. What prevents the electronics inside the missile from water is pressurization of the missile (prelaunch) somewhat above sea pressure at the level of the tube muzzle. The bubbles you see around the missile in unerwater photographs of the launch is that excess pressure venting from inside the missile. In some high resolution photographs of the the missiles once the reach the surface, you can see plumes of spray at the base of the nose fairing - those plumes are water sheeting across the nose, and then being forced outward from the vents at the base of the nose. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Have Trident missiles (of any model) been used in active conflict, and if so, which ones? I feel this could be useful information to include in the article. -- Black Butterfly 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This image is over six megabytes in size. That's an awful lot of bandwidth for something that may look interesting but doesn't nessecarily add much to the article. Sargant talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The BBC source quoted did not say what the article purported it said. Words are important, and it is important that they are quoted accurately. Otherwise the words can be twisted to mean something different to what the speaker intended. The actual quote was as follows:
Note that Blair himself did not utter these words. They are the words of an un-named journalist, who is merely offering his opinion as to what Blair's thoughts were. It is important to get these things right, otherwise contributors are merely promoting a POV, and on hotly contested current affairs such as this one is, expressing a POV is tantamount to promoting a partisan political viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. Brian.Burnell 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just added some information about the (il)legallity of Trident to the Trident Ploughshares article. I'd like to add a link to this information to this article, with wording along the lines of "Trident has been argued to be illegal under various points of international law, for more info see..." but thought I should air the idea here first. I know I should just Be Bold but there's not point in being bold and starting an edit war! -- Jim ( Talk) 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." [2]
I've just had a thought though. How is legality or illegality of nuclear weapons specific to this article in particular? It is discussed fully at International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. i.e. Trident missiles are a major component of the whole system, but it is pointless duplication to have the discussion at every relevant page, e.g. Ohio class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Typhoon class submarine, Le Triomphant class submarine, AGM-129 ACM, Ground Launched Cruise Missile, R-36 etc. etc. Might I suggest the following section format:
.
Summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary.
.
On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, issued an Advisory Opinion concerned with the " Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". [3] The Advisory Opinion states that the threat or use of any existing nuclear weapon is unlawful as it would be in violation of the following articles of international law:
Having seen the template in use I've come to the following conclusion. I think a better discussion of illegality or otherwise would be good at nuclear weapon. My logic -- bare with me -- is that there are many articles on Wikipedia about cars. However only car describes the very general workings, practicalities and other issues in general. Whereas Ford Mondeo dispenses with generality and focuses on the specific workings, functions and attributes of that product. i.e. The sub-article does not discuss the general effect cars have had on society. Likewise I don't think every single nuclear weapon subarticle (of which there are many) should discuss the complex international legal arguments. Mark83 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced the template with a brief mention of Trident Ploughshares. My change is my take on how any reference to legality should be handled. However, having made the change, it still looks wrong to me. As Mark83 says, there is no need to mention the social benefits and environmental drawbacks of the internal combustion engine in every single article about specific types of cars. Likewise, a section on 'the value of nuclear deterrence' would be tiresome, applied to every nuclear weapons article. My further proposal is to remove any reference to illegality or opposition altogether. Anyone sufficienly interested can read Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom or nuclear weapons to get this information. A British campaign against this predominantly American weapons system is of marginal relevance to this article. - Crosbiesmith 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hi again guys: I've been doing a bit of work on this again, and I've come up with some information which I think is both a suitable and necessary addition to the article. It seems that a couple of lawyers at Cherie Blair's lawfirm applied the 1996 ICJ Opinion directly to Trident, and found that its use would breach customary international law. Since this is completely specific to Trident, does anyone have any problems with me adding it? -- Jim ( Talk) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section about the illegality of the system, since it was completely irrelevant to the topic and was quite obviously political advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.104.69 ( talk) 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
As discussed above, I have added a section on controversy related to Trident. most of the information there relates specifically to Trident's state in the British political scene rather than to nuclear weapons more generally, which is why I felt it would be useful to have in the article. More general views on nuclear weapons, legally, morally and politically, is dealt with in other articles. I have tried to keep POV to a minimum but I'm only human, any help would be good. However, I would ask that the section not be removed. As stated above, the information given here is Trident-specific rather than being related to nuclear weapons more generally, and as such, it belongs here. The section on its role in Scottish politics is essentially a stub and could use expansion (unless information is such as it requires its own article; not likely for the time being). -- Black Butterfly 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1) OK I've been bold and moved the huge chunk that is causing all the fuss over to the new British Trident system.
IMHO its best that we explain the problems, legality, etc et all over on that page. legality of the US deterrent which doesn't seam to be as big an issue should occur at "us and nuclear weapons" page
2) back to the debate - IMHO on legality, the NPT, by being ratified by every state on the planet confers a) that the NNWS accept the NWS's nuclear status (ie they have the bombs, bomb are bad, but they have them) b) the other NWS accept the other NWS's possession, c) thus you leave Israel, India and Pakistan (and now DPRK) who everyone accept have nukes after the 1967 cutoff and haven't got a clue how to deal with this fact. I'm not disputing that various legal bods have made numerous legal opinions and judgements, but the weight of the NPT to me, and presumably the states involved seams to practically dismiss/ignore this judgement (my humble opinion only, i respect your right to disagree).
3) FFS 68.45.104.69 sign in so one or the other we can all agree/disagree with you in a civilised manner ;)
Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Who stated the range at 12000 km, this is terribly false, the range is less than 8000 km, please do not spoin wikipedia with such corrections.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm
Also, where is info on that 29000 km/h speed of warheads? at what stage?
Seems VERY doubtful that the speed is indeed 29000 km/h, it is more likely to be 15-19000 km/h.
Just read that the US Senate cut funding for conventionally-tipped Trident missiles, fearing that the launching of one would be mistakenly identified as a genuine nuclear strike, and thus prompting a nuclear response. This should be added to the article. Here is the source-article Senate Panel Eliminates Trident Conversion Funding. - Geoffrey C Vargo 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/14/sac-d-rejects-f136-dough/ Eliminates funding for Conventional Trident Modification efforts
Anything new on this topic?
LP-mn (
talk)
06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You folks might want to check this out:
-- Radical Mallard 3/12/09 7 PM EST
Pardon my possible ignorance, but why is this article called Trident (missile) and not Trident missile? The whole article appears to refer to the trident missile and doesn't refer to it simply as "Trident". GDallimore ( Talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency:
Vanguard_class_submarine#Background Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 5% research and development contribution.
Trident_(missile)#Development Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 10% research and development contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.12.176 ( talk) 19:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone add something about this topic? Notreallydavid ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Trident (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlike, say, the LGM-30 Minuteman page, the Trident page lacks the Infobox Weapon. Should this infobox be added? Sire TRM ( talk) 03:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
UK Defence Journal - George Allison - How serious was the Trident missile test failure?, 22 January 2017. ← ZScarpia 11:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the most significant issues with the war economy is cost. These missile programs have diverted trillions of dollars away from health care, education, and peace making. Why are we not listing the cost of all these missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 ( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to write a properly sourced section on the topic, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Kylesenior ( talk) 07:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/trident-ii-mark-6-mod-1-guidance-system
Hcobb ( talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The article states that "In 2009, the United States upgraded the D5 missiles with an arming, fuzing and firing (AF&F) system called the "super-fuze"". My understanding from reading the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article cited [4] is that the new fuzing system is integrated into the warhead, not the missile. (The BAS article seems to match the "three times" increase in effectiveness figure given in the other cite, if you take the BAS estimate of converting a 50% kill probability into a 85-90% kill probability as an example, as you would have to send three warheads of the old type to a single target to get similar lethality against that target as achieived with the new one.)
This is an important distinction, because if this is the case it will increase the power of the U.S. Trident fleet, but not the British Trident fleet, which is fitted with British warheads. I've amended the article to reflect this. Please let me know if I'm incorrect. Whether or not the UK warheads have a similar capability is I believe unknown, but the UK has announced it will begin a replacement of British warheads to match modern American capabilities, which would presumably include giving them this capability. — The Anome ( talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Trident (missile) article. This is not 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 rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The the fact that Trident is contraversial and details of the contraversy definately deserves a mention as it does in 1000s of other wikipedia pages. Wikipidea is not a sopbox - but it is not stalins russia either.
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Content should be encyclopaedic, verifiable, and cited to its source. Opinions always influence a contributors efforts, but contributors should always strive to be NPOV. Sadly, some try harder than others, and a small minority use these pages as a political pamphlet. The Trident missile page is limited to a brief description of the missile system, its origins and history. More general articles about military stragegy, nuclear weapons, the morality of nuclear weapons etc can be found elsewhere, including in Wikipedia. Brian.Burnell 13:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The yield of missile is to be put in kg or tons, NOT megatons.
The range was stated as 12000 km, which is huge overestimation, the range is less than 8000 km, plese post real facts and not overestimations about the missile.
Ok, guys, here is the source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm
here is the quote: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km)
So, I am adding this instead of the moronic 12000 km, which is overestimation. 99.231.46.37 ( talk) 06:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.
Anyone have a CEP? Stargoat 20:37, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
According to
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-133.html the UGM-133 has a "90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)." I will update the page with this information.
24.19.98.210 1 July 2005 06:02 (UTC)
that is interesting quoting, the CEP of 90 meters is reached by using GPS. Here is full quote:
"The MK 6 stellar/inertial navigation system is able to receive GPS (Global Positioning System) updates, thereby increasing accuracy to that of a land-based ICBM, about 90 m (300 ft) CEP (compared to 380 m (1250 ft) for the C-4)."
In terms of nuclear war GPS guidance will NOT be avaliable, since satellites will be destroyed, so, either put it as 380 meters, which is REAL inertial guidance, or mention in teh chart that CEP is GPS guidance. I will correct teh article, since it is confusing for people.
The Trident missile is the only remaining US SLBM not listed by it's proper identification. The problem arises because there are two different 'Trident' missles, the Trident-I (C4) UGM-93A and the Trident-II (D5) UGM-133A. I've edited the page for a first cut at a cleaner presentation that better differentiates the two. (Note: I like the picture where it is, we should seek out a picture of the -II and put it in the same relative location.) Elde 22:58, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Correction to myself - the picture is actually a -II, the longer first stage and larger nose fairing, plainly visible in the enlarged view, is a dead giveaway. Elde 23:02, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The link to the drag resistant aerospike at the front of the missile is a link to the aerospike engine so i'm taking it out. If someone could write a small piece about it would be great Cokehabit 16:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Such an article would get labeled a stub - even though it isn't. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, the missile does get wet. What prevents the electronics inside the missile from water is pressurization of the missile (prelaunch) somewhat above sea pressure at the level of the tube muzzle. The bubbles you see around the missile in unerwater photographs of the launch is that excess pressure venting from inside the missile. In some high resolution photographs of the the missiles once the reach the surface, you can see plumes of spray at the base of the nose fairing - those plumes are water sheeting across the nose, and then being forced outward from the vents at the base of the nose. Elde 17:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Have Trident missiles (of any model) been used in active conflict, and if so, which ones? I feel this could be useful information to include in the article. -- Black Butterfly 14:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This image is over six megabytes in size. That's an awful lot of bandwidth for something that may look interesting but doesn't nessecarily add much to the article. Sargant talk 17:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The BBC source quoted did not say what the article purported it said. Words are important, and it is important that they are quoted accurately. Otherwise the words can be twisted to mean something different to what the speaker intended. The actual quote was as follows:
Note that Blair himself did not utter these words. They are the words of an un-named journalist, who is merely offering his opinion as to what Blair's thoughts were. It is important to get these things right, otherwise contributors are merely promoting a POV, and on hotly contested current affairs such as this one is, expressing a POV is tantamount to promoting a partisan political viewpoint. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. Brian.Burnell 20:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I've just added some information about the (il)legallity of Trident to the Trident Ploughshares article. I'd like to add a link to this information to this article, with wording along the lines of "Trident has been argued to be illegal under various points of international law, for more info see..." but thought I should air the idea here first. I know I should just Be Bold but there's not point in being bold and starting an edit war! -- Jim ( Talk) 18:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." [2]
I've just had a thought though. How is legality or illegality of nuclear weapons specific to this article in particular? It is discussed fully at International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. i.e. Trident missiles are a major component of the whole system, but it is pointless duplication to have the discussion at every relevant page, e.g. Ohio class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Typhoon class submarine, Le Triomphant class submarine, AGM-129 ACM, Ground Launched Cruise Missile, R-36 etc. etc. Might I suggest the following section format:
.
Summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary summary.
.
On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice, the highest court of the United Nations, issued an Advisory Opinion concerned with the " Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons". [3] The Advisory Opinion states that the threat or use of any existing nuclear weapon is unlawful as it would be in violation of the following articles of international law:
Having seen the template in use I've come to the following conclusion. I think a better discussion of illegality or otherwise would be good at nuclear weapon. My logic -- bare with me -- is that there are many articles on Wikipedia about cars. However only car describes the very general workings, practicalities and other issues in general. Whereas Ford Mondeo dispenses with generality and focuses on the specific workings, functions and attributes of that product. i.e. The sub-article does not discuss the general effect cars have had on society. Likewise I don't think every single nuclear weapon subarticle (of which there are many) should discuss the complex international legal arguments. Mark83 22:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've replaced the template with a brief mention of Trident Ploughshares. My change is my take on how any reference to legality should be handled. However, having made the change, it still looks wrong to me. As Mark83 says, there is no need to mention the social benefits and environmental drawbacks of the internal combustion engine in every single article about specific types of cars. Likewise, a section on 'the value of nuclear deterrence' would be tiresome, applied to every nuclear weapons article. My further proposal is to remove any reference to illegality or opposition altogether. Anyone sufficienly interested can read Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom or nuclear weapons to get this information. A British campaign against this predominantly American weapons system is of marginal relevance to this article. - Crosbiesmith 22:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Hi again guys: I've been doing a bit of work on this again, and I've come up with some information which I think is both a suitable and necessary addition to the article. It seems that a couple of lawyers at Cherie Blair's lawfirm applied the 1996 ICJ Opinion directly to Trident, and found that its use would breach customary international law. Since this is completely specific to Trident, does anyone have any problems with me adding it? -- Jim ( Talk) 23:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the section about the illegality of the system, since it was completely irrelevant to the topic and was quite obviously political advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.104.69 ( talk) 04:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
As discussed above, I have added a section on controversy related to Trident. most of the information there relates specifically to Trident's state in the British political scene rather than to nuclear weapons more generally, which is why I felt it would be useful to have in the article. More general views on nuclear weapons, legally, morally and politically, is dealt with in other articles. I have tried to keep POV to a minimum but I'm only human, any help would be good. However, I would ask that the section not be removed. As stated above, the information given here is Trident-specific rather than being related to nuclear weapons more generally, and as such, it belongs here. The section on its role in Scottish politics is essentially a stub and could use expansion (unless information is such as it requires its own article; not likely for the time being). -- Black Butterfly 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
1) OK I've been bold and moved the huge chunk that is causing all the fuss over to the new British Trident system.
IMHO its best that we explain the problems, legality, etc et all over on that page. legality of the US deterrent which doesn't seam to be as big an issue should occur at "us and nuclear weapons" page
2) back to the debate - IMHO on legality, the NPT, by being ratified by every state on the planet confers a) that the NNWS accept the NWS's nuclear status (ie they have the bombs, bomb are bad, but they have them) b) the other NWS accept the other NWS's possession, c) thus you leave Israel, India and Pakistan (and now DPRK) who everyone accept have nukes after the 1967 cutoff and haven't got a clue how to deal with this fact. I'm not disputing that various legal bods have made numerous legal opinions and judgements, but the weight of the NPT to me, and presumably the states involved seams to practically dismiss/ignore this judgement (my humble opinion only, i respect your right to disagree).
3) FFS 68.45.104.69 sign in so one or the other we can all agree/disagree with you in a civilised manner ;)
Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Pickle 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Who stated the range at 12000 km, this is terribly false, the range is less than 8000 km, please do not spoin wikipedia with such corrections.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/d-5.htm
Also, where is info on that 29000 km/h speed of warheads? at what stage?
Seems VERY doubtful that the speed is indeed 29000 km/h, it is more likely to be 15-19000 km/h.
Just read that the US Senate cut funding for conventionally-tipped Trident missiles, fearing that the launching of one would be mistakenly identified as a genuine nuclear strike, and thus prompting a nuclear response. This should be added to the article. Here is the source-article Senate Panel Eliminates Trident Conversion Funding. - Geoffrey C Vargo 07:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/09/14/sac-d-rejects-f136-dough/ Eliminates funding for Conventional Trident Modification efforts
Anything new on this topic?
LP-mn (
talk)
06:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
You folks might want to check this out:
-- Radical Mallard 3/12/09 7 PM EST
Pardon my possible ignorance, but why is this article called Trident (missile) and not Trident missile? The whole article appears to refer to the trident missile and doesn't refer to it simply as "Trident". GDallimore ( Talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an inconsistency:
Vanguard_class_submarine#Background Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 5% research and development contribution.
Trident_(missile)#Development Under the agreement, the United Kingdom made a 10% research and development contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.12.176 ( talk) 19:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bnaval-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 09:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Could someone add something about this topic? Notreallydavid ( talk) 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Trident (missile). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlike, say, the LGM-30 Minuteman page, the Trident page lacks the Infobox Weapon. Should this infobox be added? Sire TRM ( talk) 03:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
UK Defence Journal - George Allison - How serious was the Trident missile test failure?, 22 January 2017. ← ZScarpia 11:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the most significant issues with the war economy is cost. These missile programs have diverted trillions of dollars away from health care, education, and peace making. Why are we not listing the cost of all these missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.69.174.194 ( talk) 07:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
If you want to write a properly sourced section on the topic, go right ahead. No one is stopping you. Kylesenior ( talk) 07:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
https://www.draper.com/explore-solutions/trident-ii-mark-6-mod-1-guidance-system
Hcobb ( talk) 14:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The article states that "In 2009, the United States upgraded the D5 missiles with an arming, fuzing and firing (AF&F) system called the "super-fuze"". My understanding from reading the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article cited [4] is that the new fuzing system is integrated into the warhead, not the missile. (The BAS article seems to match the "three times" increase in effectiveness figure given in the other cite, if you take the BAS estimate of converting a 50% kill probability into a 85-90% kill probability as an example, as you would have to send three warheads of the old type to a single target to get similar lethality against that target as achieived with the new one.)
This is an important distinction, because if this is the case it will increase the power of the U.S. Trident fleet, but not the British Trident fleet, which is fitted with British warheads. I've amended the article to reflect this. Please let me know if I'm incorrect. Whether or not the UK warheads have a similar capability is I believe unknown, but the UK has announced it will begin a replacement of British warheads to match modern American capabilities, which would presumably include giving them this capability. — The Anome ( talk) 11:33, 23 June 2024 (UTC)