Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iran and weapons of mass destruction 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 |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
NY Times Article regarding fissile material
editReverting an edit and leaving a comment that says, "Stupid headline," doesn't help explain why one should revert a reference to Iran's amount of material for a nuclear bomb. I want to avoid an edit war, and value contributions from an expert with 10 years, but am curious about NPguy's rationale. As an expert, the onus is on you to prove your point of a verifiable source being stupid in its headline. Otherwise, I just see a specialization bias, or a professional myopia, that ignores that this is an online encyclopedia, and not a wiki of expert peers. If you wish to create your own NP expert wiki, the source is free and open, and I'm sure many NP people would join you.
- Low-enriched uranium is not bomb fuel. There's no such thing as enough LEU to make a bomb. The article itself adds the qualifier that the material would need to be further enriched. NPguy (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Israel's position
editThe section on Israel's position is misleading because it states only the official position of the ruling Likud officials and ignores the intelligence agency and IDF positions. See Reuters, New IDF Strategy Dismisses Iran Nuclear Threat, Al Monitor (17 August 2015), https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/israel-new-strategy-eizenkot-terror-hezbollah-hamas-is-iran.html (;) Amos Harel and Reuters, Barak: Israel 'Very Far Off' From Decision on Iran Attack, Haaretz (18 January 2012), https://www.haaretz.com/1.5167293 (;) Mossad, CIA Agree Iran Has Yet to Decide to Build Nuclear Weapon, Haaretz (18 March 2012), https://www.haaretz.com/1.5206174 (;) Will Jordan, Rahul Radhakrishnan, Mossad Contradicted Netanyahu on Iran Nuclear Programme, Al Jazeera (23 February 2015), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/23/mossad-contradicted-netanyahu-on-iran-nuclear-programme/ (;) Seumas Milne, Ewen MacAskill and Clayton Swisher, Leaked Cables Show Netanyahu’S Iran Bomb Claim Contradicted by Mossad, The Guardian (23 February 2015), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad (includes entirety of leaked Mossad cable). Marbux (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- It's perfectly reasonable to include other views that may differ from the official position. Feel free to edit the article or, if you prefer, to propose edits here. NPguy (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Move dubious tag to before James Woolsey
editJames Woolsey is not a dubious source. The dubious tag should be placed either over the entire section, or after a dubious source. It is confusing and potentially purposefully misleading to place it after his quote. 108.35.95.14 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Nuclear device
editHi, last I heard the plan was a two stage gun type with a 239Pu "bullet" and a ~95% enriched 235U projectile as proof of concept. This approach wasn't used in 1945 era weapons as by that point implosion was a viable alternative. Interesting to also note that "two stage" implosion of a hybrid core with a ~85-99% 235U tamper and Be shell with optimized explosive lenses based on new compositions is also possible given computational advances since 1967, dropping the required 239Pu to a mere 3kg which makes it feasible even with a relatively low enrichment. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)