Talk:Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Article
editSeveral articles were written in the U.S. in the mid-seventies and early eighties describing what was known at that time about the program from seismic signals coming out of the Soviet Union and a few articles that appeared in the Russian press in the early seventies describing the general purposes of the Soviet PNE Program. Since then some more data has come out from the people and research organizations that were involved and from some declassified Western intelligence reports. But trying to get information confirmed or even to get these sources to agree even on some rather fundamental numbers is, at this point at least, impossible.
Feel free to edit and change, but know that for every reference you find there will be two others that disagree. DV8 2XL 02:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Quote
editHi Dino the quote I used was from the pdf link: http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/238468.pdf by Milo D. Nordyke (Secton I page 1) which is in the External links and references section of the main article. So it was atributed. How accurate...well. I'll leave it up to you to revert or leave your edit in. DV8 2XL 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Better data?
editThe paragraph about the Globus-1 explosion really gets under my craw. What the heck is a very small explosion of 2.5kt? Is that different than a very large explosion of 2.5kt? The phrasing makes me question the rest of the paragraph. Maybe there's some real data out there discussing actual radioactivity levels, rather than effectively saying "lots." --Thatnewguy 05:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopaedic?
editJust wondered if the phrase 'In the overblown rhetoric of the times' is appropriately encyclopaedic? What does everyone think? 81.153.203.168 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
'Tis a bit bombastic
editThe phrase is a bit bombastic. I toned it down. Isn't it obvious without telling the reader that the language is "heated" and typical of the Cold War? Sure, babies are born every few seconds who never heard of the Cold War, but by the time you get to reading this, you have some idea of the times.
Doesn't make sense
editFrom the Conclusion: "The experiments continued past the dissolution of the USSR and came to an end with the adoption by Russia of a unilateral moratorium on the testing of nuclear weapons at Soviet test sites in 1989."
The USSR did not dissolve until 1991.
- I removed the reference to the dissolution of the USSR. It's clear from the article and external links that tests finished in 1989. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Explosions against leakage of oil
editKomsomoloskaya Pravda has written that the USSR has perofmed some nuclear explosions to stop leakage of oil. The list in this article has no such event. Are they missing or is the newspaper wrong?
I ask, because many (german) newspapers has cited this.
88.130.181.198 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I now took a look at the referenced video - my fault. 89.246.188.253 (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Not oil, but gas. I added URL and fixed citation details to Nordyke's technical report[1] to ensure long-term findability. WP:NOTE Notability of Nordyke's report established by its summary in New York Times article of 2 June 2010.[2] Latter reference is a needed secondary source pointing to primary source.
- ^ Nordyke, M. D. (2000-09-01). "Extinguishing Runaway Gas Well Fires". The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions (PDF). Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. pp. 34–35. doi:10.2172/793554. Report no.: UCRL-ID-124410 Rev 2. U. S. Department of Energy contract no.: W-7405-Eng48.
- ^ Broad, William J. (2010-06-02). "Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says". New York Times. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
Well, maybe just redirect it here? 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed -- that article is poorly named, poorly cited, virtually orphaned, and simply not needed. Its creation was a reaction to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill current event, because a few articles mentioned the Soviet use of nuclear devices for capping gas wells. It has become something of an internet meme, but remains non-notable otherwise. This article contains all the needed details and citations, in the most relevant context of the overall program, with a link to the current event for findability purposes. Further discussed in Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#USSR_non-military_underwater_nuclear_explosions, which contains a good reference from Reuters, July 2, Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well?, which may be incorporated here: we could well revise this article's sentence discussing this historic program's contemporary relevance. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I also agree with the redirect proposal. -84user (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree -- as this wasn't a test application as with the program but a contingency use, arguably leaning towards a mature application. -- 71.252.190.176 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Conclusion?
editWhat kind of encyclopedia article has a "conclusion"? I think that section should be deleted in its entirety. Dfeuer (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)