 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article RS-26 Rubezh, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
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 sanctioned.
|
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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. |
|
|
Treaty compliance wording
edit"The missile demonstrated, with a light or no payload, the ability to reach above the agreed 5500 km limit of the treaty."
I get what the author intended to say, but this is confusing for newcomers unfamiliar with the agreed IRBM restrictions. It could be misinterpreted, if you thought the 5500km was a MAXIMUM and not a MINIMUM. With consent of others, I'd like to reword this to something clearer, such as
"Intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 - 5500km are prohibited by international treaty, due to concerns their very rapid flight time to impact leads to escalating conflict at a time of heightened nuclear tension. Russia asserts that the RS-26 is a compliant ICBM, having achieved just beyond the minimum legal range during test fires with limited or no payload. However, subsequent deployments with greater payload installed have demonstrated a range around 2000km, directly in the prohibited IRBM category which has been the subject of concern since the 1980s."
Obviously I'd double check all of the above with links to relevant articles. Thoughts? ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that it's referring to present tense (e.g. "are prohibited by international treaty") for a treaty instrument that is not in force. Russia and the US suspended the INF treaty in 2019; and the U.S. withdrew from it later that year. Since it was a bilateral with now no opposite partner, the treaty is defunct and ended with the U.S. withdrawal. So we should not be referring to it in any form of present tense in the first place. Secondly, the INF is framed as a prohibition, not an allowance, meaning it prohibits missiles between specific range bands (500-5500km), rather than explicitly allowing missiles shorter or longer than this. Thus it would be appropriate to refer to 5500km as the maximum under the treaty: it's the maximum distance *disallowed* by the treaty. Framing it as a minimum would be confusing, because the minimum *allowed* range is zero. So to be clear, we just need to include what the terms of the INF are, which I'll just edit in to clarify now. This doesn't need to be overthought. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is a significant improvement. I proofread and made two very minor changes to improve the grammar, but other than that, I'm completely satisfied. Thanks for rewriting it! ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2024
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"the" before NATO should be deleted. The should be omitted before an acronym, unless its speaking of a singular adjective.
Previous: "coming to the aid of the NATO's newer eastern members that are located closer to Russia's borders"
After: "coming to the aid of NATO's newer eastern members that are located closer to Russia's borders" Nvblue (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- Done... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Cost?
editWould be useful to know the manufacture cost of these missiles. Please add if known. Fig (talk) 10:11, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
- Russian costs are very difficult to factor due to PPP differences and the fact that most if not all major Russian weapons manufacturers are state owned or state controlled. Western systems are highly inflated in cost vs Russian, hence why the Russians can outpace the west in most
- cases. 78.152.215.104 (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)