Talk:Ababeel (missile)

Missile name orginal research

Hi Andy Dingley, Can you please explain your revert of my edit? The statement about the name of the missile and its significance is pure synthesis and conjecture. There is no reference which backs that claim. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

But it's OK to claim it's already MIRV capable? There's more to doing that (even to MRV) successfully than just bulging the payload shroud.

The origin of the name is described mostly from the Quran, which is cited here, also GlobalSecurity, likewise. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley I agree with you on the MIRV part. I think it should be removed since it was purely a claim and there was no demonstration of that capability. I did check the Global Security page and you are right that it is mentioned there. But I also check the references listed on that page and none of the references mention this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

American news report

Hi Mqmpk please discuss your changes here. I have removed the para for a reason. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree the removal, or at least my version here where it's heavily guarded as a statement.

I haven't read a full transcript of the speech. I've read several news reports, one of which covered this missile, the rest ignored it. The specific test referred to has no other claim, certainly no detailed or plausible one, that this was a test of a re-entry vehicle (or vehicles). I'm unaware of any subsequent test which has demonstrated this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the statement on the DIA website, so please stop removing it from the article: http://www.dia.mil/News/Speeches-and-Testimonies/Article-View/Article/1457815/statement-for-the-record-worldwide-threat-assessment/utm_content/buffer03bbe/utm_medium/social/utm_campaign/buffer/utm_content/buffer6e4e7/utm_medium/social/utm_campaign/buffer/?utm_source=twitter.com--Arado (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned as passing by among numerous other mentions. I think it is completely WP:UNDUE since it gives no explanation beyond a few handful words. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

" In January 2017, Pakistan conducted the first test launch of its nuclear-capable Ababeel ballistic missile, demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload, and in early July, Pakistan demonstrated an expanded-range Nasr CRBM."

I do not believe that this statement is true. A launch was demonstrated, but no payload. Pakistan did not claim this. No contemporaneous report, nor any report other than this, has claimed a MIRV payload having been tested. The US military have also been inaccurate in the past - I am puzzled as to why this would be reported in this way, but it's unbelievable without other sources (which aren't there). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/pakistan-has-just-tested-the-ultimate-nuclear-missile-24834 , https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ababeel/ . Pakistan did claim the Mirving: https://www.ispr.gov.pk/front/main.asp?o=t-press_release&id=3705 You are skeptical because you believe Pakistan does not have the technology for Mirving. But all of their ballistic missile technology was imported from North Korea or developed with help from a very powerful neighbor, which definitely has MIRVs--Arado (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The references you provide clearly states that it is reportedly capable of using MIRV technology. The wording is important here and even the ISPR calls is capable because there was no demonstration of this capability. The North Korea import part is WP:OR on your part and has no part in this discussion. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Adam here, and Arado, you need to read those reports more carefully. They are carefully worded with modest claims as to Ababeel being "capable of" MIRV, and not of it having demonstrated this. I have no idea of Ababeel's capabilities, and it would be obvious OR to claim that I do. However I can see the claimed and reported test (singular), and that this has as yet not demonstrated such a capability, even if it is possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Use the word capable, until the MIRV ability is proven. 2nd North Korea has shown no ability to use MIRV as of yet so do not include that in the article. Tirronan (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ababeel-image3.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Claims of capability and progress

At least some of these claims are supported by a statement from the US Defense Intelligence Agency posted on March 6, 2018, as cited in the article and linked again here. Please ensure that when deleting spurious material such as unsupported claims, you do not also delete claims which are supported by such reliable sources. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

this edit (yours) has to go. Why have you accepted the obvious pro-Pakistan bandwagon that MIRV capability has been tested?

The contentious US military source is either "misleading" (generously) or just plain wrong (for whatever reason). This has been discussed extensively. It refers to the same single test as all the other sources: yet this test (a launch with the enlarged housing) contained no RVs. It did not demonstrate the return of any RVs, it certainly didn't demonstrate the return of MIRVs. There have been (AFAIK) no other tests since.

You are making a significant claim here, and there is nothing to support it. I can see that some accounts here have a POV issue and I can understand why they are exaggerating a nationalistic claim. But why have you joined them? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• "In January 2017, Pakistan conducted the first test launch of its nuclear-capable Ababeel ballistic missile, demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload,"[1] is not true. There was one test. There has (so far, AFAIK) only been one test. This test demonstrated a launch, but not returns. It did not demonstrate MIRV returns. No MIRV returns have been deomstrated. An expanded lanucher is not a demosntration of a working MIRV system. This comment contradicts all other sources on this test, and gives no evidence to back up its claims. It is inadequate, per WP:BURDEN, for the claim you are making here.

If you disagree, then which point do you challenge? Where is your additional evidence to support returns, or MIRV returns, being tested, and tested successfully? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I challenge your claim that it is not true. I am sorry but all the preceding was a case of TL:DR (Too Long: Didn't Read) for me. Now I do go back there, I see that this report does explicitly endorse the US claim, contrary to what you said about it back there. Specifically, it says "Despite these claims, many outside experts questioned whether Pakistan really had developed or tested a MIRV. As the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Missile Defense Project noted, “Some experts have expressed skepticism as to whether Pakistan has indeed surmounted the various technological hurdles required for MIRVed missiles. MIRV warheads are typically much smaller than unitary warheads, and thus require greater miniaturization. It is unclear if the country has manufactured a miniaturized nuclear warhead small enough to use in a MIRV.” Ashley’s confirmation should put this skepticism to rest." There it is, and it is repeated here by someone calling themselves Military Watch. It has clearly gained traction and if it had been mistaken I am sure that the US would have put out a retraction by now. On the other hand, sceptical claims are made mostly either prior to the US confirmation or by Indian media, neither of which fills me with confidence. I do not see enough independent comment to refute the US position. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• TNI's blog? So you are, literally, believing the word of the Richard Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom?

All they've done there is to recycle the Robert Ashley quote (which is wrong, and nothing supports it). The 24 January 2017 test was a launch, not a re-entry. Your second BMAC source is a good one and it says, "began testing", which is what they've done. But they haven't got to the point of testing any re-entry yet, thus we can't write an article here as if they have. If you know of a test in the last 2 1/2 years, especially one that did, then please inform us.

1. The 24 January 2017 test was a launch, not a re-entry.
2. No tests since
3. A test with an empty launcher is not a demonstration of MIRV capability

Now take your pick, but you need to disprove at least one of those claims before we can state that this exists. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Your argument appears to me to be be circular: 1) No demonstration has taken place therefore the DIA report is wrong and 2) the DIA report is wrong therefore no demonstration can have taken place. Fine, that is your opinion. The DIA have access to spy satellite data that we do not and they have signally failed to retract over the last twelve months. I do not see enough subsequent independent comment in RS to refute the DIA position and WP:VERIFY is clear we go with it. But this discussion is at deadlock, we need more voices to try and establish a consensus decision. I'll try WP:AVIATION for a start. Is there a wikiproject for current military stuff or would wp:milhist be appropriate? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Writing "it appears to me to be circular" does not make it so.

Robert Ashley makes a deus ex machina claim "demonstrating South Asia’s first MIRV payload," for the January 2017 test. This is the only claim for such a demonstration. It has been repeated since, but never made independently. It has never been explained or described anywhere else (what was the range for one, how many MRVs were involved another, and then where did they land and what's an estimate for CEP?) All of these are crucial factors, and yet the credible US press (AvWeek et al) have failed to expand upon this. This claim was not made until a year after the test, and has remained unexplained for a year since (nor have there been any more tests).

At one time we had the primary Pakistani military sources for the test's announcement here [2] [3] and yet your version has removed these in favour of partisan and untrustworthy blogs or lightweight news sites which have recycled these. Note that the Pakistani military sources have carefully made no more claim other than that of the launch and a basic vehicle range. They did not use that opportunity to claim a MIRV flight, merely that is "was capable of" such. This is entirely in accord with what we'd expect for such an initial test of an enhanced system.

Ashley gives no evidence or explanation for why his speech has expanded the claims of what the test demonstrated. But the US military have a long track record of making overblown claims for the capacity of potential threats. They are not trustworthy for first-sight-only claims of such a magnitude, see WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

So, what has been stated by the reliable industry/press sources since the US intelligence commentary? Any refutation of it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It largely seems to have been ignored as just bad, over-exuberant copywriting and no notice has been taken of it. Real comment is still based on what's known (i.e. a demonstrated launcher but no RVs yet). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That "as just bad, over-exuberant copywriting" is just your personal opinion. And just how much "real comment" has there been since then? More than the presumably "unreal" US parrot comments? Where is it? Indian parrots need not apply. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Please re-read WP:BURDEN. It's up to the person making the claim, i.e. that MIRV has been demonstrated, to show per WP:V that this is the case. Not to first prove that lone, extraordinary claims have some RS specific counter-claim against them.

All we really know here is that the launcher was demonstrated and also that Pakistan bought a Chinese 4-channel optical tracking system by the time of Ashley's speech (which may indicate that there are 4 MIRVs). No doubt they are working on it and will demonstrate some further test in time. But there's nothing there to say they've done it so far. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

OK I have been checking a few more websites and I have come to agree with your point about extraordinary evidence. My apologies for taking so long to play catchup, and thank you for your considered perseverance. However I still think that wholesale reversion of half a dozen editors' work over a six-week period is totally unacceptable. Let us take the article forward from here, not backwards. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I have now done a modest copyedit to try and smooth out complications over dubious claims by focusing more on what the missile is designed to do rather than what it has actually done, but not to change any material facts. I will back off this article now and remove it from my watchlist, leaving it to others to vet/modify my edits and to improve/recover citations. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AbabeelMirvMissile.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)