Talk:Enduring Stockpile

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Explain "mothballed". We're not all WMD experts here. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
^^ mothballed is a generic term for something that is no longer in use. In this context it means the weapons still exist but they are no longer being stored inside the delivery vehicles and it would take considerable time (over a week) to get them operational and delivered on a target.

Typo: "is the United States's" should be "is the United States'". The trailing 's' on States' should not be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.152.17 (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update badly needed!

This page is in desperate need of an update. The last date mentioned is the ratification of New START by the Duma in January 2011 - over 6 years ago. At a minimum, it would be nice to include current/recent estimates of the contents of the stockpile, broken down into weapon types (ICBMs, SLBMs, bombs). Ideally, it would be nice to have a list by warhead type any any weapon(s) they are currently attached to, with wikilinks of course. I also don't see why the Duma ratification dates are necessary, it would be much clearer to simply state the date the various treaties went into effect, and progress in achieving the treaty's goals since that time. I don't think there have been any new treaties or agreements since New START, but I may be mistaken. Finally, as the existing template (from 2013, mind you) already says, this article needs specific inline citations. DadOfBeanAndBug (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Tactical nuclear weapons"

Hello @Little Professor. I disagree with your edits (diff) for the reasons stated in my edit summaries. To summarize, 1) tactical nuclear weapons is a more common term than non-strategic nuclear weapons, and in my opinion the jargon that the United States chooses to use to describe this does not necessarily need to be the jargon that Wikipedia uses to describe this, 2) your edit inserts a giant footnote in brackets in such a way that is very unusual to see in our articles, which suggests to me a WP:MOS issue, and 3) you have failed to use your new terminology consistently throughout the article, mixing both the old term and the new term. Per WP:BRD I'd like to ask you to self-revert. Your edit is the bold edit and it is not appropriate for you to keep forcing it in without discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the long phrasing in brackets in the main text you are welcome to change it to a footnote; there is no reason to delete it altogether as it is unquestionably pertinent information that is well-sourced from a reputable official site.

A technical article on US nuclear weapons should use official technical language, not the commonly used (and incorrect) language. Per WP:NOTSOURCE Wikipedia is not a source and the fact that the terminology is used elsewhere on Wikipedia is not a justification for using incorrect language, unless there has been a community discussion and consensus has been reached. I won't revert but let the community discuss further on this talk page and if consensus is reached on using the old terminology then it can be changed back at that point. Until then there is no reason to keep reverting a change made on the basis of well sourced and unambiguous information ("The United States no longer uses the term “tactical nuclear weapons”.) Little Professor (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tactical nuclear weapons is overwhelmingly the common name, both within the arms control field, within the U.S. military, and within general usage. A footnote within a State department (not DOD) report that itself repeatedly and widely uses the term "tactical nuclear weapons", does not establish U.S. policy and is inherently self-contradictory. Moreover, the footnote goes on to then say that "nonstrategic" is a "misnomer"; so the argument for using non-strategic is *more* incorrect, being outright inaccurate vs. simply a naming preference to avoid having to discuss the scale of blast effects. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]