Talk:Area denial weapon/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Area denial weapon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nuclear and chemical weapons
Governmental institutions do not spend enormous quantities of money to design, implement, and test weapons all for the purpose of not using them. We did not accidentally make nuclear and chemical weapons. They are, by conscious design, area denial weapons and in that sense absolutely in context. 12.217.192.63 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Cluster bombs
Cluster bombs, whether dropped from aircraft or fired from large-calibre artillery, must be considered as area denial weapons. The way the bomblets are dispersed, the mixes of ant-personnel and anti-vehicle bomblets, the time-delay feature for detonation over a period, and the number of unexploded bomblets, all put these weapons into the area denial category. The use of these weapons in urban areas surely puts them into the same category as scattered anti-personnel mines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.205.109.150 (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
The Passage about the Spanish cactus
Should it be placed elsewhere or is it OK where it is? It just seems a little awkward where it's placed.--Secruss (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Directed-energy weapons?
I don't think there are more suitable Area-denial weapons than some directed-energy ones, particularly for the "Modern methods" section. Clinicallytested (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2015 (UTC)