Jump to content

Talk:List of United States nuclear weapons tests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Recent (08 December 2012) test?

[edit]

Has this really happened or did RT just made it up. If it happened, than it should be added to the article. -- 93.136.115.120 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a 'subcitical test' as described in the last line of the article. Maybe there should be a separate list describing and listing the subcritical tests. KTrimble (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, linked to. Subcrit test list in "Nuclear weapons testing".
It was a subcritical test known as Pollux, in which a 1/4 model of a MIRV warhead was exploded. The 1/4 amount of plutonium in the core was insufficient to reach criticality when shot, but the deformation of the core increased knowledge about the metallurgy of plutonium (which is very complicated with multiple solid phases), and made the "codes" that simulate explosions on supercomputers more accurate. There is considerable argument about whether subcriticality is actually allowed by the wording of the CTBT, but inasmuch as similar tests were done in the hiatus of the 1960 test ban, inclusion of specific wording may indicate that it would have been a deal breaker. At any rate, Russia does it, China does it, "you do it, we all do it, I just did it, and I want to do it again."
BTW, you can watch it in a video of Pollux published by the NNSS PR office, it is perhaps the most exciting subcrit test I've ever seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGf4-ZOjyVY SkoreKeep (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two blasts not listed

[edit]

I don't see the following two tests listed:

  • Project Shoal, apparently not part of any of the other operations from 1963. It was detonated near Fallon, Nevada, and was not on the Nevada Test Site.
  • Project Faultless, which appears to be the only test of its operation. This was detonated in the Hot Creek area east of Tonopah, Nevada - also not on the Nevada Test Site.

Chubbles (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Whoops, I see Faultless was part of Crosstie. But Shoal doesn't appear to be here anywhere. Chubbles (talk) 08:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoal was a Project Vela/Uniform event in the Niblick series. Faultless was a test of the possibility of underground testing of megaton-class weapons on US territory (the geology of the NTS is not stable enough for that), specifically for the Spartan program. Central Nevada proved, unfortunately, not to be faultless, so the next such test was Milrow, 1MT on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians, which was successful enough to allow for Cannikan, 5MT, also on Amchitka. SkoreKeep (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale

[edit]

See the section by this same name in Talk:List of nuclear weapons tests concerning the possible scrapping of this article. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with United States' nuclear test series

[edit]

The United States' nuclear test series article is a short article that only covers things that should be covered on List of nuclear weapons tests of the United States anyway. As such, I recommend that United States' nuclear test series be merged here. Neelix (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support: I've got to go with this one; there's about a 95% overlap of content. The important question, as far as I'm concerned, is how to do it. Be aware, if I didn't mention it before, that the table in United States' nuclear test series is generated from a database by a script. I can do a lot of things with the script; I could, for instance, insert the thumbnail images into the table, although I don't think, personally, they help anything. I would, for sure, review the Notes column and incorporate anything which is significant into what Notes the US's tests table has. It would not be very useful to make changes to the tables as they are in the articles, as the next sweep I make of all the pages would revert the table back to its current format, plus whatever changes I make to the script. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am less concerned with the format of the table than with the number of separate pages on this subject, which should only be one. I would, however, recommend that no sourced information be lost and that the tables be kept within the width of a standard web browser page; at present, the table on United States' nuclear test series is too wide, and also contains a code error that is generating an extra space between the last two rows. Neelix (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look in to it.
It now fits easily within 1024 screen pixels across; I'm not sure what you mean by a "standard web browser page". That "error" is merely a way of producing a double line before the totals line. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend shading the totals line a different colour rather than going around the code; it looks messy with the coding as it is. Your most recent edits have narrowed the table sufficiently. Thank you for agreeing to look into how to merge these articles. Neelix (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll do that, though I wonder what messy means in this context; formatting wikitables is about as messy as I've ever encountered. But I'll do as you suggest; as I said before, making my information available to the maximum extent is my goal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs)
Do you still intend to perform this merger? I can make an attempt myself if you don't have the time. Neelix (talk) 02:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After you sir." "No, after you." "No, no, I insist!" Heh. I'll do it tonight. Sorry about that. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Other page redirected here. Will continue with other nation pages in the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs)
Thank you for performing the merger and for offering to perform similar mergers/moves for the relevant articles relating to other countries. I noticed some important components of the article were removed in the merger, so I readded them. Neelix (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table on this page is generated by database

[edit]

The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.

Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.

There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.

I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.

SkoreKeep (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of nuclear weapons tests of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki removed

[edit]

I have removed the explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the codenamed Project Alberta) from the list because characterizing them as "tests" is inaccurate. These explosions were weapons delivered in anger onto enemy territory. While limited data was collected to assess the weapons' performance, I think that characterizing them as "tests" is simply incorrect. Also, Trinity is lumped together with these explosions under Project Alberta-- this is also incorrect, as Alberta seems to have been concerned with weapons delivery, not testing. Accordingly, I have adjusted the "series" header to Trinity and revised the figures across the row to reflect that test alone. A2soup (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lists are incomplete without those two uses in the list. Returned them to the list, annotating that they were war shots, which they were; not primarily tests, though data was collected, which cannot be denied. While I agree with A2soup that they were not tests, they were part of the series. Left Operation Alberta out of it. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie question

[edit]

Reading that Project_Rio_Blanco makes me wonder whether 3 simultaneous explosions of 33 kilotons means there is a total of 99kt ? --Bouzinac (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were 33 kt each. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK SkoreKeep (talk · contribs) ==>does this mean it has been 99Kt or do 33 +33 +33 not necessarily sum up ? --Bouzinac (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sums to 99kt. the releases are all essentially independent of each other though they were done at the same instant. The desire was to fracture a "chimney" into which multiple layers of rock could unload the gas. They did that but it was all too radioactive to sell. SkoreKeep (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, updated this https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7249268#P2145 --Bouzinac (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Castle series bravo shot

[edit]

The notes section of the table alleges that United States conducted medical experiments. Such an accusation is unfounded and should be removed. 2600:387:F:B15:0:0:0:A (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_nuclear_weapons_tests&oldid=1208473659"