Talk:National technical means of verification

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

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force

OOPS. Admin! Admin! Help!

This should have been titled "National Means of Technical Verification". I goofed. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be under a more general heading of counterproliferation?

Since the methods here are very relevant to monitoring missile and nuclear programs of nuclear states that have not ratified relevant arms control treaties, as well as development by non-national groups, should the focus be generalized, or should this article be closely linked with the now-stub article on counterproliferation?

Indeed, the principles and procedures here, if not the actual methods, could apply to counterproliferation of chemical and biological weapons, as well as verification of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible source, to avoid original research

In 1972, I was a member of the Young Republican National Federation Platform Recommendations Committee, Foreign and Military Subcommittee. For the record, I now consider myself a Recovering Republican.

Anyway, we had a number of private briefings, including by a member of the SALT team, whose name I forget. He indicated that the then-Soviets insisted on the phrase "national means of technical verification", because they believed their domestic politics could not tolerate that American "spy satellites" passed over the Motherland and the Red Army could not do anything about it. It was a seemingly small point to American ears, but our speaker insisted that the language was a deal-breaker for the USSR.

Does anyone know a reference that can support my memory? Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find and cite a 1972 memo from the Secretary of Defense, recommending declassification, but it doesn't express the intensity of what I was told was the Soviet reaction. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

helpme moved from article

The page title is a typo. It should be national technical means of verification, not national means of technical verification. Awaiting an administrator fix ****

~~Will sort now~~ I don't quite understand. Please can you give the exact name you want it to have? Thanks, Tiddly-Tom 20:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole business has been messed up I think. I first encountered the request on the article national means of technical verification, and subsequently moved it into talk space. Then, Rjd0060 fulfilled the move request, and removed the helpme tag, after which, it appears he reverted his edit, which put the helpme tag back, and I then assume Tiddly Tom found it. That is a breif summary of the chain of events. :-) Stwalkerster talk 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is National Techical Means of Verification

The article is not too clear about what is NTMoV --- the first two paragraphs talk a bit of history but somehow after going through them (and the rest of the intro) - I still don't really know what it is... I think there should be at least a one or two sentence summary at the start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.89.136.61 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"National"

When reading this article it is not clear what is meant by national: is that i) United States, ii) United States and Russia, iii) all states? The article details mainly US programs (i), but starts with introduction as a term between us and russia (ii), and is according to the article used later in treaties (iii? ii?). It might be wise to specify in the introduction and based on that to see if the article approaches the subject from a sufficiently worldwide point of view (in case it turns outt o be ii or iii)... L.tak (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National technical means of verification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070226105334/http://www.ees1.lanl.gov:80/programs/ctbt-drc.htm to http://www.ees1.lanl.gov/programs/ctbt-drc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]