Talk:Mark 4 (nuclear weapon): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(reason not to PropDel this for now)
(restoring PropDel now)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:


== reason to delay PropDel ==
== reason to delay PropDel ==
The mention of the accident is not on the Wikipedia article [[Wikipedia:Mark 4 nuclear weapon]], but IS is a separate (unlinked) WP article [[Wikipedia:List of military nuclear accidents]].  I want to look into this matter more.  It is shocking to note that the accident does not exist on the Wikipedia page about this weapon. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:25, 18 March 2024 (CDT)
The mention of the accident is not on the Wikipedia article [[Wikipedia:Mark 4 nuclear bomb]], but IS is a separate (unlinked) WP article [[Wikipedia:List of military nuclear accidents]].  I want to look into this matter more.  It is shocking to note that the accident does not exist on the Wikipedia page about this weapon. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 11:25, 18 March 2024 (CDT)
:Hi, Pat. According to [https://www.atomicarchive.com/almanac/broken-arrows/index.html Howard's source], this was the fifth of 32 accidents to 2000. Fortunately, there was no plutonium core in the Quebec bomb. [[User:John Leach|John]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 12:02, 18 March 2024 (CDT)
 
::Still, 100 pounds of uranium blown to bits is no joke, and the cover-up is appalling.  I've dealt with this now, so restoring PropDel to the article. [[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 12:03, 19 March 2024

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  Still first-generation but a production-quality, re-engineered version of the Fat Man bomb, the yield of which could be varied from 1, 3.5, 8, 14, 21, 22, and 31 kt TNT equivalent by exchanging the plutonium pits; first weapon made on an assembly line rather than by hand; design ancestor of the British Blue Danube bomb [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories:  Military and History [Please add or review categories]
 Subgroup category:  Nuclear Engineering
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  American English

reason to delay PropDel

The mention of the accident is not on the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Mark 4 nuclear bomb, but IS is a separate (unlinked) WP article Wikipedia:List of military nuclear accidents. I want to look into this matter more. It is shocking to note that the accident does not exist on the Wikipedia page about this weapon. Pat Palmer (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2024 (CDT)

Hi, Pat. According to Howard's source, this was the fifth of 32 accidents to 2000. Fortunately, there was no plutonium core in the Quebec bomb. John (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2024 (CDT)
Still, 100 pounds of uranium blown to bits is no joke, and the cover-up is appalling. I've dealt with this now, so restoring PropDel to the article. Pat Palmer (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2024 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_4_(nuclear_weapon)&oldid=942725"