Misplaced Pages

Talk:Radiological warfare

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.211.66.29 (talk) at 05:10, 12 February 2006 (Big gap). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:10, 12 February 2006 by 68.211.66.29 (talk) (Big gap)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconMilitary history Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis 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 not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
Additional information:
/ 
Note icon
This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

WTF! "radiological warfare might well be a far more safe and humane way to conduct extermination of large numbers of people, or the emptying out of troublesome political centres, than any of the various biological alternatives."

Note bolded words, it doesn't really seem to fit, does it??

Fictional Sources

This article seems to draw heavily from fictional sources for its information on the uses of radiological warfare. This seems to lead to much speculation and lack of actual fact. I suggest removing the paragraphs based on fictional works and rewriting them with actual cited scientific research.

Also, the last paragraph seems to be complete speculation. Its suggestion of ethical human mass killings is obviously not pertinent to the article; to say the least. I believe this paragraph should be removed entirely. Please comment.

Removed Fictional Sources

I have removed the parts of this article referencing or pertaining to the aforementioned fictional sources. This article is still in need to some sound research. It should be expanded to include referenced sources and verifiable information.

Big gap

Why isn't Cohen's neutron bomb mentioned here?