Talk:W88

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States B‑class

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

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Oblate Vs. Prolate

The article appears to use oblate several times when prolate is meant.

You are correct. However, that is the least of the errors in the article.

The advantage of the prolate primary is not the small diameter. It is the fact that it has a radically different implosion system, which is much lighter in weight.

It was first used in the W47 and W56 warheads, long before we deployed MIRVs. And the increased difficulty is not so much the calculations, but the fact that it is more difficult to manufacture such an implosion design. (Not that I want to minimize the complexity of the calculations, especially when it came to creating a version that was one-point safe....) Oralloy 14:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

START Vs. SORT Treaty

Wasn't the agreement that limited the Trident II START_II and not SORT like stated in this article? From my understanding there is a complete reference of SORT in the current wikipedia article that doesn't contain any verbiage about limiting the use of MIRV missiles. Kropfm (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Article: How the US forgot how to make Trident missiles

You folks might want to check this out:

How the US forgot how to make Trident missiles

--Radical Mallard 3/12/09 7 PM EST

What's in the front?

In the picture of that W88, we have the primary, secondary, and a supply to replenish the decayed tritium. Is there some sort of guidance system in the front? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.53.65 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nothing in the article states that the rv is maneuverable, so why would it have a guidance system?50.147.26.108 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codenames for Elements of Physics Package

http://postimg.org/image/9gh5rty4z/2b453930/ BUT has the primary as an ovoid, not a prolate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the codenames (Komodo / Cursa) in the article. Regarding ovoid/prolate, the shape resembles a prolate sphere or some of the two-axis-of-symmetry ovoid shapes but is driven by implosion system behavior details not a desire to make an outer mold line match some predetermined geometric shape. That it happens to resemble a simpler regular type of prolate sphere or ovoid closely doesn't mean that's what it really is. Effect, not cause. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've read about the mathematics of the prolate primary being 'an order of magnitude' more complex than an ovoid and was 'a revolutionary design'. I'm quoting from a book I read a decade ago - All in 'A Convenient Spy: Wen Ho Lee and the Politics of Nuclear Espionage' I promise I WILL find the precise pages. Ovoid primaries are more than 20 years older. They had a specific weight & size target so swapping primary & secondary allowed for a bigger secondary. The size target was a cone, so a prolate makes sense. To the codenames, you can add Terrazzo which removes helium caused by tritium decay and adding more tritium. It sits near the bottom of the cone, outside the peanut. The package, while not codenamed peanut, was termed as such amongst the designers. The neutron generator sits in the very tip of the cone. It sits outside the 'peanut'. I believe the primary is 5Kt, but I can't think where I read it. Certainly a LOT of US underground tests of the 1970s were 4 & 5Kt - sometimes 3 tests in a row & all listed as 'research'. I will continue searching. Here is the image http://postimg.org/image/al6o74i0b/

Number of warheads.

The line "The Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) can be armed with up to 12 W88 warheads (Mark 5 re-entry vehicle) or 12 100 kt W76 warheads (Mark 4 re-entry vehicle), but it is limited to 8 warheads under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty." is inconsistant with the Trident 2 page which says that the missile can have up to 14 W88 or W76 warheads. 12 or 14, which is it?97.127.191.148 (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fogbank

Re this edit [1] – The info on Fogbank isn't appropriate in the place where it was put because that paragraph was about revelations in the given news media, and Fogbank wasn't one of them since Fogbank is not unique to the W88 but is also a characteristic of preceding warheads. Note that Fogbank is described in the more general Wikipedia article Thermonuclear weapon.

Although the source is a tweet, it looks like the tweeter may be an acknowledged expert so it may be a reliable source that might be useful in the Thermonuclear weapon article. However, I haven't thoroughly checked the tweeter's status. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you even mean there? Because it's used in a number of physics packages, it isn't appropriate to discuss it in an article on a single one? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't address the main point of my message which was, "The info on Fogbank isn't appropriate in the place where it was put because that paragraph was about revelations in the given news media..." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, following directly after the mention of the radiation case. If you think it would be better somewhere else, then feel free to move it around - I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. But that's not the same as just blanking it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original tweeter (Scott Carson) was inside the US weapons program and is writing a book about it. He left Twitter for unclear reasons a year ago, he'd had issues with DOE classification approval of the book, may be related. The intermediate tweeter was Jeffrey Lewis, Director of the East Asia program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation at Middlebury Institute in Monterey, also the founder of www.armscontrolwonk.com blog and prolific writer. Jeffrey is still very active (emailed me overnight...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is erroneous

The diagrams call the fusion component the primary. This component causes the main explosion but fires second.

The text reverses this. Since I already tried to fix it once and got it wrong, I leave this to the next editor to fix. 98.7.1.133 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]