From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

[edit] Hybrid Implosion

I don't think the information added by Nabokov here is correct:

17:28, 26 January 2008 Nabokov (Talk | contribs) m (4,550 bytes) (Fixed typo.)

17:28, 26 January 2008 Nabokov (Talk | contribs) m (4,552 bytes) (Added new info re. linear implosion.)

It is inconsistent with the rest of the information in the article.

Also, "Manticore" is not a code name. It was invented by Sybil Francis for use in her 1995 PhD thesis (MIT) Warhead Politics. She is quite explicit that it describes a plutonium (not a uranium) device, so it could not have been a gun-assembly device. There are problems with the linked reference, a 2008 article by Swiss researcher Andre Gsponer about the U.S. earth-penetrator B66 weapon. He mentions in passing the earlier U.S. W48 warhead and cites Francis' Warhead Politics as his source that it is a U-235 gun-assembly device, a serious misreading of that source. He illustrates the concept by reprinting a questionable drawing supposedly from the British nuclear weapons program which he labels as the U.S. W48 warhead. The correct URL for that drawing as posted by Greenpeace (which he gives incorrectly) is

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/nukes/fig06.gif

It is clearly not a drawing of the U.S. W48 warhead, and there are serious questions about whether it would work at all, as drawn. (For example, there doesn't seem to be enough U235 to make a critical mass.)

These changes should be reverted. HowardMorland (talk) 03:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)