Jump to content

Talk:UGM-27 Polaris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): The Real Steve Buscemi, Leann.to, Chshaw11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 2 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Group2Guy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Just out of curiosity, what was the point of adding the Bond movies? Elde 18:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Those interested in this article are invited to participate in my rewrite in progress at User:Elde/Sandbox Elde 19:48, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

[edit]

"The nuclear warhead was developed at the (now) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by" well, what was it called back then?

If one wants to complicate the sentence, in 1957 it was called the Livermore branch of the University of California Radiation Laboratory. But in 1958 after Ernest O. Lawrence died, it was renamed Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, the name it carried untill 1979. So it had 2 different names in the time frame of this article while the warhead was being developed. Since the name history is well covered if the reader clicks on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the added complexity would be unnecessary and distracting.Tvbanfield (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaline actually reduced the number of warheads, from the 3 carried on a standard A3 to 2. Elde 00:36, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When they say that the Polaris wasn't meant for use against hardened targets, but rather for retaliation, does that mean that their main function was destruction of civilian populations?

In a word, NO. Think about it. Retaliation can be against hardened targets, unhardened targets, airfields, military bases, an enemy's gymnasium .... even the staff restaurant .... or even against strategic targets embedded within population centres. Which seems to suggest that if one chooses to live in a high-density neighbourhood, choosing one where there are strategic targets as neighbours is not a sensible life-enhancing decision. Brian.Burnell 14:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In another word... well, the civilian casualties of destroying a whole city might be regarded as incidental. Perhaps. Midgley (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaline decision date

[edit]

The deleted ref to the date quoted in the Nuclear Weapon archive is not accurate, being based on data published originally in 1989 in Norris, Fieldhouse and Burrows 'Nuclear Weapons Databook Vol5 - British, French and Chinese Nuclear Weapons. Being published at that time (1984) the data can only be described as speculative, since this start date was not in the public domain in 1989. The correct date as originally stated as January 1975 originates from the refereed journal Prospero, also cited. Specifically the contribution of Dr Frank Panton CBE on page 127. Dr Panton was in a better position to know than most, being Assistant Chief Scientific Advisor (Nuclear) MoD 1969-75; and with oversight of the Chevaline project 1972-75. Brian.Burnell 14:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction

[edit]

It is hard to see the relevence of references to James Bond books and movies in what is a technical, or encyclopaedic account of the Polaris missile system from conception to retirement. Brian.Burnell 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter

[edit]

The two missiles named Jupiter are not the same design, nor evolved from the same origins. Although its not entirely clear where the US Navy plans originated, their Jupiter was short and fat (can I still say that?), and very, very ugly. The other Jupiter was designed at the US Army Redstone Arsenal (with help from Werner von Braun). However, Congress took away the US Army's right to field IRBM's and gave it exclusively to the USAF (who had their own Thor missile design competing with Jupiter). The USAF Jupiter was then deployed to land-bases in Italy, and Thor to the UK. But the 'not designed here' prejudice against Jupiter lingered in the USAF, and it was never widely deployed. The Navy Jupiter was configured as a cluster of six (a six-pack?) thin boosters strapped together, and were intended to be carried horizontally in submarine hangers similar to the Regulus modus operandi. How they were to be elevated prior to launch has never been explained. So when Teller offered the US Navy the prospect of a one megaton warhead that was small and light enough to be carried in a missile small enough to fit vertically, the Navy probably regarded it as a blessing. Brian.Burnell 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIR, USN also oppo Jupiter's liquid fuel, for its handling haz aboard (if there weren't enough reasons to say, "Wellllll....no.") Trekphiler (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the polaris

[edit]

just a side note, the polaris was also used in the song "Rust in Peace . . . Polaris" by Megadeth

Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.232.58 (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Gettin' a date

[edit]

Can somebody put a year of intro on the A2, A3, & (projected) B3? Trekphiler (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section could have a better name, but best fit for my comments. Article has name of UGM-27 Polaris, but is written with high emphasis on the UGM-27C. Should add more on the original version, the B, and any other planned versions. Perhaps a table of the versions, and more of the history and evolution of the variants of Polaris. The section on Italy - if enough information could be found- would be worth its own article. Wfoj3 (talk)

Polaris A1 CEP

[edit]

The section about the A1 contradicts itself: The first paragraph claims a CEP of 1800m, the last only 900m. Which one is correct? Laschatzer (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I came in to say. Dziban303 (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is obvious bug. Additionally info that 1960 Polaris test launch "was the first underwater guided-missile launch (apart from German experiments during World War 2)" is not true. In fact first SLBM was Soviet R-11FM missile fired from Zulu-V class submarine (first boomer worldwide) in 1955. --89.17.224.30 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't that Zulu launch from a submarine on the surface? It's a minor distinction, of course. 216.80.110.88 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Patent untruth"?

[edit]

An IP user removed the following from the article:

"However, by that time, all British thermonuclear bombs were made using American designs through the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement."

with this edit summary: "patent untruth removed. See talk."

I've read the talk page, and I see no such prior discussion. Assuming good faith, the user is probably writing his comments now,. However, unless the user provdes proof from reliable sources, the material should not be removed on the user's claim alone. As such, I have added both {{citation needed}} and {{disputed-inline}} tags to the contested sentence. Please do not remove the sentence nor the tags until a consensus is reached here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I was indeed composing a Talk comment which appears below. You were a little too quick off the starting blocks methinks, altho' I'll assume good faith. Perhaps your time might have been more productively spent asking yourself the question "Why did the editor who added the untruth not include any reference in support?" Usually, the answer is that untruthful assertions cannot be supported by referenced sources. But one does have to assume good faith, doesn't one? 109.152.60.178 (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there was no claim made by me about any 'prior discussion'. Read the insert more carefully. You also appear to be asserting that the Talk explanation should be added BEFORE the Article page is changed. I know of no Wiki Policy that requires it done in that sequence. 109.152.60.178 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a quick online search for the IP location of the editor [1] who first uploaded on 25 Sep 2009 @ 20.27 UTC the assertion "However, by that time, all British thermonuclear bombs were made using American designs through the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement." shows an IP in Atlanta, USA. Firstly, it was allowed to go uncontested, without any reference sources. Secondly, Britons get rather tired of Americans, for this editor was an American, parading an American perspective of modern British history, and getting the facts wrong. American editors might ponder on how they might become somewhat irritated if the situation were reversed, and British editors set out to rewrite the history of the American Civil War on these pages; and all in good faith of course.109.152.60.178 (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat is uncharacteristically silent, when earlier he was so quick from the starting blocks. Why so? An apology isn't necessary .... however it would be nice to see some evidence of good faith. 109.152.60.178 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patent Unreferenced Untruth

[edit]

"However, by that time, all British thermonuclear bombs were made using American designs through the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement."

While true that there were exchanges of design data, and some British warheads were almost 100% copies of American warheads (the US Mk.28/Red Snow springs to mind) the quote above is untrue, and cannot be referenced or verified as per Wiki policy. So it wasn't referenced. Readers will draw their own conclusions from the absence of a reference.

The US Polaris A3 warhead was the US W-58. Britain considered but never used the W-58 because the British safety authorities considered it unsafe in several respects. Instead they fitted a hybrid of a US W-59 fusion secondary, triggered by a new British primary based on a Cleo fission device tested in Nevada as PAMPAS and TENDRAC . Variants of this basic design were used or intended for several other delivery systems, WE.177, UK Skybolt, Blue Water. See Dr Richard Moore, Visiting Research Fellow, Mountbatten Centre for International Studies, University of Southampton page 11. 109.152.60.178 (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on UGM-27 Polaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on UGM-27 Polaris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History is rather digressive

[edit]

I'm not sure that the discussion of rocket-powered Kamikaze aircraft and dismissal of their effectiveness is in quite the right place. There might be a history of rockets in warfare article somewhere which could belinked, or several articles amounting to it, and I'd suggest a rather tighter focus on nuclear-weapon-armed missiles fired from submarines for this article. Even there, it would be common to Polaris and its successor Trident, as well as to the Warsaw Pact and likely Chinese ones, and the M51. Midgley (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

German development

[edit]

In a TV documentary a retired US navy officer said that the Germans were experimenting with rockets fired from subs during WW II, and that the Polaris missile was based on those experiments. Ontologix (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It all dates back to first trials and `rocket devices', but direct trace is in the "knowledge and experience" than than in the "copy and paste". See SM-65 Atlas or The Development of Ballistic Missiles in the United States Air Force 1945-1960; Atlas was liquid, Polaris solid fuel. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviations

[edit]

Anyone knows what the UGM meant or POLARIS? KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UGM-27_Polaris&oldid=1210408380"