Talk:Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator

Titles such as "The "Can I use it?" factor" and content of, amongst other things, "You either used a nuke, or you didn't" are not of sufficient quality for an encyclopaedia (spelling deliberate), hence the notice on the page. These comments pertain to much of the article. The article seems to be commendably comprehesive, but the quality of writing needs to be improved throughout. No offence is intended to the original author. Regards. --84.66.220.211 20:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made two big edits on August 16th. (I wasn't signed in on either of them, argggggh!). I readily admit I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject, but nonetheless I fixed a few spelling/grammar errors and rephrased many sentences to make them more formal and hopefully clearer. Like the user above said, I mean no offense to the original author, who doubtless was very knowledgeable on the subject. Happy editing, TheTypoPatrol 00:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the whole entry needs to be rethought, hard. The material about niuclear weapons being a Boolean decision is true in a different respect than the author thinks - and the stuff about any use prompting 3rd party nations to retaliate is a combination of pure political propaganda and utter fantasy. I've removed that, as a first step toward cleaning up a highly biased and inaccurate article. Joe Katzman 13:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the notion arises from the "nuclear war" section in Game Theory. I wrote the original article (quickly), based upon what I had read in the last few years DOD journals and from the couple years of poli sci I had in college (one semester of which was nuclear game theory). It might be worthwhile to have a brief synopsis here and then link off to game theory and/or mutually assured destruction for further edification. a {{main|foo}} is the right idea. Avriette 16:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in fact Fail-deadly has a pretty good synopsis of what I was originally trying to explain. Avriette 16:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Since the marble is frictionless, it would then stop moving entirely once it hit the ground, making neither noise nor dent in what it hit."

I'm no scientist but the claim that the lack friction would stop an object penetrating earth sounds weird.

It's been discussed. I'll take a stab at merging the two of them today. Avriette 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]