Jump to content

Talk:Operation Grapple

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOperation Grapple is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starOperation Grapple is part of the Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 10, 2021.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2017Good article nomineeListed
October 14, 2017WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
June 26, 2019Good topic candidatePromoted
August 17, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 15, 2004, May 15, 2007, and May 15, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Images of Grapple X

[edit]

I have added some screenshots of the Grapple X aircraft and weapon taken from the Channel 4 TV programme Britain's Cold War Super Weapons. They're not very good but considering the subject matter will probably have to do until someone can find some better ones. Ian Dunster 10:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


H Bomb Test was (not really) a Hoax

[edit]

I read recently that the H Bomb test was actually a huge A Bomb, which fooled the US into believing that the Uk had cracked the fusion bomb problems, leading them into collaboration. I'll try to find the source and see how reliable it is and them amend the article if appropriate. --Dumbo1 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added information and reference from House Of Commons documents on Nuclear Testing Veterans. It is surprising that after all these years, the fact that this was a hoax, (the UK has never successfully build an H bomb) seems not to be generally known. --Dumbo1 17:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax legend is almost completely incorrect as discussed below. The Americans are not as stupid as that. It IS true that Britain did let the rest of the world think Orange Herald was an H-bomb when it was not, but Britain went on to drop four successful true H-bombs. Man with two legs 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalized article

[edit]

This Article, including Tsar's contribution, seems to have been vandalized (or, to put it more politely, badly edited). It is true that Short Granite, the first test in the Grapple series, fell well short of its expected yield, but was hailed as a success by the British. It is also true that the second test, Orange Herald, was in reality a very powerful single-stage weapon. However, Grapple X and Y were both successful tests using the Teller-Ulam design. Both were detonated before the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement was signed on July 3 1958, and certainly before the US could have given any nuclear know-how to Britain. The mis-conception seems to have arisen from a statement by Brian Jenkins, MP for Tamworth (he is not reputed to have knowledge of nuclear physics, and at the time was speaking in support of veterans who were claiming that their health had been harmed by the explosions), in the House of Commons on 4 December 2002, in which he appeared to be referring to the Orange Herald test. See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo021204/halltext/21204h01.htm. Also, what is this doing at the end of the wiki article: "Although great men have made very important accounts of what was seen, it is still unproven that TNT and oil could have been used to create such effects."? -theeurocrat Theeurocrat 13:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I do not understand why the article was reverted. Everything before the revert was correct and the person only brought back the previous errors which had been corrected (i.e. The May 15, 1957 was a hydrogen bomb test, not an atomic bomb test; the Grapple Z September 2 and 11, 1958 were NOT the largest British tests, Grapple Y was the larget test - I put a citation for this information in the fixed article). I reverted the article back. If you see something incorrect please fix the specific error, do not revert an entire article. - Tzar 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 4 tests at Grapple

[edit]

The 4th test was not cancelled due to poor yield. The only other design mentioned by Lorna Arnold is Orange Herald (large) which was certain to make a big bang. Man with two legs 13:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Green Bamboo. Man with two legs 18:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra's Photos

[edit]

Ah ha, I noticed my Cassandra page getting a few hits from this - The Cassandra pictures are "mine" but I have never been able to identify the military man in them, and at some point I will have to go back to archives to work out who it was. So if anyone can actually work out who the military chaps are, and which of the actual tests they are photographs of, I'd appreciate the extra information for the page.

Lawrie 00:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Empire Clyde

[edit]

Empire Clyde was apparently one of the troopships involved in the 1957 tests. Can anyone provide a reliable reference for this? I'm not sure that this passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:OperationGrappleXmasIslandHbomb.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:OperationGrappleXmasIslandHbomb.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table on this page is generated by database

[edit]

The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.

Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.

There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.

I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.

SkoreKeep (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Operation Grapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Operation Grapple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Windscale documentary contradicts a statement

[edit]

in the Cooperation with the United States section "An additional benefit was that the UK was able to buy highly enriched uranium from the US and also sell plutonium to it made in British nuclear reactors. This deal was useful to both parties and profitable for the UK."

There is no source for this and it is contrary to what is stated in the BBC Windscale documentary (search for it on youtube) In the documentary they go on to say after the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement the UK would transfer uranium to the USA in exchange for plutonium. The statement about it being profitable for the UK needs citation as well.

This is the first time I have bothered mention an error on Wikipidia so sorry if I made a mess of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.243.221.250 (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

health effects need medical references not NZherald sensationalism

[edit]

Unfortunately I have not been able to find a review of these studies by a secondary medical source.

However I think that bearing in mind the author of the study has been contracted by Veteran's numerous times - He also looked at 24 Vietnam veterans, who were "exposed to agent orange". Which was then similarly used by the Veteran organization, to sue the government.

Bearing that in mind alongside the fact that looking at pubmed, the author similarly has gone on to publish in 2007, on the apparent chromosome effects of powerlines(another close to FRINGE affair)...I think the editors of this article need to be far more careful and watchful for their confirmation bias, we need to follow the guidelines on[unreliable medical source?] on these matters.User:Hawkeye7

Here is the same researcher, RE Rowland, publishing on Chromosome abnormalities from powerlines. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17080456 One wonders if this was likewise paid for by anti-powerline advocates?

Or to use his own "research" to explain his previous findings. Maybe 50 of these operation grapple veterans, just lived beside powerlines? Something he did not take into account in his earlier nuclear testing research, published in ~2005.

Boundarylayer (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of anything that improves the article. I hadn't intended to make any medical claims. Moreover, it sounded like an earlier dispute on another article that went something like this:
Me: Those results have been disputed
SG: Disputed? By whom?
Me: I don't suppose "Wikipedians on the talk page" would be an acceptable answer?
SG: No, it would not.
It is unfortunate that: (1) research results are frequently poorly reported in mainstream publications; and (2) a dysfunctional adversarial legal system (based on the British model) demands proof before people can access medical treatment that they need.
I trust that the article in its current form is to your satisfaction. . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dick?

[edit]

A couple of references to the bombs dick seem unlikely not to be vandalism, but on a phone I can't track them down. Midgley (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENGVAR. It's correct. And probably a source of humour to those at AWRE for years.Andy Dingley (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hydrogen bomb primary was called a "Tom", the secondary a "Dick", and the (unnecessary) tertiary a "Harry". This is mentioned in the Background section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

I was surprised to come here from the main page and find statements that would not sit well with a reader who thought that nuclear testing was not a good thing, that Britain achieving nuclear capability was not a good thing, or that nuclear weapons in general are not a good thing. Respectively, "A second test series was required" in the lede; "British timing was good" in § aftermath; "an extraordinary scientific and technological achievement" in the lede – all of course in the encyclopedia's voice. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megaton = million ton

[edit]

"The second test was Grapple 2, of Orange Herald. Its 720-to-800-kilotonne-of-TNT (3,000 to 3,300 TJ) yield made it technically a megaton weapon."

Can someone explain to me how an 800kT weapon is "technically a megaton weapon"? A megaton is 1,000kT. One could call it a "megaton range" weapon because it's closer to 1mT than to .5mT, but technically it is not a megaton bomb. A 900hp aircraft engine can be classified as "in the 1,000hp range", but technically it fails to meet that bar.

This did not escape notice at the time, and was a sore point between the RAF brass and the AWRE boffins. Changed to "megaton-range weapon" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbertese stories

[edit]

Came across this interesting article about two Gilbertese civilians who witnessed the bombs. Can these perspectives fit in the article? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 10:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Dick

[edit]

I changed the nomenclature used in this article that referred to the primary as "Tom" and the secondary as "Dick." While this is a cute anecdote, it was confusing to read this article when the scientific terms were changed throughout. Benacche (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative terms are American, not scientific, so reverted under WP:ENGVAR. An important aspect is that development was undertaken separate from the American, and proceeded along different lines. Tom, Dick and Harry were the names used at the time and in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This creates confusion. The manual states: "Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed ..." It is not universally accepted to use Tom and Dick as the primary and secondary explosives in a nuclear device. Please see this article for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
I would agree to include it as an anecdote, but not to use it throughout the article. Benacche (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping your undo for the time being, but I want you to also consider this from the style manual: "Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." It is commonly understood what a primary and secondary device are. My confusion in reading this article is an example of what anyone could expect in reading the terms "Tom and Dick" in place of primary and secondary. Benacche (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if primary and secondary was universally accepted I would agree with the change but I am not certain that is the case. I think you may be over-estimating the average person's knowledge of nuclear weapon design. Looking at sources like [1], [2] and [3], I see the British terminology. Over to you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Grapple&oldid=1265500775"