Talk:Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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) 04:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Revisions

Changes 20:02, 22 Jul 2004:

• Revised line on Minuteman configuration and added link.
• Sentence "The most powerful MIRV developed by the USA was the Peacekeeper missile, which could carry up to 10 re-entry vehicles, each of which with a maximum explosive power of 300 kilotons." deleted as as the D-5 Trident II carries more powerful bombs (475 KT) and the C-3 Posiedon carried up to 14 warheads. By which measure is the Peacekeeper more powerful?
• Revised section on MIRV's and ABM's.
• Added section on the ability of a MIRV to attack multiple targets.

Elde 04:03, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most powerful?

IIRC, the Trident II carries 8 W-88 warheads (475kt) while the MX carries 10 W-87, while is true that their standard yield is around 300Kt many sources (HEW,fas,globalsecurity) claim that it can be incresed to 475Kt in the "dirty" version (with the oralloy) which seems a standard feature of W-88 (this leaves me thinking that the physics packages of the two weapons are very similar). The 14 warheads were the old W-76 (100kt) and not enough accurate to be used as counterforce weapons (at least until they will be upgraded with the new fuze). I think that these are the reasons why MX was perceived as "more powerful" even if IMHO the Trident II is a better system Krellmachine 16:44, 22 Oct 2004

MIRV target 'spread'

Does anybody know, how far appart can be the targets of a MIRV attack?

It's possible to make some guesses, but the actual figures are classified. If I had to guess, I think some tens of miles. Note: It's traditional to 'sign' your entries with four tildes which creates a signature like this: Elde 21:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Second picture description

Second sentence makes no sense. syndicate 19:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• I tried to clarify it a bit. --Fastfission 21:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

When were they first deployed?

Something about the dates of deployment should be added. Also what "drives" the individual warheads? -Pietas

• The first MIRVed missile was the Minuteman III, and was first deployed in 1970. Each warhead is kept in a re-entry vehicle, which has it own motor. I imagine though that the motor is just used to get it into position and that much of its speed comes from gravity. I do think adding a history section would be appropriate. --Fastfission 18:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

~~MV~~

~~ Were the MK12 and MK12A RVs made with metal rather than carbon materials? ~~

Were the materials used in the MK12 and MK12A Rvs different to the other later RVs or the ones used in the peacekeeper and W88 warheads? The TPS cooling is mentioned as finished with the MK-2 RV, but was it ever used in the minutemen missiles, since they were of the first MIRVS made?

What materials are used in the making of military RVs and RBS and are they different to the non-military re-entry vehicles?

Mirv AND Marv

Imo something should be added about marv. It is a similar concept but more sophisticated. marv is short for maneuverable re-entry vehicle (MARV) http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/655/is-china-developing-a-marv -Pietas

Article revisions

I made multiple changes to the article, mainly correcting obvious errors, adding internal links, and clarifying wording. Discuss here if any issues with the changes. Joema 15:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good riddance

There should be a "demise" section in the article since MIRV are finally outlawed by treaty. 195.70.32.136 10:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not correct. The START II treaty which outlawed MIRVs was never activated, hence never a factor. Russia withdrew from the treaty on June 14, 2002. The current SORT treaty (also known as the "Moscow Treaty") does not restrict MIRV warheads. Joema 15:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Striking first advantage

The scenario this article give for explaining why mirvs give a first strike advantage is wrong. The multiplications and mathematics do not help illustrate the point and are misleading. The mirvs gave the US a first strike advantage simply because it increased the number of usable weapons they had in a very short timespan. If the US had suddenly received 1000 new missiles and launchers the same result would have applied. Once the SU got mirvs then the first strike advantage was no longer applicable. Thus the mathematics in the example are not helpful and actually misleading.

page 224-227

http://www.jstor.org/view/00438871/di971185/97p0244n/0

A better explanation is this: MIRVs threatened to rapidly increase the US's deployable nuclear arsenal and thus the possibility that it would have enough bombs to destroy virtually all of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons. Later on the US feared the Soviet's MIRVs because Soviet missiles had a greater throw weight and they could thus put more warhead on each missile than the US could. Thus for example the US MIRVs increased their capacity by a factor of 6 while the Soviets increased their by a factor of 10. Furthermore, the US had a much smaller proportion of its nuclear arsenal in ICBMs than the Soviets. Bombers could not be outfitted with MIRVs so their capacity would not be multiplied. Thus the US did not seem to have as much potential for MIRV usage as the Soviets. However, the US had a larger number of SLBMs, which could be outfitted with MIRVs, and helped offset the ICBM disadvantage.

If you guys agree with my alterations then perhaps they should be applied to other articles about MIRVs (such as the MX and Minuteman III) where the former passage is repeated instead of my new one. 128.12.77.97 09:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If the US had suddenly received 1000 new missiles and launchers the same result would have applied. Once the SU got mirvs then the first strike advantage was no longer applicable.Not quite. Each side tends to use its missiles or lose them in the scenario. So the temptation would be very high to use them, because the enemy thinks the same. It makes sense to use them because they can knock out the enemy missile force with fewer missiles and because if they are not used, the enemy would use the same tactics to destroy these missiles. --Arado 22:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nations?

There is no information as to which or how many nations deploy MIRVed warheads. The United States and the Soviet Union/Russia are obvious, but is there information about other nations? Does Great Britain or France have MIRV capacity? What about China, India, or Israel? Intrepidsfsu 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the United Kingdom and France have MIRV capability, with the Trident and M45 systems respectively. I'm unsure about the other three, although I would put money on at least India and China. Mothball (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have the date when the Soviet Union deployed MIRVed missiles? And what was the designation of their first MIRV missile? This had a big effect on arms control treaties and perhaps should be added to the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

MIRVy pics

Hey MIRV friends, I just uploaded some great pics I don't have time right now to incorporate, but I thought someone else might like to. Nothing can match this reentry pic, but there's still an interesting night-time reentry shot and a bus-assembly shot more detailed than the old one we have now. Cheers. --Sean 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

MIRVs in Media

In light of a very recent episode of the American television drama Mad Men which depicted the development of MIRV research in the early 1960s, I wonder if the page would not benefit from a section listing significant portrayals or references to MIRV in narrative or non-narrative media? Armadillo01 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

In 1962 the science fiction author Clark Darlton (pseudonym of K.H. Scheer) described in a novel about a nuclear war in 1978 a MIRV like nuclear sytem, called "Fragmentbombe" (fragment bomb). http://www.perrypedia.proc.org/wiki/Die_Gro%C3%9Fen_in_der_Tiefe 91.32.212.157 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Testing of the Peacekeeper caption.

In this article, this image

has the caption:

Testing of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight (ten capable) fired from only one missile. Each line represents the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons. In this other article LGM-118_Peacekeeper, the same image has the caption: Testing at the Kwajalein Atoll of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile. With live warheads, each line would represent the explosive power of twenty Hiroshima-sized (Little Boy) weapons.142.55.138.53 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may add, the lines shown do not "represent" the explosive power of twenty Hiroshima-sized weapons. The LGM-118_Peacekeeper's warheads technically can have the explosive power of 29 times that of the Little Boy Bomb. A W-87-1 or W-88 warhead can also be used on board the Peacekeeper. I find it unnecessary to include this verbiage. I would suggest the caption: Testing at the Kwajalein Atoll of the Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, all eight fired from only one missile. Each line demonstrates the path of each warhead. This is more in-line with the other articles using the same photo. 19:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Where did "targetable" go?

I'm a little confused at why the acronym is MIRV, when the full name is "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle". Is there any information on why the "T" was left out? The main reason I wonder is if there was another name from which the acronym is derived. (If so, it should probably be listed). I also question the grammar on that name: "a multiple ... vehicle" (singular)? A quick browse through the references provided shows that they all use "reentry vehicles" (plural). -- 174.24.195.56 (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it is from Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicle(s).--Patrick (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only that is screwed up, but the title is as well. No capitals. Facepalm. Decent_of_Darkness (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks these Nukes are so disgustingly over the top? Nukes should be Kept around about the potency of 'Little Boy' and should only be used as a last resort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.159.212 (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Minute Man III Mode of Operation sequence

The images and captions appear to take up most of the space. I suggest we shorten the caption on the Minute Man III operation image, and/or cut and past the following information into the article.

Jake M Ingram (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

103.255.6.87 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan successfully conducts flight test of ‘Ababeel’ missile on January 24, 2017. Ref. http://www.dnd.com.pk/pakistan-successfully-conducts-flight-test-of-ababeel-missile/122900

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Pakistan has for the first time successfully test-fired its surface-to-surface ballistic missile capable of delivering multiple warheads, using Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” The missile, called Ababeel, has a maximum range of 2,200km and “is capable of delivering multiple warheads, using Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology,” the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media branch of the Pakistani armed forces, said in a press release on 24 Jan 2017. 85.132.8.24 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Add Pakistan in the list of countries possessing this technology. Thehammadumar (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Agni VI and India

Until a missile is tested, missile and nation cannot be included in the list Faizankhan919 (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Faizankhan919 Sure by this logic we will have to remove all missiles without proven MIRV capability. These include Agni VI, Ababeel, and Khorramshahr. Other editors had removed these missiles but these edits were reverted. Happy to remove them and keep the list only with missile with proven MIRV capability. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

All the missile are included when it’s presence is declared by the country. Further demonstrations and test are choice of the country, not Wikipedia administrators. So Ababeel deserves to be included without any unproven explanations with it and Agni VI should be removed till missile is tested with India claim of MIRV, no need for MIRV demonstration. Faizankhan919 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This not about deserving or not. Content on Wikipedia is added per references. There are independent references which have stated that Abadeel has not shown MIRV demonstration. We have to keep this list consistent. Either it contains all missiles with demonstrated and declared MIRV capability or only with ones with demonstrated capability. But this has to be decided with consensus from other editors as well. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

so, based on your point of view sensitive informations like missiles, etc should be removed from wikepedia, because no verification of missile range and its success are witnessed by independent sources especially Wikipedia administrators.

Faizankhan919 (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

You can only add information on Wikipedia which is reliably sourced and meets the standards per WP:RS. The missile was added here since Pakistan claimed that missile had MIRV capability but other independent sources raised doubts about this capability. Thus, the addition in the brackets. Wikipedia publishes all points of view not just the view of the country. If there are reasonable doubts raised about something, that is also mentioned to maintain NPOV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Agni VI

Hi William M. Connolley, I did notice that you removed Agni VI from the list. I was trying to understand the rationale behind it. Was this for the lack of a WP:RS which states that it would be MIRV capable or because the missile has not even been tested yet? There are WP:RS which indeed state that is going to be MIRV capable here ([1],[2]). I don't feel strongly about its removal, just trying to establish criteria for inclusion of any missile on the list. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding missiles Agni Prime which has MIRV capabilities and other missiles like Surya, Agni VI, and K6 which are under development.

Sak7340 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding Agni Prime to the list, highlighting its MIRV capabilities, along with other missiles such as Surya, Agni VI, and K6, which are currently under development. It's essential to include these developments to accurately reflect capabilities and ongoing projects.

Additionally, I want to emphasize that this list encompasses not only active missiles but also those in various stages of development, as well as retired missiles. This comprehensive approach ensures a thorough understanding of missile program's scope and trajectory.

Furthermore, I propose removing Pakistan from the list, as they have not demonstrated MIRV technology. This adjustment aligns with our focus on including only relevant and demonstrable capabilities.

Thank you for your attention to these updates. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or require further clarification.

Sak7340 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Sak7340 We have no issue with you mentioning any MIRV-capable missiles, provided you cite sources to back up your claims. Additionally, Pakistan's inclusion has a confirmed source indicating its MIRV capability, so refrain from adding "suspected" next to it. We prioritize factual information supported by sources rather than personal editor suspicions. We include what sources confirm and omit what lacks supporting evidence. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Kindly check; I have added a reference next to the Pakistani missile. Sak7340 (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The source you provided is from 2021, but The Diplomat source is from 2023. Therefore, you shouldn't label the entry as "suspected" solely based on an outdated source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but that article was written by a Pakistani author. We need an independent source for this sensitive topic. If I find a recent article I'll attach it. Sak7340 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This reasoning lacks validity; we can't dismiss sources on that basis. Instead, we should assess whether The Diplomat is generally regarded as a reliable source, which it is. If we were to adopt this logic, we'd have to disregard all Indian sources for India-related matters and all United States sources for US-related topics, it will be a madhouse here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/missile-dialogue-initiative/2023/10/pakistan-missile-test-confirms-its-mirv-ambitions/ This source also confirms the MIRV capability of the missile. So I think that suspected should be removed. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, changed the word 'suspected'to 'claimed'.

https://www.eurasiantimes.com/top-us-scientist-slams-indias-agni-v-missile-test/amp/ Sak7340 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Both "Suspected" and "Claimed" should be removed. Even your source is not neutral in case of eurasiantimes as like you said above auther is Indian. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Claimed" should be added in case of Ababeel, unless you cite a different article which provides proof. The IISS article you've linked says "Nothing visible from the test indicates the success or failure of the missile’s multiple-warhead capability, which is a key priority for Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division.". GTSxs (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Well I disagree. None of the sources say that Ababeel is not MIRVed. In fact multiple trusted sources https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Pakistan-nuclear-weapons-2023.pdf https://armscontrolcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Pakistans-Nuclear-Capabilities_New-Template-1.pdf https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/pakistan-nuclear-disarmament/ indicate that it is definitely MIRV capable. Mind you that 'suspected' and 'claimed' can also be used against multiple other countries including Indian claim of MIRVed capability. Wikibear47 (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Pakistan

I don't know what "experts" CNN is referring to who can't verify Pakistan's MIRV capability but back in March 2018, the then Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Robert P. Ashley Jr. testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan demonstrated "South Asia's first Pakistan MIRV payload".

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20180313031732/https://www.dia.mil/News/Speeches-and-Testimonies/Article-View/Article/1457815/statement-for-the-record-worldwide-threat-assessment/utm_content/buffer03bbe/utm_medium/social/utm_campaign/buffer/utm_content/buffer6e4e7/utm_medium/social/utm_campaign/buffer/?utm_source=twitter.com

Moreover during its recent military parade on March 23, 2024, Pakistan showcased its MIRV capable Ababeel missile for the first time indicating its operational deployment.

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2024/03/27/pakistan-unveils-aircraft-and-rocket-programs-parades-military-tech/

With that said I am removing this bogus material. I have provided credible sources to validate the arguments. An Asphalt (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote from Robert Ashley references a test launch, not a deployment, which is what the sentence in the article claims. A military parade also does not demonstrate a deployment. Unless you can provide a source that says that Pakistan has actually *deployed* a MIRVed warhead, in which case we should be presenting it as a disputed claim between sources, you should not be removing reliably sourced content, let alone demanding others not to revert it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The source that is used with the sentence that "Pakistan has not deployed MIRV missiles"' outright denies that Pakistan has MIRV technology by referring to some unknown "experts", which is just factually incorrect based on other countless reliable sources on the web. So how can this source be even considered reliable? Also, if you didn't know this then let me tell you, Pakistan only displays those weapons in its military parade that are operationally deployed. An Asphalt (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to take a look at our policy on reliable sources -- CNN does not need to identify who its experts are, as the outlet itself is generally accepted as a reliable secondary source. Your personal assertion about what Pakistan does or does not do is irrelevant, as it's original research. And I would caution you about making assumptions about what my personal understanding is on this topic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester Even if CNN is reliable, the information present in this particular CNN article is just incorrect and dozens of other reliable sources contradict the claim made in this said article . An Asphalt (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not "even if" -- it *is* reliable. We have an entire noticeboard dedicated towards that exact topic. Whether the underlying information is true or not is irrelevant -- verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion on Wikipedia. If you are not capable of understanding our policies on reliable sourcing, then you're demonstrating you lack the required competency to edit in a contentious topic area. I strongly recommend you take some time to review our policies on reliable sourcing (as I've asked you to do a number of times) before continuing.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, why not apply this theory to India then? Can you give me a source which says India has "deployed" MIRV missiles? India conducts just one test and everyone just assumes that it is deployed even though it isn't mentioned in any source but when it comes to Pakistan which has tested this technology twice, everyone assumes that it is not deployed?

What India does is irrelevant -- your edit is about Pakistan specifically. This is not a forum for nationalist battleground behavior. Having said that, India's Agni-V has been operationally deployed since 2018 and is MIRV capable; we have numerous reliable sources (including CNN) attributing that claim, on the Agni-V article. However, even if that wasn't the case, nothing about what India's capabilities may be has any bearing on the section about Pakistan's capabilities. Every edit must be able to independently stand on its own merits. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester Deploying Agni-V and an MIRVed Agni-V are two different things. Can you point out where does it specifically say that MIRVed Agni-V missiles are "deployed". I brought up India to point out the double standards here An Asphalt (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The missile itself is already deployed; that's well sourced and not in dispute. The 2024 test launch demonstrated that the already-deployed missile is MIRV capable. That's sufficient for inclusion. There's no "double standard" here -- your edits need to stand on their own, without reference to whataboutisms about India. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester So, just because they tested MIRV on an already deployed missile means that the MIRV is also deployed. That is like saying you test a new engine on an operational fighter aircraft and say the new engine is operational. Cool lol 👍 There is a difference between testing and deploying. I thought we were talking about MIRV technology here, not missiles. An Asphalt (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, I could not give less of a shit about what India does. This is about your removal of sourced content relating to Pakistan. Stop trying to muddy the waters with whataboutisms. That is tendentious editing behavior and not constructive. I'm not continuing this conversation further -- you've been duly informed about why your edit was reverted, and warned about the behavior issues you've been displaying. Debating India with me (something I'm wholly uninterested in doing) is not going to change that your edit was unacceptable re: Pakistan. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester Also, I am done too, it's not worth arguing when no one even bothers to listen An Asphalt (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing anyone needs to be keeping up with is you keeping up with policy, and dropping the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT arguments. Knock it off, and stop pinging me after I've explicitly told you that I'm done with this discussion. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Am I missing something? What is this double standard An Asphalt (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. You're missing our policies. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)