![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Military technology and equipment is a redirect to weapon. I wanted to link dog tag (identifier) from that page, but a dog tag is clearly not a weapon. Thoughts? Help? Are there other non-weapon pieces of equipment that we would want on that page? DanKeshet
Guys, guys, you're not thinking straight about this. Look at the definition again. Anything used by the military is a weapon, because it contributes to killing people. Also, "military technology and equipment" is just a longer euphemism for... "weapon". That's why I'm restoring the list; please don't be offended. User:Ray Van De Walker
Really, what people in general associate with "weapon" does not include radios or means of protection (such as armour). A weapon, for most people, is a tool with the main purpose of injuring people or damaging objects. When people search for "weapon" on Wikipedia, that is what they should find. europrobe
I added the start of era-specific categorization. Emperorbma 02:39 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
This article gives short shrift to the impact of the airplane. From reading the article, it sounds like the howitzer was the last incredible weapon developed, and it caused the last revolution in military strategy that everyone is still coping with.
Nothing outlines landmines and other trap style weaponry.-- Primalchaos 14:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
the history section of this article is vague. it needs many more specific examples, especially in the early history. Kingturtle 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I am just wondering whether in addition to looking at the history of warfare and weapons, this article should also highlight technology currently being developed which has a high probability of entering service in the future. It would seem that several types of beam-based weapons (abl, MTHEL THEL) Ship-mounted Railgun, (which are all currently not covered as weapons categories in the article) being actively currently funded with a view to deployment. It seems to me that if the article is highlighting "weaponry" as a concept it should also at least provide a cursory view of weapons which are currently being allocated billions of dollars globally ESPECIALLY those that are sucessful in tests at fulfilling their destructive functions: whether or not a weapon is actually deployed in a war zone currently does not to me give a good enough reason for it not to be discussed as a potentially new 'Type'- especially if 'information warfare' is classed as viable material for the article. Max- 21:25 GMT 30/03/06
I dont think Military Antiques should link here automatically. Military Antiquitists also collect weapons, uniforms, equipment, even vehicles, and this article does not even have a section on collectin weapons. I saw someone removes the redirect. -TS Allne
this article features misses and crap about sci-fi weapons said to be in development, and referral to GPS as gay positioning system. Time for cleanup i'd say —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.76.17.248 ( talk) 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
The "Ancient weapons" section tries to list the ways in which weapons work. This list is quite wrong. First, some of the items overlap (4 and 5, 1 and 2, and arguably even 2 and 4). Second, it excludes a huge variety of sublethal weapons that do none of the above. -- Smack ( talk) 07:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Although the Chinese cannon is, in fact, a weapon, I suggest a more typical cannon with a gun carriage such as a shipboard gun or the one portrayed in the template box on the Cannon article. That picture certainly does belong in the Cannon article. Group29 ( talk) 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
"Future weapons make use of futuristic high-tech weapon systems and advanced materials."
It doesn't seem particularly... erm... specific? I certainly cant go out and point at one by what it says. I don't think its quite possible to define what a future weapon is, let alone that we should give it an entry here... thats under Classification of Weapons, by the way.
I am for peace.
I love peace. Why should everyone not love it?<br /<br /Bold text Everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjoohhnnyy ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
That is what I meant, but it did not come quite right, man.
Why not everyone, and leave wars for ever?
That is it.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jjoohhnnyy (
talk •
contribs) 17:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, the definition was changed to require weapons being used in combat or warfare. I dispute this, citing Merriam Webster. I'd like to move toward consensus. -- Eyrian 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Under U.S. federal law, as well as under many state laws, black powder guns are legally defined as weapons and not as firearms. There are regular hunting seasons that are open to blackpowder weapons only. Primitive hunting is typically open just before modern firearm hunting seasons open, although there are exceptions. Such black powder weapons are definitely not currently used for combat or warfare, although historically, of course, they were used for such. It is incorrect to call such guns firearms, as they are not legally defined as such by either state or federal law. And, these weapons are used for hunting. There is a total lack of federal controls and firearms laws when purchasing blackpowder revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and muskets. Arguing over which dictionary to use is not the proper approach for resolving this. When discussing modern firearms, then yes, they are firearms and are not considered weapons when used for hunting. However, to say that no weapons are used for hunting is totally false. It all depends. Yaf 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This entire article is very weak on sourcing. We should cooperate and rewrite it using high quality sourcing. Starting at the top. There is really no higher quality sourcing than the Oxford English Dictionary, and the old intro was totally unsourced and seemingly original research. I don't really understand Yaf's argument, that combat weapons can have a dual use as hunting firearms, therefore this justifies the revert of the intro based on the OED to an intro based on apparent original research. I don't follow that logic. SaltyBoatr 15:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
So, by your logic, a "fishing pole" should be called a "catching pole", since fishing is merely the analogy of a hunt. Sorry, your logic makes no sense and is lunacy. Hunting weapons do exist, and have reverted your OR in using the OED to define technical terminology for which it is not suited. Incidentally, by 18USC921,
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS
Sec. 921. Definitions
... (3) The term ``firearm means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm. ... 16) The term ``antique firearm means-- (A) any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or (B) any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica-- (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or (C) any muzzle loading rifle, muzzle loading shotgun, or muzzle loading pistol, which is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and which cannot use fixed ammunition. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``antique firearm shall not include any weapon which incorporates a firearm frame or receiver, any firearm which is converted into a muzzle loading weapon, or any muzzle loading weapon which can be readily converted
to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof."
It is therefore entirely appropriate to use the phrase "hunting weapon" in English, as it is in full agreement with the terminology used by game wardens, by law, and by common practice. Weapons are not solely used in combat. Have reverted the nonsense. Yaf 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
For two examples of "hunting weapon" being used in the mainstream press, see: [4], [5]. Yaf 16:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Combining the Merriam-Webster definition with the OED definition would look like this:
Any objections? SaltyBoatr 18:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Or, this might be better grammar, saying the same thing, and literally a combination of the two dictionary defintions.
Which is better? SaltyBoatr 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This version eliminates the repetition of the verb 'used', and is probably best:
Any objection? SaltyBoatr 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw this on the LoCE page & it piqued my interest. As a rough-and-ready comparison, googling "hunting weapon" returns 30,600 results and "hunting firearm" returns less than half that at 13,600. This would imply that "hunting weapon", being the more common term, is more generally understood. Wikipedia has to be written for a general worldwide audience; we can't expect everyone to be interested in following up the nuances of a legal distinction that may only apply in certain parts of the world. "Firearm" implies a weapon that relies exclusively on explosive chemicals to propel a projectile (I don't know how this fits the definition, but that's my perception of the word), thus ruling out bows, knives etc. As to the linked article, I can't help feeling (again just a personal opinion) that "primitive" is slightly perjorative in its connotations - maybe "traditional" or something similar would be less contentious? Interesting, informative article though - all the best with it ;) EyeSerene TALK 19:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A three-level abstraction is required here. We have the history and strategy which are inseparable, and should be discussed in articles on each war or conflict. That's the most abstract. Then we need the least abstract military equipment and tactics level, with articles like military technology during the Napoleonic wars and so forth, to make it clear how conflicts were conducted using this stuff - this should focus on the actual tactical combat engagements, how they affected outcomes, etc..
And, for those wars that resulted in a great deal of change to military technology, either because they were very long (like the Hundred Years' War) or very intense (like WWI or WWII), we should discuss technological escalation as a separate topic, more abstract than the equipment and tactics, less abstract than history and strategy. See Technology during World War I for an example - this can be done for WWII, US Civil War, Napeolonic wars, at least, as well, and maybe also for the Cold War. This gets into the mechanics of how things changed, how they thought, etc., and really isn't the same topic as either history/strategy or equipment/tactics for the guys on the ground using the equipment to perform the tactics.
He needs to add the actual weapon classification, class 1 weapon, class 2 weapon, ect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.98.85 ( talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
References
"More commonly called information warfare"? I have never heard of it and have been a computer programmer for years. Where's your reference on this? Or is it coming straight out of Newsweek?
Also, "weapon of mass destruction" is a term from the American political media. I do not think Wikipedia is the place to preserve presidential duckspeak.
"The weapon is any tool or object that is used to increase the range and power of a human hand." I dispute this. Considering that you can be charged with "Assault with a deadly weapon" while unarmed, the human hand/body itself can be a weapon. -- PK9 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The definition of weapon is not clear and is not sufficient. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Raljarf (
talk •
contribs) 10:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Added a cleanup tag because I think the Ancient weapons section is virtually unreadable. I tried fixing one factual error, and I see many others, but I don't know enough to correct them. I also think much of the tone is colloquial, or at least has many ambiguities. Please don't immediately remove the tag. If nobody else thinks that this section requires a cleanup, voice your dissent and remove after a week or so. :-) -- Storkk 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but this seems like a work of grade 10 student in high school. The statement is much too forceful. The definition of weapon does not match the earlier statement about how weapon can be psychological or just defensive. As far as I concern this artical contain too many errors, and the best way to fix it is to rewrite it completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.111.98.210 ( talk) 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree this article needs many corrections. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Raljarf (
talk •
contribs) 10:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that this entire section appeared out of nowhere, and that in the same edit valid information was removed and ungrammatical changes made? I think this is highly suspect. Potentially copyrighted material, perhaps? Robin S 06:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A 'weapon' is object or device that imparts destructive or disruptive energy on a target. The word 'weapon' is often used as an abbreviated description of a ‘weapon system’.
A 'weapon' requires a 'system' to be useful, the weapon, the delivery system, the targeting system and the platform onto which the former are held or mounted.
A weapon needs a ‘delivery system’ in order to deliver the weapon and it's destructive or disruptive energy.
A club needs a man to swing the club; likewise an ICBM System is required to deliver a nuclear weapon to the target. A bullet requires a gun system to control the discharge of the propellant in such a manner as to project the bullet in the general direction of the target.
An effective weapon requires a ‘targeting system’ to focus the weapon onto the target.
In the case of the club, it needs a man to see or feel the target, the ICBM needs a sophisticated guidance system and the gun needs sights or a scope and an eye ball to deliver the weapon on target.
And finally a weapon requires a platform onto which the weapon, the delivery system and the targeting system are mounted.
The club and the gun need the man and likewise the ICBM needs a launch facility as well as the man to push the 'Launch' or an 'On' button.
A section should be made that less-lethal weapons are the weapons of the future for both infantry and vehicle warfare (see http://www.heritage.org/research/ballisticmissiledefense/bg1931.cfm this article, near bottom)
Also a section should be made on the nature of propelling the bullet (gunpowder, compressed air, centrifugal force, high power magnets as rail guns),...
I also read about low-power magnets, for use in SMG-like weapons, see this article for schematic Please look for more info on this too and include
Perhaps also include the needlegun (allows to fire darts with sedatives and coilgun
Thanks, 81.246.178.205 ( talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to look for info on the misuse of modern technology, especially by USA & UK, to build weapons (instead of find the cause & solution to end wars & crimes, which is so obvious that no one can see it). I encourage others to do the same. Stars4change ( talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Gentlemen, in our effort to play by the rules and to respect the ongoing work of all the contributors to this section we are formally requesting inclusion to this section "Weapon" under the "External Links" section. We are a non-commercial Press Release organization that works on behalf of most of the leading weapons and equipment manufacturers INCONUS. Essentially when there is new weapons, equipment or gear being released within the industry (MILSPEC and Other) we are contacted to release the information to the general public. It is our desire to be listed as:
Tactical Gear News: The latest tactical gear news covering weapons,training, clothing and tactical equipment.
The site is located at: www.TacticalGearNews.com
Milspecnews ( talk)milspecnews —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for your feedback, I will post updates as we get information back and finish phone conversations with Wiki Presscorp. We anticipated some resistance (not a bad thing), and we know that we are an authorized information center for the leading manufactures in the nation when dealing with weapons and gear. Once we get their approval we will add the listing accordingly.
Milspecnews ( talk)milspecnews
Shouldnt there be mention of unmanned vehicles? There is mention of tanks and aircraft, but not unmanned systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obolisk0430 ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Is "Trojan weapon" really a category. Even the link leads to the Trojan horse. You only come across the Trojan connection when talking (a) about the horse, or thing things directly related e.g. "Trojan rabbit scene from Monty Python..." and (b) Trojans as a type of malware on the internet. I don't think either of these are weapons. You couldn't class "Sailing under false colours" or just "lying" as using a weapon. Similar things such as "parcel bombs" probably are weapons, but no-one says "it was a trojan parcel".
The intro says weapons can cause mental damage - the article then never mentions any weapon that can do this. I think this point is generally true, e.g. youo could use a gas bomb intended to drive people temporarily mad, but it could be argued against in some (distasteful) areas as well. For example, in the infamous Tarantino scene the razor is a weapon, but if I waterboard someone is that using a weapon? I suggest that, you can use weapons to torture people, but not everything so used is a weapon. Only things you cold use to attack them anyway count as weapons. For example, you wouldn't attack someone with a pair of pliers, so they aren't a weapon. Of course it's a bit woolly because you could attack someone with pliers and it would then be "using the pliers as a weapon" but you wouldn't say "using the gun as a weapon" because it _is_ a weapon - it's designed for it, that's its primary purpose. You could _use_ just about anything as a weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.1.34 ( talk) 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to include "antimatter weapons" under the weapon category list? The immediately concedes that they're "theoretical." I dare say that's an understatement. Shouldn't this article be confined to weapons that actually exist? (Or at the very least, weapons that are currently being planned or developed?) Chalkieperfect ( talk) 04:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: A group of academics and Nobel Peace Prize in the UK will launch a new global campaign to convince the world to ban 'killer robots, "writes The Guardian on Sunday. Scientists are already working on robotic arms, which is the next step after the unmanned spacecraft, and will be available within 10 years, said Dr. Noel Sharkey, a leading expert in robotics and artificial intelligence and a professor at the University of Sheffield. He believes that the development of such weapons, takes place in an unregulated environment, and that almost no attention is not paid to the moral implications and international law. The campaign "Stop the killer robots" will be launched in April in the House of Commons and it includes many of the groups that have successfully led a campaign against cluster bombs and landmines. They are hoping to achieve a similar global agreement against these types of weapons. 78.3.212.48 ( talk) 12:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm a PhD student in military-economic affairs and I could not find any official document from major international organizations offering a typology of weapons (United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, World Bank). The UN has decent information on types of conventional weapons, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, but no clear overarching methodology on how these categories emerged in first place. UN Office for Disarmament Affairs separate weapons between Conventional and Mass Destruction weapons, but does not provide the theoretical grounds for this. The classification of "Missiles" as Weapons of Mass Destruction is certainly possible, but they are also Conventional, therefore there should be a methodology to explain and justify this approach. Actually, Wikipedia seems to have the most complete list of the different ways of classifying weapons. The division in User, Function and Target as different perspectives when analyzing weapon types is particularly clever. But is this the result of pure community intelligence or is there a missing source that has not been cited in the article? I've also tried to find a source in academic works but so far I have found nothing close to what Wikipedia has to offer. I think we should either mention that there is no source for this classification and therefore it may not comply with national or international standards of classification, or, if someone knows the source, please add it to the article. It will be a great contribution not only for the general public but also for scholars in the field. Thomas Victor Conti ( talk) 15:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Weapon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Weapon. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)