Talk:Nuclear biological and chemical
The title of this article is a phrase comprising a string of adjectives and a preposition. I doubt that it is ever used as a term in and of itself.
It is linked from one place (Mechanized infantry), which uses this phrase in the context of 'nuclear, biological and chemical weapons', and that would be a better title for this article, although if that extended phrase is still not a common term, I think even that extended phrase is inappropriate.
Having said that, the article is pointing out something that each of these weapon types have in common, so repeating it in three separate articles for each type of weapon is not necessarily the way to go either.
I also question the phrase "primarily used for terrain denial". Isn't this more of a consequence of these weapons than a purpose?
Philip J. Rayment 17:42, 29 December 2007 (EST)
- I agree it should be moved to "Nuclear, biological and chemical weapon". As far as I know it is a common term (though almost always shortened to NBC weapon); we used it in at least one polisci class I took. Perhaps this article can discuss the similarities of the three, and then we can have separate articles about the specifics of the three.
- I agree, also, that terrain denial it is a consequence, not a purpose. I've never heard of NBCs being used primarily for terrain denial. They certainly could be, but as far as I know, historically they have been used as anti-personnel and anti-industry, demoralizing weapons.
- Another thing to consider (my thoughts aren't very linear today, sorry): NBC weapons are almost always lumped together with WMD's. Now I don't think technically they have to be, because you could, for example, create a biological weapon which only kills one person, but they are often grouped together nonetheless. HelpJazz 17:56, 29 December 2007 (EST)