This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
science,
pseudoscience,
pseudohistory and
skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lesotelo1218 (
article contribs).
Further elaboration on the differences between Biological and Chemical weapons
With further research the differences and applications of both biological and chemical weapons is shown, elaborating on their respective conventions that ended their uses and how countries continually circumnavigate this.
Christopher Douglas2000 (
talk)
20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)reply
Relative development timelines and pros/cons of usage?
I’d like to start a discussion from a
Game theory perspective and perhaps link these two articles together in a more polished way. I’ll start taking a look at whether we can link the two articles in some way.
Theheezy (
talk)
08:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Already one strange thing sticks out to me. There is no presentation of Game theory, given the overlap of the same people who developed the atomic bombs, and also worked on Game Theory right after. I’ll have to start pulling up archives going back the last 80 years to see if I can provide the appropriate connection by reliable sources.
Theheezy (
talk)
08:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Hard to respond to an abstract suggestion. It seems game theory fits better in a more focused discussion of deterrence, e.g. mutually assured destruction.
NPguy (
talk)
21:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)reply
That's not the only part of game theory, that's non-cooperative game theory. There is also
Core (game theory). I have Donald B. Gillies' PhD thesis in hardcopy format and can send you softcopies via any communication method you prefer.
Theheezy (
talk)
06:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Apologies, I went back and checked my notes again. The PhD thesis is widely available, but his more important work is titled, "Discriminatory and bargaining solutions to a class of symmetric n-person games." This is in a book titled Contributions to the Theory of Games Volume II. I have this in hardcopy and can provide softcopies through any communication method you prefer. I'm all ears.
Theheezy (
talk)
07:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You have not yet given any explanation of how game theory is relevant to this article. You may think it is self-evident. It is not.
NPguy (
talk)
18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Slownotdumb (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Spraguester,
Chem0111.
The term "ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical)" should be on the page since it was used before the terms of: CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear), CBRNE (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, Explosive), NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical), WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction).
Kenixkil (
talk)
14:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply