Talk:Nuclear blackmail
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuclear blackmail article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Bias comments
editI believe there are biased comments on the purposes of actual U.S. policies... Just needs to be a bit balanced. --Francisco Valverde 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Sources needed
editThe author of this article makes several claims related to the subject, including references to ambiguous examples, but offers no substantial evidence. Further, the author has phrased the article in a biased manner. With all due respect to the author, this article is in need of revision by those with more than a superficial understanding of "nuclear blackmail." --Adam King 04:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the bit about Israel & 1973 because I could not find any support for it other than on confirmed anti-semitic sites. If someone has any reputable evidence of this, then I would like to know, because it is interesting!Petey05 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
World War II
editWould the U.S. strategy at the end of World War II be considered a type of nuclear blackmail? E.g. "Surrender unconditionally or we will start dropping atomic bombs on your cities until you do." Interestingly, that case actually ended in Japan calling America's bluff, resulting in the U.S. following through and attacking. After that point, if I am not mistaken, it turned into a real bluff, as the United States had no more functional atom bombs beside the two, and was relying on surrender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.161.143 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Questionable use of source
editThe NYT article, “U.S. PAPERS TELL OF '53 POLICY TO USE A-BOMB IN KOREA”, is cited as evidence that Eisenhower “threatened” to use nuclear weapons to bring the Chinese to the negotiating table during the Korean War. However the article does not support this—it only mentions internal administration discussions and does not talk about public announcements or diplomatic threats to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The closest is an oblique statement to a third party that if an armistice didn’t materialize the US would engage in “stronger, rather than a lesser military exertion, and that this might well extend the area of conflict.” Ewilen (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps this portion of the article should be removed?
edit" Ali Magoudi, a psychoanalyst of French President François Mitterrand, claimed that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had threatened nuclear war against Argentina during the 1982 Falklands War to procure codes from France to disable Argentina's French-made missiles.[14] This claim has not been confirmed by either the French or British governments.[citation needed] "
After reviewing the source listed, I have come to realize that this portion of the article should probably be removed. To elaborate on that, the sole source used here is a Guardian article about a book which itself is a first hand account of the author's supposed time as a psychoanalyst for François Mitterrand. While that claim is in of itself generally absurd, the book also goes on to say that François Mitterrand told the author, and supposed psychoanalyst, that Margaret Thatcher threatened the use of nuclear weapons should he not comply with the demand of handing over codes for the destruction of some form of missile.
Now, I have also briefly searched for evidence to support Ali Magoudi's claim that he ever even was a psychoanalyst of François Mitterrand, and I have found none so far. I also haven't really found any evidence to support the claim that the French or British governments, or any members of said groups, have even mentioned this book, though they probably have. Now, as such, and, as stated before, I believe this portion of the article should be removed due to the seemingly unreliable nature of its sources and the possibly heavily unknown nature of the claim " supported " by said sources. It is entirely possible that I missed something, and that this might even be a well-known fact, and if it is, I do apologize. On the other hand though, I doubt that it is after reading this thread on Quora: