Talk:Intermediate-range ballistic missile

Current Users

The article lists a whole host of current operators of IRBMs that dont match the criteria listed in the start of the article. How on earth do either the US or the UK qualify as current operators of IRBMs? America's only current ballistic missiles (I'm excluding the various MLRS missiles here, since they're extremely short range and non-strategic) are trident 2 and the minuteman 3, both of which are clearly of intercontinental range. The only thing they have that could be accused of being an IRBM or even MRBM is a target missile that doesnt have a warhead. Britain only operates the trident 2. Come to that, Russia doesnt operate any missiles in that range either afaik, they were forbidden from doing so under the terms of the intermediate range forces treaty, and I dont believe they've actually deployed an IRBM despite recent threats to leave the IRF treaty.

Does anyone have a definitive list of those countries that actually still operate IRBMs? The same complaint applies to the SRBM and MRBM articles. Quadbox (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

NOBODY operates IRBMs. IRBMs are there only because of their deterrant value when they are armed with nuclear warheads. No country has ever used an IRBM with either a nuclear, conventional, chemical, or bacterological warhead. If they ever did, retaliation would be swift, sure, and fatal.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think by "uses" we don't mean "fires" or "has fired". I think we mean "use" as in "maintaining an active force" that is potentially useable. North Korea might qualify as a "user" in this sense.

Feldercarb (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Quantities?

If we look at ICBMs we have a careful count of missiles deployed, both historically and currently. However, for this class of missiles, there is very little info on force sizes. Anybody run across anything?Feldercarb (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Antiship missiles

Whether the British and Irish like it or not, these are the correct spellings: antiship missile and antiship ballistic missile.
The prefix "anti" does not require a hyphen. See these phrases and words: antiradiation missile, antitank weapon, antisubmarine warfare, antipersonnel bomb (a fragmentation bomb), antiaircraft gun, antimissile missile, the antinuclear movement, anticommunist, antifascist, antiballistic missile, antisemitic, antivenom, antibacterial, antivirus, antimatter, antiproton, antineutron, antineutrino, antielectron, antiscientific.
The exceptions are anti-American, anti-British, anti-Irish, anti-French, anti-Castro, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, etc.98.67.174.134 (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Jericho III

Why is it in the table? It's an ICBM, not an IRBM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.215.100 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intermediate-range ballistic missile. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130121132332/http://missilethreat.com/missiles/jericho-123/ to http://missilethreat.com/missiles/jericho-123/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• MRBM-IRBM.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oreshnik inclusion?

Should the the new Russian Oreshnik even be mentioned on this page? I understand that it's actually an MRBM. Whereas the RS-26 Rubezh probably should be on the list as it's deployed as an IRBM, and its one test at slightly over 5500 km probably had no payload. ++++ NelC (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been assessed as an IRBM by both the U.S. and Russia, so on one hand it merits inclusion here. However, it's more complex than that and it may be premature to do so. The RS-26 was designed to cheat its way around the limitations of the INF treaty by testing it with an ultra-light payload that would be unusable in combat situations to just barely get its range above the ICBM line, then declaring it to be an ICBM to get the legal cover of categorizing it that way, and then subsequently testing it with actual heavy combat loads at treaty-violating IRBM ranges. So the RS-26 has an argument as to why it should be in both class groups, even if it truly belongs in this one. The problem with Oreshnik is that analysts believe that it is not actually a new missile, but a minor variant of the RS-26, and thus inherits the same issues of categorization. Dr. Jeff Lewis, probably the most reknowned arms control/missile expert in the world today, thinks its the same missile with a slightly modified front-end. So Oreshnik as a Rubezh-variant *should* be getting claimed to be an ICBM.... but it's not, because Russia did not need to maintain the same ruse as they did with the RS-26, so they're comfortable now admitting it as an IRBM (which the US agrees with that assessment). So it's all a mess. I'd suggest a safer option is not including either until it can be better determined. But if we had to include them, I'd include both missiles as IRBMs. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:52, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting Definition with INF Treaty

The INF Treaty defines IRBMs as covering ranges (1,000–5,500 km) that include both what the IRBM article and the MRBM article define as separate categories. The treaty definition is much more robust a source than either primary source on the IRBM or MRBM page. Suggestion is to remove MRBM page and update information on IRBM page in accordance with treaty definitions. INF Treaty: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/102360.htm 76.119.91.50 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No. The INF treaty is defunct and was only applicable to the U.S. and Russia in the first place, and was never the sole (or even the primary) source for determining range bands. We have widely accepted industry standard range bands for ballistic missile classifications -- there's neither a consensus nor a reason to change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)