Talk:Royal Saudi Strategic Missile Force

DF-21

Newsweek improbably claimed that "the American CIA had allowed the deal to go through as long as the missiles were modified to not be able to carry nuclear warheads". There are two problems with this unsourced and uncorroberrated claim. Firstly the US CIA cannot veto Saudi missile contracts, and secondly a missile cannot be modified so as to not be able to carry a nuclear warhead. I suggest therefore that this claim be deleted.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Given that it's supported by a reliable source which provides a detailed account of these events, that doesn't seem justified. Do other reliable sources dispute this? Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek is not a reliable source. In any event the claims themselves are improbable, for the reasons I have given, Another point is that the claim that "While the DF-3 has a longer range, it was designed to carry a nuclear payload, and so had poor accuracy (300 meters CEP) if used with a conventional warhead" is false. Inferior accuracy does not result from carrying a conventional warhead. A nuclear missile requires less accuracy, but the accuracy of a missile is not affected by whether it has a high explosive or nuclear warhead.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Nick-D: & @Royalcourtier:

1. CIA not allowing a deal doesnt exclusively mean CIA has veto powers. CIA may allow or forbid an action just to be on the record as doing so, or even through threatening with a reaction.
2. Nuclear warheads are substantially denser and thus heavier than conventional warheads of the same size and shape. So modifying the missiles' engines by limiting the thrust output, or modifying the fuel compound to cap the warhead payload weight, can be done to exclude carrying nuclear warheads.
3. If a substantially lighter payload is used on a missile designed to carry heavier payload, the trajectory and throw-weight will be greatly effected and thus accuracy will be reduced as a result.

Just adding few comments.Averroes82 (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible mistake

The page says it has been founded on 8 September 1986

But it was a part of MODA since 1983

How's this possible? Technical Peace (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claim of owning nuclear weapons

The article claims "Some experts speculate...has already received nuclear weapons from Pakistan". I have added a template asking for clarification about who those experts are and what is the reference for this claim. My notation was removed by XavierGreen under the guise of reverting vandalism without citing any source for this claim which is dubious at best. @XavierGreen: Can you please explain? Averroes82 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I was intending to revert a different editors changes to the article which added absurd unsourced figures of missile inventory to the page. I have no opposition to you readding the template, as it appears it was inadvertently removed along with my reversion of the ip's edits which were clearly vandalism.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Emblem of the Saudi Arabian Border Guards.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)